Prominent English professor and legal scholar Stanley Fish has an interesting NYT column on academic freedom:
Last week we came to the section on academic freedom in my course on the law of higher education and I posed this hypothetical to the students: Suppose you were a member of a law firm or a mid-level executive in a corporation and you skipped meetings or came late, blew off assignments or altered them according to your whims, abused your colleagues and were habitually rude to clients. What would happen to you?
The chorus of answers cascaded immediately: “I’d be fired.” Now, I continued, imagine the same scenario and the same set of behaviors, but this time you’re a tenured professor in a North American university. What then?
I answered this one myself: “You’d be celebrated as a brave nonconformist, a tilter against orthodoxies, a pedagogical visionary and an exemplar of academic freedom.”
Fish then describes a particularly egregious case at the University of Ottawa, where a professor apparently used academic freedom and tenure as pretexts for gross neglect of his duties and abuse of his authority. While the Ottawa situation described by Fish strikes me as an extreme case, the general problem he identifies is real: The combination of tenure and overbroad conceptions of academic freedom really do sometimes enable academics to behave irresponsibly with little or no sanction.
Many view academic freedom as a kind of sacred, intrinsic value. I think that Fish is closer to the truth in seeing it as a limited, prudential institution that gives professors the discretion they need to teach and research effectively, and to avoid retaliation for expressing unpopular political views outside of class. However, academic freedom should not be considered a blank check to shield our teaching methods and research from all outside scrutiny.
UPDATE: I am aware, as various commenters have noted, that the Ottawa professor in this case may end up being fired. For that reason, Fish was probably wrong to make the case such a central focus of his argument, and I was remiss in the initial post for failing to point out this shortcoming in his piece. However, the fact that removal is only likely in such an extreme case (and even then is not a certainty and requires jumping through many procedural hoops) suggest that tenure and academic freedom can serve as shields for a great deal of lesser but still significant misconduct.
Only in academia...
But the notion that a US professor who was routinely rude to students, abusive to colleagues, and completely neglectful of all teaching and other duties being "celebrated" is just silly. Such a professor would be very poorly thought of by all who knew him/her. Sure, there may be the occasional "celebrity" professor who can get away with such behavior, but the typical rank-and-file professors working in American universities just couldn't (and few would try). Fish does a disservice to all of us by presenting this as some sort of norm.
And that sounds like a reasonable request. People who still use the phone to communicate need to get with the program. It's inconvinent and antiquated. When I become a professor I'm going to use email almost exclusively. And generally the rule about visiting in person is visit during office hours or make an appointment. Sounds pefectly reasonable to me.
The correct answer, at least as to law firms, is: "It depends if I'm a rainmaker."
BTW JC, while I am at the University, I am either teaching, in office hours, or in a committee meeting. Calling (unless it is during office hours) is an inefficient means of contact, since there may be up to a three day wait before I am able to answer a message. So too is stopping by my office if it is not my office hours. So, naturally, I tell my students to e-mail me if they need to get in touch.
may be he is the exception. there is a general belief that tenured professors can get away with anything and many times it appears to be true.
Quoted from the above site:
LOS ANGELES — Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund Center for Academic Freedom filed a lawsuit against officials of the Los Angeles Community College District Wednesday. The lawsuit comes after a professor censored and threatened to expel a student following a speech about marriage and his Christian faith during an open-ended assignment in a public speaking class.
"Christian students shouldn't be penalized or discriminated against for speaking about their beliefs," said ADF Senior Counsel David French. "Public institutions of higher learning cannot selectively censor Christian speech. This student was speaking well within the confines of his professor's assignment when he was censored and ultimately threatened with expulsion."
On Nov. 24, 2008, Los Angeles City College speech professor John Matteson interrupted and ended Jonathan Lopez's presentation mid-speech, calling him a "fascist bastard" in front of the class for speaking about his faith, which included reading the dictionary definition of marriage and reciting two Bible verses. Instead of allowing Lopez to finish, Matteson told the other students they could leave if they were offended. When no one left, Matteson dismissed the class. Refusing to grade the assigned speech, Matteson wrote on Lopez's evaluation, "Ask God what your grade is."
One week later, after seeing Lopez talking to the college's dean of academic affairs, Matteson told Lopez that he would make sure he'd be expelled from school. Matteson's treatment of Lopez during his speech follows an earlier incident in which Matteson told his entire class after the November election, "If you voted yes on Proposition 8, you are a fascist bastard."
"Professor Matteson clearly violated Mr. Lopez's free speech rights by engaging in viewpoint discrimination and retaliation because he disagreed with the student's religious beliefs," said French. "When students are given open-ended assignments in a public speaking class, the First Amendment protects their ability to express their views. Moreover, the district has a speech code that has created a culture of censorship on campus. America's public universities and colleges are supposed to be a 'marketplace of ideas,' not a hotbed of intolerance."
ADF-allied attorney Sam Kim and attorney Michael Parker of the Buena Park firm Sam Kim and Associates, APC, are serving as local counsel in the case.
I don't necessarily disagree, but I did what amounted to a 17 yr apprenticeship after high school to get a faculty position. A position which pays about 1/3 what the avg is for someone with my credentials (that's avg for industry and academia combined). They can have my tenure and I'll go back to yearly contracts, but I'd insist upon at least a doubling of my salary, retroactive to when I took the job. You can argue that I shouldn't be compensated because I knew I'd be making a lot less when I took the job (so how could I complain if they simply threw tenure out the window), but I would argue that the prospect of potential extreme job security factored into my decision as well.
I agree that would happen if he did it just because he is a jerk or a fool. But if - as in this case - it was in the alleged service of a trendy political cause, I suspect he would attract a good many supporters in the higher ed world. Certainly enough to make it difficult to sanction him effectively.
I think the point is that this is an example of how far you have to go to get fired, and that behavior that normal people find utterly reprehensible is tolerated in academia unless it reaches this point.
I am sure the norms are different from school to school and faculty to faculty.
I don't understand what this means -- tolerated until it is no longer tolerated? First off, Fish says something much stronger:
But his story of course is about someone who "infuriated his dean" and "distressed his colleagues."
Over time, tenure seems to have morphed into first a guarantee that you couldn't be fired for holding bizarre or unpopular views ("Republicans do not have horns--at least, they have them clipped while still young"), and of late, into a guarantee at some schools that you can teach stuff that is obviously wrong.
I have mixed feelings about tenure. I had one history professor who had clearly retired on the job. But most of them were clearly working hard on research and teaching, and not letting tenure encourage laziness. I also like the idea that tenure may make it possible for unpopular points of view to remain in the academy. Unfortunately, the left's utter domination (even though numerically a minority) of many schools means that unless you are extraordinarily competent at deception, the chances of non-leftists getting tenure in many social science faculties seems to be small.
It's not just politics. One of my wife's psychology professors told her in an unguarded moment that one did not dare let drop that you didn't drink during the elaborate job interview/go out to dinner/etc. process that the department used. If this came out, you would not be hired.
I think this is almost always true. Nobody wants to hire a buzzkill, and I say this as a buzzkill myself.
No. It means "engaging in Jackass Behaviors X Y and Z will get you fired, but engaging in only two of them is permitted in academia far more than in normal workplaces, as any of the three would get you fired in such a place."
So gosh, yes, Fish must be right: if academic freedom protects a miscreant like Rancourt, it must be a terrible thing. But wait! Administrators at the University of Ottawa are now “recommend[ing] to the Board of Governors the dismissal with cause of Professor Denis Rancourt from his faculty position.” Which is to say, he may be fired. So Fish’s claim that someone like Rancourt, so long as he’s working in the halls of academe, will be “celebrated as a brave nonconformist, a tilter against orthodoxies, a pedagogical visionary and an exemplar of academic freedom” is drivel. In his conclusion Fish admits as much, allowing that Rancourt isn’t resting comfortably under the parasol of academic freedom. So the first several hundred words of the column were just a misunderstanding, then? And academic freedom functions properly after all, Professor Fish? “But only till next time,” he answers. That sound you hear, readers, is the clutching of pearls.
Luckily for Fish, he’s a regular contributor to the New York Times, which means that he’ll keep his bully pulpit even though he’s clearly incompetent.
Face it, the only thing unusual here is that the result of such bad behavior is: “You’d be celebrated as a brave nonconformist, a tilter against orthodoxies, a pedagogical visionary and an exemplar of academic freedom.” How WEIRD! Of course the only people who try to celebrate Rancourt are Stanley Fish and Rancourt himself. This is one of the most blatant strawman arguments I have ever seen.
"Does anyone take Stanley Fish seriously anymore?"
Academic freedom and its abuse is too important to take seriously.
I'm not defending Fish. I'm defending Ilya.
Better yet, do you remember the last time anyone really cared what Stanley Fish had to say about something?
Could you provide a citation for your story about the Haas School professor?
I always thought the idea was that, having identified an Einstein, Feynman, or Darwin, you gave them tenure so they could follow their curiosity wherever it led them w/o worrying about providing results this year. The cost/benefit calculation is that, sure, Prof. Smith will get tenure and go on an extended 'in cubicle sabbatical', but that Prof. Jones will discover the transistor or cure cancer, and on the balance society benefits.
There is middle ground between lifetime tenure and employment at will, like multi year contracts. Perhaps that would stop the worst abuses while still allowing the brilliant to follow their hunches.
Tenure has some good reasons behind it, and some counter-arguments against it, but the whole argument would be a little easier to pursue if it were more often about defending the right to teach evolution or profess Christian beliefs, and less often about calling murdered people "little Eichmanns".
Ok when I first commented I couldn't find the story. Now I have it. The professor was Wallace Smith. See this story in the WSJ and this longer version in the SF Examiner.
Smith was actually not officially fired, but forced to resign.
I had a teacher back in high school who used to say that education is the only consumer transaction where the buyer likes to be shorted.
First, Stan spearheaded the POMO movement which has nearly killed 'English' as a discipline and threatens all others.
Now, Stan has decided there is such a thing as objective truth and - typically for this crowd - is sure he's got it. Interestingly, as an exorbitantly remunerated academic, he has decided to take aim at other academics.
Look, I have no idea what goes on at R1 universities; perhaps they do keep slackers and abusers on until something combusts. If so, they are not unlike the many businesses and government institutions which do the same. (As we all seem to like anecdotes, I will simply note the many horror stories my non-academic spouse has told me about what goes on in the world of 'business.')
I think what the non-academic community - and academics in those 'elite' situations - do not recognize is that the majority of tenured and tenure-track professors are working hard for their students and their institutions. Period. I know that at my college, no one who did anything like this professor in Ottawa would have been kept around for any length of time. Certainly, anyone who dares to offend students will not get a raise. And, it's a lot easier to get rid of a tenrued academic than many realize; the administration just has to be rough enough and offer a reasonable 'buy out' plan. The threat of public humiliation is an effective tool, as is forcing someone to teach all intro course at 7:30 in the morning.
Finally, yes, the promise of tenure is both a protection for 'unpopular' research and teaching and a job incentive. Who in his/her right mind would spend another 5-10 years after undergraduate training - making nothing or little in the meantime - to go into a career which requires one to live where one happens to find a job and does not pay anywhere near as well as the other alternatives [e.g., law, business, medicine, etc.]?
In fine: Speak not whereof ye know not. And that goes for Stanley Fish, as well.
Soylent Green is faculty from departments with declining enrollments!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It doubles their salary and turns them into administrators.
First, you're citing allegations Smith made in a lawsuit as if they were true. The University of California denied pretty much all of Smith's claims, as a more balanced article from the San Francisco Chronicle at the time shows.
Second, Smith was "fired" not forced to resign. It took a year long process and a vote by the University of California Board of Regents.
Third, as the article notes, Smith was only the third tenured faculty member in the history of the University of California to be fired--so if your point was that tenure doesn't mean much, Smith's case doesn't really prove it.
Finally, Smith lost the lawsuit.
I'm not sure how you get around that. Involving professors in the hiring and firing decisions makes a lot of sense, at least when it comes to assessing academic ability and credentials. I don't know how you can eliminate the incentive to shape the notion of tenure to permit a wide range of abuses without losing the best and probably only mechanism to ensure that university faculties consist of the best and brightest. But the problem, I think, is with the structure of the process, not the abstract notion of "academic freedom."
The Examiner article says Smith resigned while the Chronicle said he was fired. Why is the Chronicle necessarily more accurate than the Examiner? Perhaps both occurred. In any case his charges were confirmed by an audit, so it certainly looks as if there was retaliation.
My point was tenure won't protect a professor if the University really wants to get rid of him. If the UC tried many times to fire professors but only succeeded three time then tenure is certainly protective, but we don't know how many time the UC has tried to fire a tenured professor.
The reason I believe there is something rotten at the Haas School of business comes from someone I know. He claims his wife was a graduate student there and her faculty adviser plagiarized from her thesis work. He published some of her research and represented it as his own. Someone complained on her behalf and she suffered severe retaliation. Unfortunately for the Haas administration, they put provably false statements in writing according to my source. They settled out of court, but she had to find another graduate school. As far as I know the professor went unpunished.
No, I'm thinking of the one and only Stan Fish. I do not know if you are an academic philosopher or not, and these terms and 'isms' are contentiously defined, but 'postmodernism' is often used in philosophy to include the neo-Marxist, feminist and descontructionist movements. So, 'critical theory' is included under this broader usage.
My experience is that is the norm rather than the exception. If you are in an academic town, you see a lot of resumes. One (of several) patterns is the "two masters awarded the same year". When I see it, the story is almost always one of an advisor misapropriating the student's doctoral work, and of a complaint filed, and of a quick, reflexive attack by the departmental hive (when one bee is threatened, all attack). There are other, similar patterns, but the double masters is almost always on queue.
Fact is, I know double masters from Harvard, Duke, North Carlina, Chicago, San Diego State,...It's funny how many of them are prevented from speaking out by some sort of combination Stockholm Syndrome / "If you ever want to work in Academia again...". What they eventually trealize is that they will already never work in Academia again...
It is true that academics often have more ability to act badly with impunity (though ask anyone at a law firm or elsewhere in the business word and they will tell you that as long as the clients are happy, abusing colleagues, etc. are often tolerated). But if, instead of speculating on others' behavior, he actually approached this problem with any rigor or objectivity at all, I think he'd find that his answers are very informed by his own preconceptions and ideology.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.