Posted by Jonathan @ 02/13/2005 05:13 PM EST

You tell 'em Jonathan. Folks like me want to get up in class and say "Kill the Jews." Thanks to your lobbying for the right to say what we want when we want, I get to hide behind academic freedom. See you at the dept meeting next week.

Thanks, partner.

Ed.

Posted by Klans Man Colleague @ 02/13/2005 04:58 PM EST

I agree with Jonathan. This is a simple, black and white issue. You're either for us or you're with the terrorist! You either support Ward Churchill or you hate freedom! You'll either sign my petition or you hate puppies!

Simple as that. What is your problem, anyway, Jeff?

By the way, do you have anything in you medicine cabinet for these awful headaches I'm having?

Posted by Rush Limbaugh @ 02/13/2005 04:50 PM EST

"Substance of speech?" Care to define that in such a way as to not be susceptible to political expediency? This professor's criticism of supply-side economics lacks basic "substance of speech." Fire her. That professor's hip-hop pedagogy lacks the substance of the five-paragraph essay I know and love. Fire him.

People are making arguments that Churchill has consciously distorted facts in an academic article about biological warfare against Native Americans. That is a different matter. I do believe that an academic should be sanctioned and possibly lose tenure for scholarly fraud, if it is proven to be so. But expressing an unpopular--and indeed stupid--opinion is not sufficient grounds. And it's not something you should be indifferent to because of bell-tolling issues at least, if the principle doesn't get you.

The instituion of tenure is under serious attack.

Posted by Jonathan @ 02/13/2005 04:32 PM EST

Seems more like what you're saying is irrelevant.
Academic freedom is not the protection of anything goes. You're not right in believing that, and your vison of tenure is not on target. Sorry, dude. You're wrong. Substance of speech is issue.

I do find something notable here that out of all the academic freedom cases that must be in circulation either now or at a given moment, this one gets attention. There is a lot of knee jerking going on and cliched responses. But I guess that's to be expected when a meme gathers speed.

Posted by jeff @ 02/13/2005 04:19 PM EST

If you don't care whether they fire him, then you, by definition, think that's an acceptable outcome. This in turn means that you care nothing or know nothing about the purpose of tenure. And that's fine, though you should be aware of the larger consequences.

I don't recall Jeff saying anyting about right-wing academics' tenure being threatened, reader. One notable thing about this is how many right-wing academics have defended Churchill from those who'd fire him: the aforementioned Rasmusen and Stephen Bainbridge being among them.

Academic freedom is exactly about the right to express unpopular opinions without fear of politically motivated reprisals. This "real world" business is also completely irrelevant, I should add. A private employer can fire anyone for any non-discriminatory reason they wish. Would you want an EPA employee or a district U.S. attorney to be held to the same standard?

Posted by Jonathan @ 02/13/2005 03:52 PM EST

You're not a good reader.
The title of the post says: Things I Don't Give a Damn About. It doesn't say fire him. I could care less what they do.

But yeah, here's your vision of academia:
University as Fantasy Land.
Say what you want/when you want.
Let's Be STOOPID.

Enjoy.

Posted by jeff @ 02/13/2005 03:25 PM EST

I don't remember Jeff ever saying that Churchill should be fired. Just that he didn't care to get all up in arms about the situation. His point was that if this is really about academic freedom, then how come more academics don't get up in arms when it's a right-winger on the line?

Academic freedom is the equivalent of people running around claiming that free speech gives us the right to do anything whatsoever.

Just because certain academics don't have a knee jerk reaction to Churchill doesn't mean that they're anti-academic freedom. But it certainly is convenient to draw the old "Are you for us or against us?" line.

Posted by reader @ 02/13/2005 03:25 PM EST

The Churchill case is obviously about academic freedom. A professor's tenure is being threatened for political reasons because he made an unpopular statement.

Professors say and publish stupid things every day. Of course they have to deal with the "fallout." I'm not sure how many death threats Churchill has received, but it's more than a couple. He resigned his administrative position. No one would argue that professors are immune to criticism, but they cannot be dismissed from their jobs for political reasons if the idea of the university is to mean anything at all.

If you actually believe that Churchill deserves to be fired for this, you've staked out a position to the right of Bill O'Reilly on this.

Posted by Jonathan @ 02/13/2005 02:59 PM EST

Sorry. That argument doesn't hold. Being racist and teaching hip hop are not the same.

When you conflate those two (or whatever else) you say it's ok to say stupid things because you're a professor. It's not. Being a professor doesn't mean you can say whatever you want whenever you want no more than being any other profession gives you that right.

You want to believe the Churchill thing is about academic freedom? Feel free. But you're kidding yourself. It's not. If a prof comes out and says racist crap or compares people who die in a bombing to those who helped the Nazis, he has to deal with the fallout. That's life.

Posted by jeff @ 02/13/2005 01:21 PM EST

The entire point of tenure is to protect academic freedom. Academic freedom includes speech you don't agree with, even speech you find repugnant. An economics professor at Indiana, Eric Rasmusen, wrote on his blog a year or two ago that he didn't think gays should be allowed to teach in public schools. That's, to me and a lot of people, extremely offensive. But only a damn fool would think that he should lose his tenure because of it.

More than half of the state legislators in Michigan would vote to revoke or deny you tenure if they knew you taught hip-hop as composition and if they could. If you really believe what you're writing here, you've bought into completely the Horowitzian party-line about academic freedom.

Posted by Jonathan @ 02/13/2005 01:05 PM EST

If you want to say something stupid, insensitive, racist, or whatever, tenure is not a shield. Go ahead and do it. But if there are consequences, you have to deal with the consequences of your action.

This dude was plain out stupid. And for that, I don't give a damn who fires him or not. He has agency. He acted on it.

Welcome to life. Own up to what you say and do.

Posted by jeff @ 02/13/2005 12:50 PM EST

Are you saying that the Colordado legislature should be able to fire a tenured professor for expressing an unpopular opinion? Because that's a very real possibility.

The Summers analogy is completely irrelevant. Had he made his remarks as a tenured professor of economics, rather than as President of Harvard, no one would have suggested that he lose his tenure.

Posted by Jonathan @ 02/13/2005 12:41 PM EST

Oh please
Someone does/says something stupid and suddenly it's all about tenure?
Then Goodwin, stand up for Harvard's president who stuck his foot in his mouth as well. Maybe there should be outcry over his stupidity?
Yeah, that's it. Every time a professor says or does something really stupid, then he/she can hide behind tenure.

Good thinking that.

Posted by jeff @ 02/13/2005 12:26 PM EST

If you care about tenure in the American academy, you should care about Churchill's fate. Note that this is different than caring about Churchill himself.

Posted by Jonathan @ 02/13/2005 11:58 AM EST

What's Dilbet?

Posted by reader @ 02/12/2005 10:18 PM EST