SUNY Debates Academic Freedom.(State University of New York)

The good news is that there is a large and growing awareness of the positions and activities of the National Association of Scholars, with many giving us public credit (sometimes grudging) for remaining faithful to such core principles as academic freedom. The bad news, which is also old news, is that many faculty, while aware of threats to academic freedom and other values, remain reluctant to challenge policies supported by significant internal constituencies, and would prefer to change the subject.

The sixty-campus State University of New York sponsored an academic freedom conference, held in Albany the weekend of 31 March 2000. The keynote address was given by Walter P. Metzger, emeritus professor of history at Columbia, and long time member of the American Association of University Professors' Committee A on Academic Freedom. Metzger reviewed the historical development of academic freedom, focusing on the 1915 and 1940 AAUP statements, and the internal debates of the committees that drafted these statements. His concluding point was that the main current threat to academic freedom comes from harassment codes. The NAS, he said, was the only organization to see this clearly and to take an early and forthright stand. The AAUP, he admitted, waffled on the issue. Metzger also noted that opposing harassment codes is easier for the NAS than it would be for organizations with strong affirmative action constituencies.

On the negative side, the academic freedom conference was structured to minimize discussion of speech/harassment codes and other internal threats to academic freedom. Harassment codes were placed on the table because invited speakers chose to consider them, not because sessions were explicitly devoted to these core issues. But other obvious threats, such as requirements that all classes address "diversity," were never discussed.

On the positive side, while Metzger was at the podium, no one in the audience questioned the inhibiting effect of harassment codes on academic freedom. An emotional appeal to protect vulnerable populations would not have been effective immediately after the broad rationale for a stable and politically neutral conception of academic freedom had been articulated.

A session titled "Rival Notions of Academic Freedom?" was supposed to be a debate between Daphne Patai, University of Massachusetts, and Cary Nelson, University of Illinois. Nelson withdrew at the last minute and was replaced by Stephen Watt of Indiana University, with whom he had coauthored Academic Keywords. Patai began by criticizing a chapter, written by Nelson, in which the NAS is accused of opposing academic freedom and tenure, and of being tinged with racism. These kinds of charges, said Patai, are untrue and outrageously unfair. Patai's larger theme was that the affirmative action/diversity mentality has such a strong hold that faculty are afraid of opposing any policy, no matter how ill advised, that is supposed to benefit a disadvantaged group.

Watt responded that he had not written the chapter that Patai had criticized, and that while he stood behind the book, he was going to talk about something else. His topic was the impact on future scholars, especially in the humanities, of graduating with tens of thousands of dollars of student loan debt. Debt-ridden scholars tend to be overly cautious, seek to maximize short-term income (sometimes by moonlighting), and thereby lose the opportunity to lay a foundation for substantive scholarship. These problems are doubtless real, but neither the NAS nor the AAUP would treat them under the rubric of academic freedom.

Harvey Silverglate, a lawyer and coauthor with Alan Kors of The Shadow University, did not speak about the theme of that book [the subject of a comprehensive symposium in the summer 1999 issue of Academic Questions]. Instead, he described several unanimous Supreme Court decisions to the effect that you cannot restrict speech by calling it harassment. He too mentioned the NAS, and favorably. A member of the audience stated that it was easy for tenured white males to assume the risk of being insulted or humiliated by sexist or racist professors. I would judge that a large majority of those present understood that fear of and hypersensitivity to dubious claims of racism or harassment are more potent threats.