Posted on 02/24/2014 2:48:19 PM PST by nickcarraway
The Red Line
In July 1971, Harvard psychology professor Richard J. Herrnstein penned an article for Atlantic Monthly titled “I.Q.” in which he endorsed the theories of UC Berkeley psychologist Arthur Jensen, who had claimed that intelligence is almost entirely hereditary and varies by race. Herrnstein further argued that because intelligence was hereditary, social programs intended to establish a more egalitarian society were futile—he wrote that “social standing [is] based to some extent on inherited differences among people.”
When he returned to campus for fall semester 1971, Herrnstein was met by angry student activists. Harvard-Radcliffe Students for a Democratic Society protested his introductory psychology class with a bullhorn and leaflets. They tied up Herrnstein’s lectures with pointed questions about scientific racism. SDS even called for Harvard to fire Herrnstein, along with another of his colleagues, sociologist Christopher Jencks.
Herrnstein told The Crimson, “The attacks on me have not bothered me personally… What bothers me is this: Something has happened at Harvard this year that makes it hazardous for a professor to teach certain kinds of views.” This, Herrnstein seems not to have understood, was precisely the goal of the SDS activists—they wanted to make the “certain kinds of views” they deemed racist and classist unwelcome on Harvard’s campus.
Harvard’s deans were also unhappy. They expressed concerns about student activists’ “interference with the academic freedom and right to speak of a member of the Harvard faculty.” Did SDS activists at Harvard infringe on Herrnstein’s academic freedom? The answer might be that yes, they did—but that’s not the most important question to ask. Student and faculty obsession with the doctrine of “academic freedom” often seems to bump against something I think much more important: academic justice.
In its oft-cited Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, the American Association of University Professors declares that “Teachers are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results.” In principle, this policy seems sound: It would not do for academics to have their research restricted by the political whims of the moment.
Yet the liberal obsession with “academic freedom” seems a bit misplaced to me. After all, no one ever has “full freedom” in research and publication. Which research proposals receive funding and what papers are accepted for publication are always contingent on political priorities. The words used to articulate a research question can have implications for its outcome. No academic question is ever “free” from political realities. If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of “academic freedom”?
Instead, I would like to propose a more rigorous standard: one of “academic justice.” When an academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does not continue.
The power to enforce academic justice comes from students, faculty, and workers organizing together to make our universities look as we want them to do. Two years ago, when former summer school instructor Subramanian Swamy published hateful commentary about Muslims in India, the Harvard community organized to ensure that he would not return to teach on campus. I consider that sort of organizing both appropriate and commendable. Perhaps it should even be applied more broadly. Does Government Professor Harvey Mansfield have the legal right to publish a book in which he claims that “to resist rape a woman needs … a certain ladylike modesty?” Probably. Do I think he should do that? No, and I would happily organize with other feminists on campus to stop him from publishing further sexist commentary under the authority of a Harvard faculty position. “Academic freedom” might permit such an offensive view of rape to be published; academic justice would not.
Over winter break, Harvard published a statement responding to the American Studies Association’s resolution to boycott Israeli academic institutions until Israel ends its occupation of Palestine. Much of the conversation around this academic boycott has focused on academic freedom. Opponents of the boycott claim that it restricts the freedom of Israeli academics or interrupts the “free flow of ideas.” Proponents of the boycott often argue that the boycott is intended to, in the end, increase, not restrict, academic freedom—the ASA points out that “there is no effective or substantive academic freedom for Palestinian students and scholars under conditions of Israeli occupation.”
In this case, discourse about “academic freedom” obscures what should fundamentally be a political argument. Those defending the academic boycott should use a more rigorous standard. The ASA, like three other academic associations, decided to boycott out of a sense of social justice, responding to a call by Palestinian civil society organizations for boycotts, divestment, and sanctions until Israel ends its occupation of Palestine. People on the right opposed to boycotts can play the “freedom” game, calling for economic freedom to buy any product or academic freedom to associate with any institution. Only those who care about justice can take the moral upper hand.
It is tempting to decry frustrating restrictions on academic research as violations of academic freedom. Yet I would encourage student and worker organizers to instead use a framework of justice. After all, if we give up our obsessive reliance on the doctrine of academic freedom, we can consider more thoughtfully what is just.
Sandra Y.L. Korn ’14, a Crimson editorial writer, is a joint history of science and studies of women, gender and sexuality concentrator in Eliot House. Her column usually appears on alternate Mondays.
Well, there ya go.
Wouldn’t an extension of, “academic justice” mean that a graduate of Harvard should earn the same as a diplomate of a community college? Especially one with a concentration in the hysteria of science and studies of women, gender and sexuality.
(and...btw, I too minored in women and sexuality with an interest in gin;)
What we need here is something like Mao’s “Cultural Revolution” with re-education camps, and so on...except, in reverse, of course.
At the collegiate level, the close & intricate study of women is a fascinating field of research with emphasis on hands-on testing of a variety of hypotheses. Keen observation is critical & involves going more than just skin deep.
And when an academic discovers something that is true but unpleasant what then?
The concept of freedom and justice have no meaning outside of the ability to seek the truth
Although others can write about the many examples of how this author’s point of view represents political oppression and destruction of the pursuit of knowledge in universities and society more generally, I can sum up the counter-argument in two words, “Who decides?”
Who will decide what is just and unacceptable? All professors will have to second guess each topic of study to determine whether it might offend the powerful. All researchers will fear the results of their surveys and experiments, wondering of an oppressive finding might appear. Every professor will be at the mercy of the powerful who will cast a dark cloak over open inquiry. This idea, “academic justice”, is evil. That someone afilliated with Harvard, or any respectable university, would pen such a threatening essay, is a dark mark on the university and those who are part of its “community”.
Can the diagnosis of psychiatric illness for those with opposing political views be far removed from this author’s goals?
As if there is any justice without freedom.
BTW: has this been posted under different titles?
So the elite, such as this self-important little twit, will decide what is just and what is unjust.
What could possibly go wrong?
They’re feeling very bold these days—Not even wearing masks anymore.
I have been reading a little history lately. I think Aquinas was saying something about the earliest universities or seats of learning that they were full of bad thinking and a place where the last vestige of failed ideas took refuge.
It is amazing that we have known this for 1300 years and can’t seem to keep this awareness at the front of our accessment — we keep being surprised and outraged.
“At the collegiate level...”
FRiend, I have devoted my life to the study of women and am no closer today to understanding them than I ever was. If only I could get a grant...
Well, the comments are overwhelmingly negative.
What the hell is a sexuality concentrator?
The term “Major” is impossibly patriarchal. ;-)
Yeah.....and militaristic also.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.