Text 9171, 97 rader
Skriven 2005-02-17 13:19:42 av Alan Hess
Ärende: what is academic freedom?
=================================
Sowell makes some good points in this column.  
************


http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/bal-op.sowell17feb17,1,2228396.story?
coll=bal-pe-opinion
Academic freedom twisted on today's campuses


By Thomas Sowell

February 17, 2005

PROFESSOR WARD Churchill of the University of Colorado seems to be enjoying his
15 minutes of infamy for his childish rants against people who were killed in
the 9/11 attacks. Others, of course, resent his cheap shots at the dead, and
some are trying to get him fired.

The resulting controversy has wider implications for the understanding - and
misunderstanding - of what is meant by "academic freedom."

However symptomatic Mr. Churchill may be of what is wrong with academia today,
his situation has nothing to do with academic freedom. His remarks that
provoked so much controversy were not made in a classroom or even on campus.
(He wrote an essay in which he said employees in the World Trade Center worked
for "the mighty engine of profit," saying they were "little Eichmanns," after
the Nazi official who oversaw the Holocaust.)

There are no real grounds for firing him under current rules and practices,
which tells you what is wrong with those rules and practices. Mr. Churchill is
protected by tenure rules that are a much bigger problem than this one man or
this one episode.

In this era of dumbed-down education, when rhetoric has replaced both logic and
evidence for many people, some think the issue is "freedom of speech." Indeed,
some critics of Mr. Churchill have been shouted down by his supporters, in the
name of freedom of speech.

Too many people - some of them judges - seem to think that freedom of speech
means freedom from consequences for what you have said. If you believe that,
try insulting your boss when you go to work tomorrow. Better yet, try insulting
your spouse before going to bed tonight.

While this column is protected by freedom of speech, that does not stop any
editor from getting rid of it if he doesn't like what I say. But even if every
editor across the length and breadth of the country refused to carry this
column, that would be no violation of my freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech does not imply a right to an audience. Otherwise, the
audience would have no right to its own freedom. Editors, movie producers,
speakers' bureaus and other intermediaries have every right to decide what they
will and will not present to their audiences.

Unfortunately, many of those who talk the loudest and longest about "freedom of
speech" and "academic freedom" are in fact trying to justify the imposition of
propaganda on a captive audience in our schools and colleges.

At one college, some gutsy students start chanting "OT" - for "off topic" -
when one of their professors starts making political comments that have nothing
to do with the subject of his course.

Should a professor of accounting or chemistry be fired for using up class time
to sound off about homelessness or the war in Iraq? Yes!

There is no high moral principle that prevents it. What prevents it are tenure
rules that have saddled so many colleges with so many self-indulgent prima
donnas who seem to think that they are philosopher kings, when in fact they are
often grossly ignorant or misinformed outside the narrow confines of their
particular specialty.

Over the years, the notion of academic freedom has expanded beyond autonomy
within one's academic field to faculty governance of colleges and universities
in general. Thus professors decide whether the institution's endowment can be
invested in companies or countries that are out of favor among the anointed, or
whether students will be allowed to join fraternities or the Reserve Officers
Training Corps.

There is nothing in specialized academic expertise that makes professors'
opinions on issues outside their specialties any better than anyone else's
opinions. In no other institution - religious or secular, military or civilian
- are people who make decisions that shape the institution unable to be fired
when those decisions lead to bad results.

The combination of tenure and academic self-governance is unique - and explains
much of the atmosphere of self-indulgence and irresponsibility on campus, of
which professor Ward Churchill is just one extreme example.

Rethinking confused notions of "academic freedom" is far more important than
firing Mr. Churchill and thereby turning a jackass into a martyr.

Thomas Sowell, a syndicated columnist, is a senior fellow at the Hoover
Institution at Stanford University. His column appears Thursdays in The Sun.

Copyright + 2005, The Baltimore Sun

--- Msged/2 6.0.1
 * Origin: The Nerve Center BBS - telnet via tncbbs.no-ip.com (1:261/1000)