Harvard President Larry Summers comes under fire for trying to provoke debate at a scientific conference and wins a no-confidence vote from his own faculty. The University of Colorado is barraged by critics of Ward Churchill, a tenured professor who made comments that seemed to justify the 9/11 attacks. And campus Democrats nationwide blast legislation in 16 states proposing an "academic bill of rights" championed by conservative students demanding a greater diversity of views in academe.
What do these three cases have in common? They all raise the question of academic freedom — that elusive independence on which universities rely in the pursuit of knowledge. The widespread condemnation of Churchill, in particular, seems to indicate that the general public thinks academic freedom has gone too far.
But the current danger for academic freedom is that we have too little and that it is under subtle attack. And the attack from within the university is even more pernicious than the attack from without.
Even many faculty members don't really understand the concept. Consider the Summers case. Last January, the Harvard president had the temerity to raise the question of whether there might be an intrinsic difference between women's and men's abilities in science and engineering. Five days later, in reaction to a storm of protest, he issued an apology. An apology for what? For suggesting a possible topic for research?
Summers was clearly exercising his academic freedom, which is supposed to foster debate and argument, not straitjacket them in the name of political correctness. Disagreeing with another's views, criticizing them, arguing against them are all appropriate. But attempting to intimidate and quiet someone by labeling his views as sexist or something else considered politically incorrect undermines academic freedom.
The confusion wasn't helped by the recent furor ignited by Churchill, an ethnic studies professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder. But the cries for his dismissal that arose from the media, university alumni and the general public demonstrated a failure to understand that academic freedom is intended to prevent politics or religion or public pressure from dictating what the university and its members may or may not pursue.
Whether Churchill's comments fall within the bounds of his academic freedom is up to the university to decide. Like most universities, the University of Colorado has policies protecting academic freedom, which state in part: "The faculty member is entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing the subject but should be careful not to introduce into teaching controversial matter that has no relation to the subject," and "When speaking or writing as citizens, (faculty) should be free from university censorship or discipline." The latter refers to professors' freedom of speech as citizens, which is broader than their academic freedom. In the classroom, academic freedom doesn't give academics license to talk about anything they want. On the street corner, though, they, like any other citizen, can do just that (short of promoting sedition or provoking violence). Sanity has prevailed in the Churchill case, and the matter has been left to the university.
Much of the confusion over academic freedom stems from a failure to understand that it's a three-part concept, aimed at promoting knowledge for the benefit of society at large. The first part relates to the university's freedom to run its academic affairs, determine appropriate curricula and hire competent faculty without being subject to the dictates of politicians, religious leaders, alumni or donors, or governmental agencies. This in turn leads to the academic freedom of individual faculty members, who are at liberty to decide how to structure their courses and what research to pursue. Finally, the academic freedom of students consists of their right to learn and to be protected against indoctrination or demands about what they must believe or say.
Academic freedom's ultimate purpose is to give universities, their faculty and their students the liberty to pursue knowledge, to teach and to publish the results of their research for the good of society as a whole. Only if this is allowed will we all benefit from the development of new ideas, scientific findings and critical evaluations of accepted views.
The proposals for an "academic bill of rights" highlights the dangers to academic freedom from within. The bill of rights, conceived by conservative activist David Horowitz and his watchdog group Students for Academic Freedom, would require professors to present a greater diversity of views on unsettled issues. It's a reaction by conservative students who feel liberal faculties dominate many universities, professors require that students hew to a certain political line to pass a course or faculty members must hold a certain political ideology to be hired.
Where either is done in the name of academic freedom, it is certainly an abuse of that concept. On the other hand, students have no "right" not to hear views with which they disagree. Part of their education arguably consists in having some of their opinions challenged.
No legislature should dictate what has to be taught in any course, even in the name of balance. The solution is to promote greater respect for the academic freedom of all, not to push legislation that would undermine that freedom.
It is not coincidental that academic freedom came into its own in Europe along with the emergence of political and religious freedom, the spread of democracy, the burgeoning of science and the articulation of a liberal approach to thought. They all go together as the intellectual authority of the state and church are replaced by the authority of reason, argument and evidence.
The loss of academic freedom would impose a high cost on society. Ironically, at a time when the public is questioning whether academic freedom has gone too far, this essential freedom stands in greater need than ever of public support.
Richard De George is university distinguished professor of philosophy at the University of Kansas and author of "Academic Freedom and Tenure: Ethical Issues" (Rowman and Littlefield).