Over the years, attacks on academic freedom have come from
many quarters—governments, religious groups, boards of trustees,
administrators, alumni, the press, etc. According to several newcomers to the debate, the greatest threat to
academic freedom at the present time comes from the professoriate itself.
In recent years, there has been a proliferation of
organizations in the United States with major political agenda that have
co-opted AAUP’s academic freedom language while claiming that the largest
threat to this freedom on campus is the professoriate. Prominent among these organizations are
the American Council of Trustees and Alumni(ACTA), Students for Academic
Freedom(SAF) and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education(FIRE). A shared theme of these organizations
is that universities have imposed an intellectual orthodoxy characterized by
political correctness and a lack of diversity of thought. Often quoting the AAUP’s 1940 Statement
of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, these organizations charge that university
curricula lack diversity, faculties are overrepresented by political and social
liberals and students are penalized by faculty who use the classroom to impose
their political views. Major
funding for these organizations has come from a number of very conservative
foundations, including the Scaife, Olin and Bradley foundations. ACTA is the best funded and perhaps the
most influential of these organizations
ACTA was founded in 1995 by non-academics such as Lynne
Cheney, the vice president's wife, and Joseph Lieberman, the Senator from
Connecticut. Its stated
mission is to promote academic freedom, excellence and accountability in higher
education. While these goals
sound worthy, there are some problems. Noting that in the past the
threat to academic freedom was external, ACTA’s website reports that: “Today, however, the threat to academic
freedom comes from within. The barbarians are not at the gates; they are inside
the walls.” One of the
organization’s major publications was in response to 9/11 and was titled: “Defending
Civilization: How Our Universities
are Failing America and What Can Be Done About It.” The 28-page article is essentially a cherry-picked listing of
quotations from a 100+ academics around the country about how it might be wise
to try to understand the reasons for the hatred for the United States that
exists in the Middle East. The
publication chose to characterize these comments as support for the enemy. Of course, they were not. This publication and other by ACTS are
overt attempts to silence the professoriate on this and other political
issues. Thus, while ACTA has
stated its commitment to academic freedom, its actions seeks to silence
speech. Claim the high ground by
endorsing academic freedom, accuse faculty of denying academic freedom and then
try to silence the faculty. Senator Lieberman resigned from ACTA after the publication of the “Defending
Civilization” report.
ACTA’s support of academic excellence also lacks
credibility. ACTA issued a
publication this year titled: “How
Many Ward Churchills?”. (Ward Churchill is the University of
Colorado professor who, as a private citizen and not on campus, made the
controversial and intemperate statement referring to 9/11 victims as “little
Eichmanns”. ) The methodology for
the report was to examine course material found on faculty and university
websites at 47 mostly elite universities. The offending course materials were primarily from humanities and social
science courses and involved geographical area studies, ethnic, gender and
alternative lifestyle subjects. The
report is essentially brief summaries quoted from the syllabi of the
“offending” courses. The report’s point
is that the university curricula should rid itself of African-American studies,
Hispanic studies, women studies, Mid-East studies, Native American studies,
Asian studies, homosexual and lesbian studies, etc. ACTA advocates that university curricula should return to the
study of Western Civilization. Universities should forget the diversity in the world and the United
States and focus on what ACTA perceives as the basis of the American state, i.e.,
Western Civilization.
ACTA approaches academic accountability in a couple of
ways. Ann Neal, the president of
ACTA, delivered a speech recently that argued that the support of academic
freedom does not mean that universities should be independent of outside
influence, i.e., state and federal legislatures, as well as other bodies,
should be able to determine the curricula. Neal is the wife of an influential member of the majority
party in the U.S. Congress and has been able to provide testimony before
Congress and state legislatures, something that is often denied to heads of
major higher education organizations including the AAUP. Furthermore, ACTA has developed
effective relationships with university trustees and major donors with the
purpose of shaping the curricula. Trustees are urged to provide funding for ACTA-approved curricula and to
withhold or reduce funding for non-ACTA approved curricula. It also encourages major donors to
specify in great detail what curricula will be funded. For example, recently two major
universities in North Carolina received multi-million grants from a foundation
to fund a course of study that had not been reviewed or approved by the
faculty. ACTA claims that it was
responsible for $3.4 billion of grants to colleges and universities in 2005.
The Students for Academic Freedom(SAF) was founded in 2003
by David Horowitz, a far-right activist who began his career as a founder of
the New Left in the 1960’s. The
major effort of SAF has been the Academic Bill of Rights (ABOR) which has been
introduced in about two dozen state legislatures. SAF argues that faculties
are not diverse enough and that liberal faculty members impose their political
views on students, denying them their academic freedom. ABOR would force universities to hire
faculty with particular political and social views. For example, biology departments could be required to hire
faculty who teach “Intelligent Design” rather than evolution, and to hire faculty who question the
science of global warming. Political party affiliation would also be a criterion. In spite of claims of success by
Horowitz, SAF has not been successful. No state has passed ABOR legislation. At the federal level, there is ABOR language in the current
House version of the Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. It’s not in the Senate version and
there is a very good chance it will be removed in the House bill when the new
Congress takes office in January.
FIRE’s focus has been on speech codes, arguing that they
should not exist. Most of its
effort has been legal actions suing administrations for disciplining students
who used speech to harass other students. AAUP issued a policy student in 1994 titled “On Freedom of Expression
and Campus Speech Codes” that argues against speech codes. However, it is common sense to say that
the group most denied free speech on campus is not the white, upper-middle
class, straight, male student group. Unfortunately, that group is often the focus of FIRE’s support. Once
again, FIRE argues that the faculty is guilty of denying students their academic
freedom.
ACTA, SAF and FIRE have all asked for the approval of AAUP
for their activities. AAUP has
refused to sign on to any of their efforts and has attempted to debunk their
agenda. Professors do not pose a
major threat to academic freedom. In spite of their use of the mantra, these organizations would deny
academic freedom rather than support it. AAUP remains the guardian of academic freedom. Academic freedom is never secure and those who care about it
must always be vigilant in its defense. Faculty must not let other groups co-opt the language of academic
freedom.
