Academic freedom and tenure guarantee the right to hold and express the sorts of views Professor Wax expresses without being fired. People tend to support academic freedom until it gets hard to defend it because of the offensiveness of the way some people use it. But once you start saying academic freedom does not cover "grossly offensiv…
Academic freedom and tenure guarantee the right to hold and express the sorts of views Professor Wax expresses without being fired. People tend to support academic freedom until it gets hard to defend it because of the offensiveness of the way some people use it. But once you start saying academic freedom does not cover "grossly offensive" views you've given up its protections.
Academic freedom doesn't cover actions, just speech, which is why the last removal of tenure at Penn was on the grounds of murder and why sexual harassment is a not uncommon ground for firing tenured faculty. Academic misconduct, which includes things like plagiarism, research fraud, or simply failing to meet with classes, are all grounds for removing tenure protections. But not views held or expressed, whether they are deemed to be relevant to a faculty member's research field or not. Someone as appaling as Professor Wax is not a danger in any sense. Her extreme statements will convert no one who is not already in that camp, and Penn law students are perfectly capable of avoiding her or learning by engaging with her in a classroom context. (And Penn probably should--and probably does--make sure that Wax's course schedule is managed so that students can always take an equivalent from someone else in a different semester.)
The near-absolute nature of these protections is essential to providing the security of an academic career that makes researchers and teachers take chances with new ideas and methods, and that allows colleges and universities to recruit talented people who could make far more money in other professions. The cost is enabling jackasses--and they are as common among academics as in the general population. It's worth it, although institutions may have to take remediating steps, such as assigning a jackass smaller and less critical courses to teach because most students are put off, or assigning another faculty member or a grad student to handle course grading because certain students may justifiably have concerns about grading objectivity. All of these costs can be partially made good by adjusting the problem professor's salary for cause.
Academic freedom and tenure are so valuable that there are always powerful forces trying to eliminate them. Traditionally, those come from the Right, which has over time made serious inroads in weakening those institutions, both to punish schools whose faculty lean left (keep your eye on Florida) and to save money. Let's not add the Center and Left.
Yes. That's the principle for every tenure faculty member. The idea is to severely limit the grounds that trustee boards and the presidents they hire can employ to get rid of faculty they don't like. (The concept of academic freedom grew out of just such behavior about 125 years ago at Stanford.) It is fascinating, indeed, and the strength of tenure in the US has made the country a magnet for talented faculty coming from other countries, where they have to worry that speaking their minds will cost them their livelihood. There are costs, but the benefits far outweigh them.
That matters absolutely not at all, Rob. Imagine what tenure would be worth if anything you publicly said could become grounds for some board of trustees declaring you unfit. During the Red Scare era, tenure protected professors accused of being communist, including those who actually were, despite the fact that their party affiliation and personal ideologies may have had nothing to do with their jobs.
I imagine it would be that the right of free association of private individuals and institutions is given equal weight to the right of free speech of an individual. Repeatedly, it seems we are completely comfortable with honoring the right of speech and academic freedom of only certain people.
-- DeSantis also said Tuesday he wants to give university presidents and trustees the power to review tenured faculty members “at any time,” citing concerns about “unproductive” faculty, and to give presidents more control over the hiring process at their institutions.
We'll see where this goes, Mr. Bantz. The "post-tenure performance review" has in the past been an initial step in encroachments on tenure.
I think you are confused. I agree with your premise, but let us not pretend that the poor behavior of the demonstrators is the same as what the govt. in Florida is trying to do. If you refer to me by name you can call me Dr. Bantz.😊
You lost me Dr. Bantz. This string concerns the Wax case. I wonder whether you're confusing something I said on a recent string about Kyle Duncan at Stanford (?). (Still, if you did it would be a warning signal to me that I've started the week binging on Substack and need to knock it off . . .)
Academic freedom and tenure guarantee the right to hold and express the sorts of views Professor Wax expresses without being fired. People tend to support academic freedom until it gets hard to defend it because of the offensiveness of the way some people use it. But once you start saying academic freedom does not cover "grossly offensive" views you've given up its protections.
Academic freedom doesn't cover actions, just speech, which is why the last removal of tenure at Penn was on the grounds of murder and why sexual harassment is a not uncommon ground for firing tenured faculty. Academic misconduct, which includes things like plagiarism, research fraud, or simply failing to meet with classes, are all grounds for removing tenure protections. But not views held or expressed, whether they are deemed to be relevant to a faculty member's research field or not. Someone as appaling as Professor Wax is not a danger in any sense. Her extreme statements will convert no one who is not already in that camp, and Penn law students are perfectly capable of avoiding her or learning by engaging with her in a classroom context. (And Penn probably should--and probably does--make sure that Wax's course schedule is managed so that students can always take an equivalent from someone else in a different semester.)
The near-absolute nature of these protections is essential to providing the security of an academic career that makes researchers and teachers take chances with new ideas and methods, and that allows colleges and universities to recruit talented people who could make far more money in other professions. The cost is enabling jackasses--and they are as common among academics as in the general population. It's worth it, although institutions may have to take remediating steps, such as assigning a jackass smaller and less critical courses to teach because most students are put off, or assigning another faculty member or a grad student to handle course grading because certain students may justifiably have concerns about grading objectivity. All of these costs can be partially made good by adjusting the problem professor's salary for cause.
Academic freedom and tenure are so valuable that there are always powerful forces trying to eliminate them. Traditionally, those come from the Right, which has over time made serious inroads in weakening those institutions, both to punish schools whose faculty lean left (keep your eye on Florida) and to save money. Let's not add the Center and Left.
Academic freedom allow her to say offensive things that have nothing to do with her job? Fascinating.
Yes. That's the principle for every tenure faculty member. The idea is to severely limit the grounds that trustee boards and the presidents they hire can employ to get rid of faculty they don't like. (The concept of academic freedom grew out of just such behavior about 125 years ago at Stanford.) It is fascinating, indeed, and the strength of tenure in the US has made the country a magnet for talented faculty coming from other countries, where they have to worry that speaking their minds will cost them their livelihood. There are costs, but the benefits far outweigh them.
Yeah, except the speech in question has nothing to do with her job.
That matters absolutely not at all, Rob. Imagine what tenure would be worth if anything you publicly said could become grounds for some board of trustees declaring you unfit. During the Red Scare era, tenure protected professors accused of being communist, including those who actually were, despite the fact that their party affiliation and personal ideologies may have had nothing to do with their jobs.
I imagine it would be that the right of free association of private individuals and institutions is given equal weight to the right of free speech of an individual. Repeatedly, it seems we are completely comfortable with honoring the right of speech and academic freedom of only certain people.
This is nothing like Florida. False equivalency even if you make some good points.
From the Orlando Sentinel, Jan. 31:
-- DeSantis also said Tuesday he wants to give university presidents and trustees the power to review tenured faculty members “at any time,” citing concerns about “unproductive” faculty, and to give presidents more control over the hiring process at their institutions.
We'll see where this goes, Mr. Bantz. The "post-tenure performance review" has in the past been an initial step in encroachments on tenure.
I think you are confused. I agree with your premise, but let us not pretend that the poor behavior of the demonstrators is the same as what the govt. in Florida is trying to do. If you refer to me by name you can call me Dr. Bantz.😊
You lost me Dr. Bantz. This string concerns the Wax case. I wonder whether you're confusing something I said on a recent string about Kyle Duncan at Stanford (?). (Still, if you did it would be a warning signal to me that I've started the week binging on Substack and need to knock it off . . .)