Academics seek right to offend

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2006-12-24 10:02am

A group of academics is demanding the right to be controversial in a new campaign for freedom of speech.

Academics for Academic Freedom (AFAF) says that in today's political climate it is "harder than ever" for scholars to defend open debate.

AFAF says they must be allowed to question received wisdom, and managers should not be able to discipline academics for voicing unpopular views.

The group is calling on all university lecturers to sign its online petition.

"Restrictive legislation, and the bureaucratic rules and regulations of government quangos and of universities themselves, have undermined academic freedom," the groups says.

"Many academics are fearful of upsetting managers and politicians by expressing controversial opinions.

"Afraid to challenge mainstream thought, many pursue self-censorship."

A Leeds University lecturer, Frank Ellis, took early retirement this year before a disciplinary hearing over his comments that there was evidence to suggest white people had higher IQ levels than black people.

Statement of freedom

The statement of academic freedom which lecturers are being asked to sign says two principles are the foundation of academic freedom:

"That academics, both inside and outside the classroom, have unrestricted liberty to question and test received wisdom and to put forward controversial and unpopular opinions, whether or not these are deemed offensive.

"That academic institutions have no right to curb the exercise of this freedom by members of their staff, or to use it as grounds for disciplinary action or dismissal."

Writing on the AFAF website, Professor Roy Harris from the University of Oxford said: "Getting university authorities to agree to these principles is an essential step towards safeguarding academic freedom for the future."

Professor Mary Evans from the University of Kent said: "Universities need to be able to maintain, and even extend their ability to think the unthinkable.

"They should not accept a role as mere instruments of state agendas."

Simon Davies, co-director of the policy engagement research group at the London School of Economics, added: "I'm deeply worried about the number of academics who flee in terror at the slightest wisp of controversy.

"Rather than engage the world in a spirit of challenge, too many academics have been sedated by an oppressive environment of political correctness and risk aversion."

PainRack · Post by **PainRack** » 2006-12-24 10:30am

why do i have a feeling this is not something intended to promote intellectual vigour, but to "challenge" evolution?

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2006-12-24 10:46am

PainRack wrote:why do i have a feeling this is not something intended to promote intellectual vigour, but to "challenge" evolution?

That's exactly the same thought I had. You don't waste time challenging existing theories in the classroom. How the fuck is someone ever going to learn how they work if you're too busy arguing over whether or not they're true?

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2006-12-24 11:13am

Actually in the UK I doubt it.

I've got a lecturer that enjoys being rather polemic and deliberately saying things that will piss them off in an effort to get them to tear them down. Nothing to do with evolution vs creationism...besides if you're going to have challenging of it, University is far more the place than at a Secondary or Primary school level...at University people are meant to be at a level of thinking critically for themselves. Being able to logically defend or dismantle an idea should be a skill required to actually get a degree after all.

Then again there's also another dipshit with a PhD that claims that creationism is in scientific journals.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2006-12-24 12:29pm

I'm reminded of the Harvard professor who said (quite correctly) that fewer women advance to high levels in math and science, and who was promptly fired for it.

Then again, this sort of thing would protect jackasses like Ward Churchill.

Lost Soal · Post by **Lost Soal** » 2006-12-24 12:33pm

In principle, is a fine idea, but it really needs to be refined and explained more than the article says. Its all well and good having academics state a belief which goes against accepted opinions, but the problem comes when they then try to teach their opinions as correct without it being proved.

"That academics, both inside and outside the classroom, have unrestricted liberty to question and test received wisdom and to put forward controversial and unpopular opinions, whether or not these are deemed offensive.

"That academic institutions have no right to curb the exercise of this freedom by members of their staff, or to use it as grounds for disciplinary action or dismissal."

These principles as stated mean any lecturer could put forward their own pet theories, then set the exam questions to suit. Outside the classroom, fair enough, but not in the classroom.

Jack Bauer · Post by **Jack Bauer** » 2006-12-24 04:10pm

CaptainChewbacca wrote:I'm reminded of the Harvard professor who said (quite correctly) that fewer women advance to high levels in math and science, and who was promptly fired for it.

Actually it wasn't a professor but rather the president of Harvard, Lawrence Summers. And he didn't just say that fewer women advance in higher levels of math and science, Summers actually stated that there might be an innate biological impediment in females that cause this.

Nate_A · Post by **Nate_A** » 2006-12-24 09:05pm

Jack Bauer wrote:
CaptainChewbacca wrote:I'm reminded of the Harvard professor who said (quite correctly) that fewer women advance to high levels in math and science, and who was promptly fired for it.
Actually it wasn't a professor but rather the president of Harvard, Lawrence Summers. And he didn't just say that fewer women advance in higher levels of math and science, Summers actually stated that there might be an innate biological impediment in females that cause this.

Oh dear, he suggested a possible cause for observed data. Clearly this man has no place in academia.

Anyway, psudoscientists thrive on academic freedom, but so do real scientists. All we can do is hope that people are upen minded, but also sceptical. If not, no amount of censorship can make them smarter.

Spin Echo · Post by **Spin Echo** » 2006-12-24 10:30pm

Jack Bauer wrote:
CaptainChewbacca wrote:I'm reminded of the Harvard professor who said (quite correctly) that fewer women advance to high levels in math and science, and who was promptly fired for it.
Actually it wasn't a professor but rather the president of Harvard, Lawrence Summers. And he didn't just say that fewer women advance in higher levels of math and science, Summers actually stated that there might be an innate biological impediment in females that cause this.

Larry Summers didn't suggest that women are incapable of learning math and science, which was the way the media portrayed his statement. What he suggested is that men and women process math and science differently and that men may have the advantage.

The feminist response to his speech disgusted me. First of all, if you disagree with what he's saying, show some evidence to refute it instead of just storming out in a huff (Way to go Nancy Hopkins! Let's prove those gender stereotypes right, shall we?). Second, the evidence seems to support him. If you look at math and science test scores pretty much anywhere, males tend to consistently score at both extremes while females tend to have more of the typical bell curve distribution. Socialisation? Perhaps, but it's preposterous to deny outright that biology could have anything to do with it.

Considering how brain studies are proving that men and women process many situations differently (risk, pain, etc), I'd hardly find it surprising that there could be a difference in the sexes when it comes to math.

Straha · Post by **Straha** » 2006-12-24 11:20pm

Frankly, I'd support this. I hate the political correctness that has overtaken so much of Academia and the Media. And you know what? If it brings up Creationism what's the matter? Creationism is still wrong and just because it's wrong doesn't mean that we should automatically censor any mention of it by academics. Further other matters which are tacitly ignored (race and gender being the foremost) in part due to their touchy nature could finally be explored in depth.

Of course this will never happen, but still... nice to dream.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2006-12-25 10:58pm

[quote="Spin Echo"]snip[quote]Further, feminists seem to have interpreted his statement as a justification for dicrimination in fields emphasizing mathematics, when anyone with the slightest knowledge of statistics would know that that's bullshit.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-12-26 01:18am

On the one hand, I don't like the fact that a lot of closeted white supremacists are behind this kind of movement. On the other hand, there is a valid point to be made, which is that academic research should not necessarily limit itself to politically palatable ideas. If a politically unpalatable idea happens to have some scientific validity, that needs to be explored.

However, that argument applies to genuine scientific research. It doesn't really apply to academics just shooting their mouths off in defiance of academic and professional standards without consequence. I still can't believe that some idiot astronomy professor at BYU is spouting off about the WTC as if he's a structural engineer and independently publishing articles which the engineering faculty at his own school has been forced to publically disavow, all with no consequence whatsoever.

brianeyci · Post by **brianeyci** » 2006-12-26 01:50am

If the astronomy professor has tenure, he might be immune.

On the one hand I understand the need for tenure. Knowledge and understanding is the goal of university, and just because something isn't economically rewarding that doesn't mean it shouldn't be pursued. On the other hand, tenure seems so ivory tower I can't support the idea. They sent me letters asking me to rate two professors. Even though they were among the best professors I had, I couldn't bring myself to send in anything.

If you want academic freedom, stay in the ivory tower and get tenure. I don't see why academics in the workplace should have carte blanche to say whatever they want without any consequence. Sometimes you do have to tow the company line, you're working for them. The only real exception is government and the civil service.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2006-12-26 01:54am

I think what we should be pushing for is an academia more self-regulated than it is now. If some idiot shoots his mouth, he should be severely chastised, but not by people who know nothing about it, which, if I'm not mistaken, is the current situation.

brianeyci · Post by **brianeyci** » 2006-12-26 02:02am

I don't see how freedom in the classroom or even in the university environment relates to freedom in government policy. If I'm not mistaken, the petition asks for more freedom at the university level. Good academia is usually conservative academia, and that's why professors publish academically politically correct papers until they get tenure, after which they do whatever the hell they want, sometimes crazy shit.

No, the real way to stop government cronying is to make whistleblower legislation and to separate the government from organizations like the US Geological Survey as much as possible, not ask for more freedom at the lecturer level. You think you're intelligent enough to give groundbreaking ideas, get a Ph.D. and tenure first before you give controversal opinions.

Lost Soal · Post by **Lost Soal** » 2006-12-26 09:03am

brianeyci wrote:You think you're intelligent enough to give groundbreaking ideas, get a Ph.D. and tenure first before you give controversal opinions.

How long does it take to get tenure? Five, Ten Years? Ph.D. another five. And you want people to wait that long before they can give a fucking opinion on something different? Good job that view hasn't been prevalent otherwise Einstein wouldn't have been published.