Queen Beatrix defends free speech
The discussion of what the Statement of Academic Freedom means, of what it means to cover and what (if anything) it doesn’t mean to cover, goes on in comments, so I wanted to add a point or two.
The trouble is that it’s rather carefully worded in such a way that it’s hard to figure out exactly what it does and doesn’t cover. ‘[A]cademics, 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’ and ‘academic institutions have no right to curb the exercise of this freedom by members of their staff’. What is ‘received wisdom’ and what are ‘opinions’? Would it be an exercise in questioning received wisdom and putting forward controversial opinions for a lecturer in history to teach students that slavery in the US was a voluntary arrangement between ambitious Africans with a longing to travel and see the world, and a set of generous slave traders and plantation owners who wanted to help them achieve their dreams? Would it be an exercise in questioning received wisdom and putting forward controversial opinions for such a lecturer to teach students that Henry VIII defeated the Vikings at Culloden in 608 and that his daughter Victoria had him beheaded and ascended to the throne along with her consort Isambard Kingdom Brunel? In other words, is the statement about opinions as distinct from empirical claims, or does it cover any and all claims of any kind, with or without evidence?
A related but not identical question is, what of teachers who spend a lot of class time on subjects that are slightly or not at all related to the subject matter? That’s another fuzzy area, obviously – teachers of history, literature, politics, and the like often have very good reasons for talking about a range of subjects. And no one, but no one, wants David Horowitz or a Florida legislator whose previous job was selling insurance or even a university administrator with excellent sense and intentions, sitting in on classes and barking ‘Too far off topic!’ at intervals. But what of teachers like the high school history teacher in New Jersey who regaled his lucky students with his born-again religious views instead of teaching his subject, which was (ironically) Constitutional law? Is that his job? Is that what the students need or want to know? If students sign up for a class in algebra and get pastry cooking instead, isn’t that a problem? But the Statement of Academic Freedom doesn’t seem to rule that out.
Boringly enough, this is at least as much a matter of practicality and the finiteness of time as it is one of principle. It’s often not so much a question of the right to offer and hear unpopular opinions as it is of the fact that there are X hours of classes and Y amount of material to cover. This comes up in arguments over ID in science classes with dreary regularity. Proponents of ID say teach the conflict, let students decide, expose them to more than one theory, what could be fairer than that. Opponents say, among other things, look, this is biology class, there is a lot to cover and not enough time to cover it, there isn’t room for philosophy or religion too (especially not bad philosophy, but that’s one of the other things they say).
And then there is the falsification of evidence issue, and the fact that falsification of evidence is not automatically obvious or detectable even by experts, let alone by students. Suppose a historian of science who assigns a class a book or article that claims Einstein’s wife played a major role in his early work, and assigned no other material on the subject at all. That historian of science might have an ‘opinion’ that Mileva Maric did indeed play such a role. Does that mean (in the terms of the Statement of Academic Freedom) that the academic institution that employs the historian of science has no right to curb the exercise of this freedom to put forward a controversial opinion on an empirical matter? The statement doesn’t make that clear.
On the other hand! Just to try to be clear myself – I couldn’t agree more with the ‘whether or not these are deemed offensive’ part. Especially in the wake of the hilarious item I heard on Radio Netherlands a couple of days ago about Queen Beatrix’s Christmas speech. She talked about the importance of free speech, the reporter informed us, and also said that of course no one has the right to insult anyone. I collapsed in laughter, then threw some chairs around the room. Well done, Queen! Free speech great, important, wonderful, special, gotta have it, good stuff, hooray for free speech, thank your stars you have it, but of course you have no right to insult anyone. Such as, we all now understand, by drawing cartoons of their prophets. So, good news, you can have it, except that you can’t. Hooray for free speech, but don’t say anything with it. Free speech rocks, but shut up. Oookay.
I’m still debating with myself on whether or not the act is a deliberate attempt to inject the “teach the controversy” creationism wedge into classrooms.
OB,
It’s undoubtedly cruel to mock the afflicted, but c’mon – what did you really expect from a MONARCH?
Coherent, intelligent thought, clearly expressed?
One area in which our Transatlantic ex-colonies score a definite bonus point.
(Apart from their hysterical worship of Diana Spencer, of course).
:-)
I think that the AFAF statement also deserves a logical correction. Here it is again (just to save readers the trouble of linking):
‘We, the undersigned, believe the following two principles to be the foundation of academic freedom:
(1) 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, and
(2) 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.’ [my italics]
In fact, there is only one principle – that of ‘unrestricted liberty’. If academics are deemed to have ‘unrestricted liberty’ then it follows from this premise that academic institutions (along with me, you, the King of Siam, etc.) have no right to curb it. So the text might have been better drafted on the following lines:
‘We, the undersigned, believe […] that academics, both inside and outside the classroom should have unrestricted liberty to question and test received wisdom and to put forward controversial and unpopular opinions, whether or not these are deemed offensive. […]
Hence 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.”
AFAF might at least have given a few concrete examples. I reckon AFAF chiefly had Chris Brand and Frank Ellis in mind, since these are the only two cases of UK academic staff who have lost their jobs for expressing ‘controversial or unpopular opinions’ which were also deemed to be ‘offensive’. This is truly deplorable since their scientific competence as such was not challenged. But AFAF may have been afraid to ‘spell it out’ for fear of frightening the horses. Hence their statement is so wide open that it could include not only the occasional thought-provoking gadfly in the political penumbra between the deceased Enoch Powell and the far right, but also conceivable flat-earthers who might conceivably teach flat earthism to their geography students. As a result, AFAF may have frightened a different set of horses than those who would have shrunk in horror at the mention of Chris Brand or Frank Ellis. A pity.
Here’s some U.S. government interference on (quasi?) academic freedom:
http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=801
“Washington, DC — Grand Canyon National Park is not permitted to give an official estimate of the geologic age of its principal feature, due to pressure from Bush administration appointees. Despite promising a prompt review of its approval for a book claiming the Grand Canyon was created by Noah’s flood rather than by geologic forces, more than three years later no review has ever been done and the book remains on sale at the park, according to documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).
“In order to avoid offending religious fundamentalists, our National Park Service is under orders to suspend its belief in geology,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. “It is disconcerting that the official position of a national park as to the geologic age of the Grand Canyon is ‘no comment.’” “
and from further down the article:
“Park officials have defended the decision to approve the sale of Grand Canyon: A Different View, claiming that park bookstores are like libraries, where the broadest range of views are displayed. In fact, however, both law and park policies make it clear that the park bookstores are more like schoolrooms rather than libraries. As such, materials are only to reflect the highest quality science and are supposed to closely support approved interpretive themes. Moreover, unlike a library the approval process is very selective. Records released to PEER show that during 2003, Grand Canyon officials rejected 22 books and other products for bookstore placement while approving only one new sale item — the creationist book.
Ironically, in 2005, two years after the Grand Canyon creationist controversy erupted, NPS approved a new directive on “Interpretation and Education (Director’s Order #6) which reinforces the posture that materials on the “history of the Earth must be based on the best scientific evidence available, as found in scholarly sources that have stood the test of scientific peer review and criticism [and] Interpretive and educational programs must refrain from appearing to endorse religious beliefs explaining natural processes.”
“As one park geologist said, this is equivalent of Yellowstone National Park selling a book entitled Geysers of Old Faithful: Nostrils of Satan,” Ruch added, pointing to the fact that previous NPS leadership ignored strong protests from both its own scientists and leading geological societies against the agency approval of the creationist book. “We sincerely hope that the new Director of the Park Service now has the autonomy to do her job.” “
‘Old Faithful: Nostrils of Satan’ !! Whoever said geologists don’t have a sense of humour?
A. Gilmour has let his blind prejudices overcome any reason he may have …
“It’s undoubtedly cruel to mock the afflicted, but c’mon – what did you really expect from a MONARCH?
Coherent, intelligent thought, clearly expressed?”
Well, Frederick the Great of Prussia?
Very talented flautist, patronised the Bach family, corresponded with Voltaire?
The current Queen of Denmark?
Or Henry VIII & Elizabeth I ???
Come to that, even Charles Windsor, where his brainwashing by Laurence van der Pump (As Private Eye referred to him) hasn’t stuck, has had useful things to say about architecture and the environment, and living conditions – through the Price’s Trust ……
Or, to qoute an example that should smart: Edward I, the equivalent of a chess grandmaster, but, unfortunately, equally ruthless ……..
And he thinks the US system is so superior does he?
With the Shrub as “president”?
And Jaques Chirac is such an honest, upright example of another presidential system
G. Tingey wrote:”And he thinks the US system is so superior does he?
With the Shrub as “president”?
And Jaques Chirac is such an honest, upright example of another presidential system”
But the people can get rid of them. In fact, in the US the president has to go after two terms. We’re stuck with our head of state until they die or we have a revolution and execute them. The latter is just too much effort for me.
>But the people can get rid of them. In fact, in the US the president has to go after two terms. We’re stuck with our head of state until they die or we have a revolution and execute them.< There is the slight(!) difference that the presidents of the US and France have considerable political power whereas constitutional monarchs do not. In other words the roles are not comparable. And while I’m not arguing *in principle* for monarchy, I think it is worthy of consideration that *in modern times* several of the countries in Europe that have retained constitutional monarchies have traditionally been among the most liberal in socio-political terms. I think the Spanish situation is also interesting. When there was an attempted coup not long after democracy had been restored post-Franco, the King played a pivotal role in uniting the country against the plotters. That his constitutional role placed him in a position where he could represent *all* strands of opinion against the coup was, I believe, a factor in the influence he had on events. I think the above illustrates that there is no clearcut knock-down argument about the way that human affairs should be run, and that this can’t simply be decided on the basis of the argument that this or that is the *rational* way things should be set up. I think that human behaviour, and the historical development of societal structures over the centuries, are too complex for such a view.
One might also quote someone who could hardly be called a great intellectual, nor even a “liberal” – King George V ….
After the “general strike” in 1926(?) there were those who advocated punitive action against the strike-leaders.
George was agin it … in the same way as he refused to be used for propaganda during the strike.
“I have to be King to all of my people” was his comment.
As Mr. Esterson has said, many of the most liberal societies in existence are “monarchies”: Britain, Belgium, Netherlands, Spain, Denmark, Norway, Sweden.
But then Myanmar and N. Korea are republics aren’t they, so that tells you a lot about how evil republics are.
In other words, what is the actual form of government, not its’ title?
I mean: “people’s committee fro Public Safety” is such a reasurring title, isn’t it?
Charles Windsor has had nothing useful to say about architecture; he’s had fatuous prejudices to air. And he has used his position of celebrity and privilege to get his harmful, dangerous opinions on ‘alternative medicine’ into the newspapers when actual medical researchers can’t get nearly the same kind of exposure.
I specifically excluded his inane remarks on meddicine – part of van der Pump’s leagacy.
On architecture, somewhere like Cumbernauld is so much better than Pondbury, don’t you think? (not)
After all, he’s merely repeating, in a modern context what a local hero of mine, William Morris said about living.
Dear Tingey, G.,
I find your wee ad hom a bit odd, frankly, considering how often I’m usually on your general side of an argument.
So you don’t like a bit of frivolity over an archaic & anachronistic aristocratic system? Eh?
You say:
“A. Gilmour has let his blind prejudices overcome any reason he may have …”
When in the UK, the head of State is head of the Church of England? Charlie wants to be “Defender of Faith”? No “left-footers” allowed? Or how about a Hapsburg Lip, haemophilia, or inherited mental instability? The ludicrous personality cult of Diana? I take it that none of those can be used as rational criticism?
And how about those c-r-aaaaaaa-zy Nepalese, huh?
Why on earth do you try to use Henry VIII as an example of reasoned sanity? The man was a rampaging syphilitic psychopath, with a homicidal obsession with having a male heir! (Oh I know, it was just the “realpolitik” of it’s day) :-)
Personally speaking, I object most to the irrational notion of being someone’s “subject”, particularly when that someone gained their privileged position solely through birthright. The fact that their powers are relatively limited is irrelevant.
So the US got Bush. So what? That’s their own damn fault for having a relatively undemocratic two-party, first-past-the-post money-pit elections. Better luck next time. Or the time they finally overhaul their electoral system. (About time we did too…)
I’ll ignore the Eddie I jibe, except to point out that in the long run, he lost. (1707 wasn’t exactly anything to do with him). And since there was no record of him playing chess tournaments, nor his points ranking, then the comparison to a grandmaster can’t be sustained…
C’mon Tingey, I thought you were an empiricist! :-)
Merry New Year!
Yes,empirically, a democratic constitutional monarchy seems to work better than almost any other system.
Yes, we have historical hang-ups that need to be quietly tidied away, especially, in my opinion, the “established” church – though even there, once could make a case that this protects against the sort of evangelical insanity that the US has (perhaps) ……
Henry VIII was cruel, and powerful, and very intelligent, before he went mad.
He was a well-known theological author (Fideis Defensor as a result!) composer and multilingual.
I didn’t say he was nice just intelligent ……
Really. With all those bishops in the House of Lords? You think that works well, do you?