Even dangerous ideas
Philosopher Stephen Kershnar of the State University of New York at Fredonia is barred from campus and teaching, pending an investigation into his recent comments about whether “adult-child sex” is always wrong.
A number of philosophers and free speech advocates have jumped to Kershnar’s defense, arguing that his words have been taken out of context and that academic freedom means nothing if it doesn’t protect even dangerous ideas. Yet other academics believe Kershnar’s comments are troubling enough to make his more than an open-and-shut academic freedom case.
What about this idea that “academic freedom means nothing if it doesn’t protect even dangerous ideas”? All dangerous ideas? No matter how dangerous? What about the “idea” that genocide is good? What about the “idea” that all the Xs should be killed? What about the “idea” that women deserve to be beaten up for disobedience? What about the “idea” that Trump should be forcibly reinstalled in the White House with elections suspended and Princess Ivanka named as his successor? What about the “idea” that the pandemic is a myth?
I’m not convinced that academic freedom is that absolute. Academics aren’t free to be incompetent or fraudulent, and I’m not sure they’re free to be dangerous either.
Fredonia’s University Senate, for instance, is today considering a resolution condemning Kershnar’s “straightforward but factually erroneous oration” as “troublesome, offensive and dangerous, with the potential to normalize attitudes and behaviors that cause great, emotional, psychological and cognitive damage to survivors of child sexual abuse.”
News of the Senate resolution was first reported by philosopher Justin Weinberg, editor of the philosophy blog Daily Nous, who condemned the proposal itself. “One hopes that Prof. Kershnar’s colleagues will not be among those who have fallen for the manipulatively edited video interview footage whose viral spread was initiated by a right-wing social media account known for hit jobs,” Weinberg wrote. “One hopes that these professors will take a moment to actually acquaint themselves with his views or understand the nature of his inquiries before rushing to condemn their colleague.”
Which is interesting, because Weinberg and Daily Nous aren’t generally quite so sympathetic toward “terfs.”
In its own letter to Fredonia, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education said that “Kershnar’s statements are protected by the First Amendment, which prohibits SUNY Fredonia from taking adverse action against faculty members for protected speech, however provocative or offensive it may be to others.”
Yes but “provocative” and “offensive” aren’t the only possibilities. There’s also harm. It’s easy to say that provocative and offensive speech should be free, but not so easy to say that speech that does harm should be free.
I don’t actually know what I think about whether Kershnar should be forbidden or allowed to argue that sex with minors is permissible, but I do think people arguing either way should be clear about what they’re defending.
You’re certainly right that academic freedom is not unlimited. When I was an academic, the ones with the most leeway were, of course, those persons with tenure–but even tenure doesn’t ensure absolute/unlimited speech. I chose to leave academia rather than embarking upon a tenure-track position, but I made that choice after investigating it very thoroughly. At my institution, “immoral behavior or speech” was specifically listed as a reason for revoking tenure and getting suspended or fired. Of course, the determination of what constitutes “immoral speech” is a fuzzy one, and no doubt varies from department to department even within the same university, but the point is that there’s still a line. At no point in my former career could I have imagined that supporting the idea of adult-child sex would not have caused an outcry and possible tenure review, given that children cannot consent (by definition). Maybe times have changed from those days in the early 2000’s when I was there, but I doubt it.
I agree that academic freedom must be limited in some ways. For instance, I don’t believe a Biology professor should be able to teach things that are scientifically unsound, such as Creationism or Trans Ideology. The problem comes down to…who decides what is dangerous speech? It’s easy to see in cases like this. Adult-child sex is almost a slam dunk, though I’d have to see the actual talk to know if I felt it justified dismissal.
On the other hand, some of the things considered “dangerous” by my employer have gotten me in hot water: teaching about the impacts of agriculture in Environmental Science; teaching about the evidence for global warming; helping a student form a non-believers club on campus. None of those things are dangerous, and all could be argued to be within my job description. But to my employers, they are dangerous.
So who gets to draw the line? I shudder at the idea of giving students veto power over what instructors can say, and yet…I do think certain things are not appropriate or covered by academic freedom.
It’s a seesaw.
Above and beyond the offensiveness of the position, it’s a crap job of philosophy. I read the article in Daily Nous, and it contained a fairly extensive breakdown of Kershnar’s position, which while more nuanced than the clips being touted by the right wing social media ring, are still utter shite.
He has two prongs to his discussion–he says that sex with minors should be illegal if it is harmful or against their will, but then posits that since it isn’t always harmful or against the minor’s will, there might be cases where it shouldn’t be illegal.
This, frankly, shows a grotesque ignorance of both human psychological development AND legal theory.
First off, there’s an entire body of law that exists not because of the certitude of harm, but because of the extended probability of harm–every OSHA regulation in existence, most driving laws, etc, are all based on the idea that when a particular course of action has a heightened chance of harm (even to oneself–see seat belt laws for adults), it is reasonable for the government to enact regulations and prohibitions when necessary. The fact that some 14-year-old might’ve had sex with an adult and turned out okay despite that does nothing to mitigate the fact that there is a very great risk of harm to the child, which the adult is completely and recklessly ignoring in order to sate their own desires.
As for “against their will”, it’s like the man never heard of age-of-consent laws outside of the context of sex. The fact is, adolescents are not fully formed psychologically, and therefore cannot consent to a great number of things, including signing contracts. Therefore, to talk about ‘against the will’ of the child in this context is absurd–under the law, minors have no ‘will’ to speak of, and duty of care is bestowed on their parents for that reason.
So, fine, he has a free speech right to make these arguments, but by doing so he is demonstrating his complete incompetence as a man who is paid to think things through.
Freemage:
I do wish the trans lobby would begin to understand this.
[…] a comment by Freemage on Even dangerous […]