Chad Shuldt is quite correct to point out, in the last paragraph of his recent blog on this topic, that Professor Schaff and I take the subject of free speech in academia very seriously. This is because it is very important to our profession. I would note, however, that South Dakota in general and Northern State University in particular still appear to be places where free speech is respected. To date no one in authority has so much as suggested that we ought to stop expressing our opinions on this blog. Nor has a single one of my colleagues complained about what is written here, or at least they have not identified themselves as such. To be sure, we have our detractors. Many appear as commentators attached to Chad's entries, and others have posted on the discussion board at the Aberdeen American News. But for the most part they do so under pen names, so I cannot know who they are.
Chad's recent post seems to me for the most part to be reasonable. Especially this paragraph:
Schaff and Blanchard want to make this a "free speech issue", and it's hard to disagree with their point of view. These two right-wingers certainly have the right to speak their mind, and for democracy's sake, I hope they continue to do so. Both commonly have something worthwhile to add to the public discussion.
That's as fair as one can ask for, and I would say the same about CCK. This is what the blogosphere is for. I do have some problems with this paragraph:
But when a university professor, paid for with my tax dollars, goes off the deep end and says something so imflamatory like what Schaff wrote, I am going to take the time to point it out. I'm not saying Schaff or Blanchard can't say wacky stuff. I'm just saying that I'm going to point it out.
Surely Chad would have the same right to point out the "wacky" things we say if we were not public employees. Nor does the fact that we are give us any less right to be wacky on occasion. I have explicitly invited Chad to take issue with me on any point he chooses. And then there is this:
And I also believe that the integrity of the University is at stake. If professors are allowed to make statements like "the idea that we are winning in Iraq will make much of the left angry", the President and the University community should be made aware of it, and in my opinion, should be concerned about the affect it has on the reputation of the University.
While I think that Chad in general respects the principle of free speech, the notion that professors might be "allowed" and by logic not be allowed to make such statements as Professor Schaff did seems to me to cross a line. The statement in question reveals exactly why that line should not be crossed.
There are many reasons why someone on the left, or the right for that matter, might not be happy to hear that we are winning the war in Iraq. Some might not want to hear it because they think it is false, and that in encourages us to stay in Iraq when we should be pulling out. All you have to do is look at the comments on the Daily KOS, and note the frequency of the word "quagmire," to see that this is representative of "much of the left." Others might not be happy to hear it precisely because it might be true, and might encourage more such foreign policy adventures. These would be reasonable opinions whether I agree with them or not, and neither is inconsistent with patriotism or implies any sympathy for the insurgents. I should point out that there are those on the right who hold one or the other opinion. On the other hand, when I watched footage of the recent anti-war rally in Washington D.C., I heard one young woman describing the insurgents as freedom fighters. I am sure that that view represents a small minority on the left. But it is there. Likewise those who actively oppose military recruiting in schools, who in effect would dry up the supply of persons on whom an all-volunteer army depends, at the very least don't care whether we are winning in Iraq. As I read the composition of the American left on this question, it is simply true to say that "much" of it wouldn't be happy to hear that we are winning the war.
Chad obviously interpreted the statement differently, and both of us are subject to bias. If any agent of the state at any level, in his or her official capacity, tried to disallow or perhaps favor such a statement, that would require officially adopting Chad's bias or mine. Probably that would be a bad idea. I do not expect it.
I confess that one reason Professor Schaff and I have spent so much attention on this subject is that it is fun to fight on terms that virtually guarantee victory. Free speech is about as well protected in the modern academy as anywhere at any time. If Ward Churchill is ever fired it won't be because he discredited his institution by expressing unfavorable ideas. I flatter myself that the content of this blog can be defended before any reasonable forum.
Recent Comments