Academic freedom and tenure are supposed to protect (in theory) professor’s who advocate idea and theories and whatnot that are not popular, but that also doesn’t protect professors if their work is found to be dishonest or fabricated, either. Put it this way, if I had the power and the right to do so, I would fire the entire economics department at the U of Chicago because I personally think their economic ideas are a disaster area, but of course I can’t (and shouldn’t be allowed to) fire them because of it either, because whatever I think of their notions, they do back it up with research and whatnot.
Something like this, though, is like having a teacher promoting white supremacy on a genetic basis, and showing ‘research’ that turns out to be falsified or copied from some white supremacist ‘research institute’. Claiming that 9/11 and Charlie Hedbo were caused by zionists might be great in a bar full of idiots someplace, but when a teacher (one who obviously is way out of her field claims that), it violates the rules of scholarship when she is espousing as fact something that can only be ‘proved’ by spurious logic (like the claim no Jews went to work at the WTC that day…really?). This is much like the garbage that AIDS was concocted at a government lab to kill off blacks which some crackpots in academia at one time claimed was ‘corroborated by government sources’ (needless to say, those people either changed their tune or were gone, especially after genetic analysis showed the true trajectory of AIDS).
I am all for teachers who have controversial views, but only if they are done within the realm of research and fact. I had an economics teacher who was a socialist, and he was one of the best teachers I ever had, not because I agreed with him, but because we had some great sparring matches over ideas (for the record, I didn’t disagree with his view of capitalism as it is practiced at all, just his idea of ‘curing its ills’), it this was the 1950’s he could have been fired under pressure because of the McCarthy witchunt (fortunately it was the 80’s, so he couldn’t).
Her online posts are more along the lines of say…Holocaust revisionists acting as history Profs, Creationists/ID advocates acting as Profs in biology/medical related fields, flat earthers acting as Profs in astronomy/geography, advocates of Lysenkoism acting as Profs in biology/genetics, etc.
Should any adherents of completely debunked/discredited theories/ideas be given the great forum a college/university Prof is provided and the high degree of prestige/credibility which comes with it in the name of “academic freedom”. Especially when doing so would effectively subvert it by undermining the veracity of the academic part?
Maybe we should bring back the “science” of physiognomy* back into the hallowed halls of academia despite the fact it has been widely and roundly discredited by its heinously horrific uses by the Nazis and other racist groups in Europe and North America* and subsequent scientific research…especially after WWII.
For instance, the origin of the Columbia's application section requesting an applicant photograph in the '20s was precisely to see what the applicant's face looked like and use physiognomy to determine whether he was the "right fit" for the institution. While it was optional when I was applying to colleges and presumably nowadays, an applicant photograph was mandatory and if the applicant's face didn't fit what the adcoms considered to be a good fit by their use of physiognomy, said applicant was rejected without a second thought.
Believe me, I understand (and share) everyone’s disgust at what this teacher is saying. I will note, however, that you may feel differently when another institution fires somebody for “lies” when you don’t agree that they are lies.
Edited to add: I was thinking about the recent case, also discussed here, about the professor who was fired (or resigned) from Wheaton College after saying that Muslims and Christians worship the same God.
“I will note, however, that you may feel differently when another institution fires somebody for “lies” when you don’t agree that they are lies”
Except that there is no proof whatsoever that her claims are true. She certainly offers none! It’s like, say, an astronomy professor saying on every possible occasion that the earth is flat despite all evidence to the contrary, and no evidence of her own.
C’mon. This isn’t a freedom of speech issue. This is a case of willful disregard of facts. The hate-mongering is just the cherry on top.
If the lies are demonstrably false by an overwhelming body of evidence, then I don’t have much sympathy for those that insist on believing in totally wacko conspiracy theories. I hope that universities continue to be a bastion of support for actual facts and reasoned debate. In today’s climate of fake news and conspiracy theories, it’s more important than ever.
Religious schools are totally separate as they’re teaching faith, not facts. They’re going to do whatever their dogma tells them to do and people working with them should be well aware of that.
“Religious schools are totally separate as they’re teaching faith, not facts.”
Yes, though there are religious schools where theology is taken seriously as an academic subject. I previously thought that Wheaton was one of them. The fired professor’s point of view is, at a bare minimum, defensible theologically with textual and historical evidence.
Hunt, is there any point at which you would say that a professor should be fired for statements they’ve made? Can a professor at a non-religious college say that the Earth is flat and that the Sun orbits the Earth? How about saying that members of certain races are sub-human? Or that radical right or left wingers were behind the 9/11 attacks? Or that there were no deaths at Sandy Hook Elementary School?
A regular substitute teacher at my Ds’ (public) middle school would tell students that the moon landing was faked. He had tenure, so our regular complaints to the principal and the school board didn’t result in any changes in his classroom behavior, or in his being present in a classroom. Should his behavior be allowed because he is tenured and thus protected by academic freedom?
@Hunt, the Wheaton and Oberlin cases are very different. I found the Wheaton case unsettling because one could examine scriptural and scholarly evidence and make the case the fired prof made. Though I don’t personally agree with this view, it is not unscholarly.
But in the case of Joy Karega, there is no evidence to support her claim that Jews were to blame for 9/11. Lying about facts is not scholarship. She is simply unqualified to teach.
Katlia- you are demonstrating the kind of “respect” to false news that has allowed the entire industry of made up conspiracy theories to thrive. What kind of evidence? What kind of absurd world do we live in?
If you heard “evidence” that aliens landed in downtown Chicago last night would that also change your mind? If you heard “evidence” that Neil Armstrong faked the moon walk would that alter your POV on the success of our space program?
9/11 was a shocking and horrifying terrorist attack and thousands of people died. Why would you even be willing to listen to a ridiculous (and anti-semitic- implying that American Jews are not really Americans but are in cahoots with the Israeli government to kill Americans on American soil) lie and evil allegation?
I’m not having fun with you at all. I guess I’m an extremist when it comes to free speech (and to academic freedom, which is kind of a stepchild of free speech). I don’t like to see people punished for the content of their speech, no matter how offensive it may be. I guess if I were the head of university, I’d have to draw some lines. Certainly, I would punish somebody for the same kinds of speech that can be punished under the law–libel and threats, for example. Perhaps I’d have to apply some kind of criteria to whether a teacher’s views made it impossible for him to teach his assigned courses effectively–i.e., I don’t think I’d have to assign physics courses to a teacher who believed that the laws of physics weren’t real and that it was all magic.
But wasn’t Karenga a teacher of rhetoric, not history or political science? Would you fire, say, a computer science teacher for expressing the same views she did? If so, aren’t you just firing people because they have views you don’t like? As I’ve said, Oberlin can do this, because it’s a private institution. But even if everybody seems to agree that this is the extreme case, I still say that it chills academic freedom. It causes every professor with controversial views to ask, “Do I dare to say this?” Is that what we want?
@Hunt If a professor is publicly known to be a bigot, it will have a chilling effect on the classroom. The academic field of the professor does not matter. To me, that is enough reason to fire her.
I think that we may well indeed make contact with extraterrestrials some day. Chicago is as good a landing place as any other. It there is actual evidence of it, why would one deny it?
There is a difference between crazy conspiracy theories and things that actually might happen. IMHO, Mossad and the CIA conspiring to create 9/11 is beyond the pale, even for them. The obviously ludicrous idea that “no Jews went to work in the WTC on 9/11” can be debunked by simply glancing through the names of the list of victims. A faked moon landing is similarly beyond belief.
On the other hand, the CIA definitely did conspire to bring down the governments and assassinate the leaders of countries around the world. Jim Garrison said that Clay Shaw was a CIA operative who seemed to be involved in manipulating and directing Lee Harvey Oswald. That he worked for the CIA was vigorously denied and pooh-poohed. Now. of course, we know that he DID work for the CIA.
How about this article? Is being willing to listen to this evidence some kind of character flaw? Is this fake news? Is it antisemitic?