Scholars no longer operate in an information vacuum. Their words carry great weight not only with their students, who pay for and deserve far better than they receive, but with the media, which funnel their often politicized, tendentious views to a broader public. Given such influence, it should shock no one that the professoriate is scrutinized and, when found wanting, challenged.
Anderson and company’s frequently alleged claims that outsiders threaten their freedom of speech is, on the one hand, risible. Campus Watch and other organizations or individuals who critique academe don’t possess the authority of the state; we have no subpoena power, no ability to force their acquiescence, nor do we seek it.
What we’ve challenged isn’t the academics’ right to speak as they wish. Rather, we’ve challenged their ability to practice their trade in hermetically sealed conditions free from the need to answer to anyone but themselves. We’ve held them accountable much as countless organizations and journalists have critiqued the behavior of other professions, from doctors and lawyers to clergy and businessmen.
In most ways I think this is good. Academics should be held up to rigorous scrutiny, not just at hiring time, but throughout their career, after all their stock in trade is ideas and ideas should be examined. However, challenging their ideas should not cross the line into enforcing orthodoxy or intimidation. It's a fine line but it has to be held. If it isn't then someone like the next Sir Isaac Newton may not be able to bring their ideas forward.
Education
No comments:
Post a Comment