-
1 of 10
-
2 of 10
-
3 of 10
-
4 of 10
-
5 of 10
-
6 of 10
-
7 of 10
-
8 of 10
-
9 of 10
-
10 of 10
Academic freedom under attack since Sept. 11, some professors say U.S. caused terrorism
Archive
Comments
Story
College professors are decrying a national report that criticizes them for criticizing the United States in the wake of Sept. 11, saying it reads like a blueprint for a blacklist.
The report, published by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, details more than 100 examples, including one from the University of Washington in Seattle, of what its authors interpret as a prevailing “blame America first” sentiment on college campuses.
The politically well-connected nonprofit alumni association founded in 1995 by Lynne Cheney, the vice president’s wife, believes American students are graduating without a proper appreciation for what makes America great.
“We were struck by the moral cleavage that exists between the intellectual elites and mainstream America,” said Anne Neal, the group’s vice president. “At a time when we are defending our civilization – and that’s what this war on terrorism is about – we wanted to alert university trustees that it is incumbent upon them to make sure U.S. history and the heritage of Western civilization is fairly transmitted on their campuses.”
But some professors identified in the report say singling out those critical of the U.S. government smacks of a thinly veiled witchhunt. The council says its goal is to broaden the dialogue on campus, but critics say the report strikes at the heart of academic freedom and could stifle political dissent.
Critics also point to the early 1950s, when the anti-communist hysteria of McCarthyism swept the country, ruining careers and wrecking lives.
The council’s report, published last month, “was intended to scare people and have a chilling effect, particularly on junior faculty who are more likely to be intimidated,” said David P. Barash, a tenured UW psychology professor named in the report.
“I have taken to call their acronym, ACTA, as standing for ‘Arbitrary Committee for the Talibanization of America, or Academe,’ because they are certainly trying to inhibit freedom of speech and freedom of thought,” Barash said.
Others are more concerned that the report will be used to pressure college trustees to adopt a required curriculum of U.S. history and civics that has a decidedly nationalistic bent.
“That agenda is serious, too, because it has to do with what gets taught,” said Barbara Foley, a Rutgers University English professor quoted in the report. “This report is another installment in the Lynne Cheney culture wars.”
The concept of academic freedom has been a hot topic in university faculty lounges as professors struggle over how to teach about the aftermath of Sept. 11 and what led to it.
Some professors say they are obliged to teach their perspective of the tragedy – that they believe U.S. policies engendered the hatred that led to the terrorism.
The council believes biases against the U.S. government taint lessons and are dangerous influences on students.
The council’s 38-page report begins by stating that since Sept. 11, a vast majority of patriotic Americans pledged their support to President Bush and backed the use of military force in Afghanistan.
It then lays out contrasting examples in academia.
“(An) administrator at Central Michigan University tells students to remove patriotic posters – an American flag, eagle – from their dormitory on the ground that they are ‘offensive,’ ” the report states.
David Price, an anthropology professor at St. Martin’s College near Olympia, Wash., and a critic of the report, said the pro-war position of the U.S. government is influencing the amount of dissent on campuses.
“There are certainly pressures for faculty and students who have opposing views to perform self-censorship when talking about politics,” he said. “We certainly have a long history in the country of there being consequences for speaking out against the government.”
Price has written a book that lays out a plethora of evidence on FBI intimidation of anthropologists who advocated racial equality during the McCarthy blacklisting. In an article published in the leftist newsletter CounterPunch, Price calls the council report “a prototype of a neo-McCarthyist blacklist for our new hot war.”
Barash is not intimidated by his inclusion in the report and said that his administration has been supportive. The council’s report lifted a sentence from an article he wrote for the Chronicle of Higher Education, published shortly after Sept. 11.
“Many people consider the United States to be a terrorist state,” Barash wrote. The single sentence is out of context with the rest of his article, Barash said. He wrote it while expecting the U.S. to respond to Sept. 11 in violent and undiscriminating ways that would have been counterproductive.
“I have been anti-war for as long as I can remember,” he said. “But the irony is that this is the war for which I feel most ambivalent. I’m being fingered for not being patriotic when I’m not sure at all that I am opposed to this war.”
The council report, when originally issued, identified faculty, students and campus speakers by name. But the council removed the names a few days later in a revised report now posted on the group’s Web site: www.goacta.org.
The council also excised two of the 117 examples it originally laid out, including one by George Borts, an economics professor at Brown University.
He said he called the council to complain that his statement about the CIA was misinterpreted as critical.
“I told them I felt like I had been killed by friendly fire,” said Borts, who supports the council’s objective of offsetting a perceived trend toward political correctness in higher education. But he brands the report a heavy-handed blunder.
“No one should have the license to hunt unpatriotic speech,” Borts said. “My feeling is the report, as first issued, started in that direction. And it backfired on them.”
Neal, the group’s vice president, said the revision was made because too many people focused on the names instead of the message. The report is intended to broaden the dialogue on campuses, not inhibit it, she said.
Barash, however, said if that really is the council’s goal, it could achieve that by promoting the expression of its own viewpoint on campuses rather than “impugning the patriotism of those who disagree with them.”
The council describes its overall mission as promoting academic freedom, excellence and accountability.
Cheney is the council’s chairwoman emeritus, joined on the governing board by U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, former Colorado Gov. Richard Lamm, former Cabinet Secretary William Bennett and Nobel laureate Saul Bellow.
It advances its agenda by lobbying governors to initiate higher-education reforms and offers to train college trustees on governance. The council also encourages governors and trustees to adopt required curriculum on American history and civics.
Neal pointed out that the council came to the defense of a tenured University of New Mexico history professor quoted in the report who was threatened with discipline by his administration. Richard Berthold had told his class Sept. 11: “Anyone who can blow up the Pentagon has my vote.” He later apologized.
Members of the New Mexico Legislature demanded his resignation and threatened to cut the university’s budget unless he was fired. The university handed down its discipline for Berthold on Monday: a reprimand.
“Our support of him should underline that we support academic freedom,” Neal said.
“We believe faculty members have a right to speak their mind just as we have a right to speak back and criticize. I’ve been struck by those who have responded with vitriol to our report. Are they saying we can’t criticize them or hold them accountable for their statements?”
Stuart Eskenazi, The Seattle Times
