Dr. Andrew Ross responded to my earlier post about his acts of what I describe as educational malpractice by wrapping himself in the flag of academic freedom and hurling insults at me. Having worked in an academic research laboratory and having been a faculty member for 13 years, I well understand the concept of academic freedom and its importance to the sanctity of academic research. There is not a doubt in my mind that faculty members should be free to ask any question they want, and to engage in the pursuit of the truth, so long as their research does not harm another person.
What we must ask ourselves, however, is where we should draw the line between academic freedom and academic malpractice. With every privilege comes responsibility, and I would argue that the professoriate has spent far too much time contemplating the former while all but ignoring the later. The membership of AAUP can hardly be considered an unbiased group when it comes to contemplating the limits of academic freedom.
Faculty members have the obligation to ask hard, unbiased questions and seek truthful, unbiased answers. It is for that reason that I was astounded to see such a strong reaction from the academic freedom lovers when Larry Summers asked a reasonable and important question about the possibility that biological differences between men and women could explain at least part of the gender disparity in math and science. His question was very reasonable given the results of brain imaging studies that show obvious gender differences in problem solving and information processing. Yet because his suggestion did not align with the political ideology of the mostly left-leaning faculty, he was treated like Galileo upon presenting mathematical evidence in support of heliocentrism. It would seem that the academy, itself, has sought to put boundaries around academic freedom and to taint it with the filter of political ideology that it was created to evade.
Clearly there are limits on academic freedom, and if you don’t believe me, then go and speak with the members of your campus Institutional Review Board (IRB). Academics–or at least the agencies that fund their work–do not believe that the right of academic freedom trumps the rights of individuals who may be harmed, either directly or indirectly, by the scholarly pursuit of knowledge, no matter how well intentioned that research might be. We no longer allow the academic freedom of syphilis research to trump the individual rights of a participant to receive medical treatment. These days, you can’t even survey students about their study or dating habits without IRB approval, despite the fact that many students seem to tell the most intimate details of their lives to just about anyone with a Facebook account. IRB’s serve as evidence that academic freedom does have limits and that while the natural inclination of faculty is to push the limits in the name of inquiry, impartial peer reviewers have the obligation to ensure that the research poses no undue harm to its participants.
If Dr. Ross wishes for his call to default on student loans to be covered under the umbrella of academic freedom, then I would ask to see the written consent he received from his IRB to engage students in this experiment in cultural studies. He is not just some regular citizen calling upon students to default on their loans. Instead, he is an academic authority figure who collects a paycheck from an institution that is obligated by their participation in the Federal Student Aid program to educate their students on their obligation to repay in good faith. Who will students be more inclined to obey–their popular, almost heroic professor who appeals to their narcissistic sense of entitlement (nobody wants to pay for a service they have already received), or some financial-aid counselor who asks them to complete an online counseling session at the beginning and end of their college experience?
The question is whether Dr. Ross is covered by academic freedom when he tells students to do something that knowingly violates a contractual agreement (which is ultimately with the taxpayer) and that knowingly will bring quick and predictable harm to those who comply with his request. There is no question about the fact that every student who defaults will face penalties, compounding interest and bad credit scores, which will harm them financially and possibly even professionally (many employers check credit scores, including the federal government) for some time to come.
Professor Ross has gained notoriety for his OWS speech and his call for borrowers to default on their student loans. The question is, at whose expense? Who should be held financially responsible for the consequences the defaulters will face? Given that Professor Ross is an employee of NYU and a trusted higher-education figure who has not provided all of the facts about the likely consequences of student-loan default, does his academic freedom free him from financial obligation for the damage he is inflicting?
Defaulting on a student loan will most definitely NOT set these student borrowers free. Perhaps NYU should also be held accountable for all student-loan defaults that occur after Dr. Ross’s call to action since it is their professor who is encouraging this sort of behavior. Finally, perhaps NYU should be required to reimburse institutions across the country for the millions of dollars they are spending to implement rigorous default-prevention programs, only to have their hard work undone by the words of a single media-hogging professor.
