UC-San Diego Dean Violated Academic Freedom by Suppressing Paper, Faculty Allege

Prof. B doesn’t have to be so snide toward Larry, because much of what she writes is spot-on. There’s the idea of ‘women’s centers,’ which for reasons I need not describe are automatically objects of hatred for people like Larry, regardless of what they do or don’t do. And then there are women’s centers, which, to anyone who’s actually set foot in one, typically do a range of programming for both women and men, and provide resources to address and educate on many of the messy, unexciting, unsexy bits of female sexuality that teenage women were discouraged from addressing or talking about, with parents, teachers, etc. prior to having arrived on a college campus. I dare say young men could use a similarly dedicated center for their own questions, so we don’t end up finding all of the answers to our analogous questions via internet porn and alcohol-fueled experimentation.

On a broader scale, Larry’s position fits in with the ‘higher ed indoctrination’ crowd, which paradoxically highlights the importance of strong family values in the rearing of children, then protests that the various ways of expanding one’s horizons at the university threaten to erode all that was inculcated in the first place. But if strong family values are so lasting and important, then why the hell are they deemed so fragile and fleeting when the topic of university programming comes up? Either we obtain lasting values from our household upbringing, values that when we change we do so thoughtfully and over a long period of time; or we obtain cheap indoctrination from our parents before being easily reindoctrinated by our professors and women’s centers. It can’t be both at the same time. I suspect, as I’ve said before, that college students are quite capable of thinking for themselves, especially when openmindedness is supported, not suppressed. Accordingly, I’m not sent into a panic at the idea that 18 year olds might learn about sex in college from something other than month-long drinking binge, punctuated by a series of one night stands.

First, I think this debate between “Gina” and “Larry” shows that newspapers aren’t really in the business of informing readers about important issues. They’re more about entertainment and ideological self-confirmation than anything else. Did anyone learn anything from this “discussion” (including the question of what exactly the Women’s Center is and what goes on there?)

But while the issue is on the table, I think the problem with these discussions is that they tend to conflate several different questions (and, yes, I’m going to conflate Women’s Center with Women’s Studies, because I can’t figure out if Gina and Larry are doing this as well):

1) What are appropriate topics for academic investigation, and do some topics merit more attention that others? Are there some subjects that are simply inappropriate, and, if so, who decides and on what grounds?

2) What are the appropriate methodologies for approaching such topics, and how do we resolve debates among competing methodologies?

3) What are the reasons (historical as well as contemporary) for studying certain topics, and how much do those reasons inform our answers to the first two questions?

4) Is there an appropriate disciplinary home for the study of certain subjects? How valuable are “interdisciplinary” subjects, especially when students are still acquiring competence in the “feeder” disciplines?

5) What exactly is the role of the myriad “centers” and student organizations that exist on college campuses? Do they contribute to or detract from the educational mission of the university?

Larry goes through just about all these questions, although, as I said above, he’s not wording them in anything resembling an intellectual inquiry. And Gina isn’t exactly trying to give answers to these questions either.

Is this hilarious sarcasm or total cluelessness? The idea that you could get honest, frank, and accurate information or advice about sex from a Roman Catholic Priest or a Southern Baptist minister? How about asking about the STD risks of anal or oral sex, or advice on getting a second trimester abortion, or something as simple and common as condom use?
Larry and pocvecem’s assumption that a Women’s Center is founded on “self-pitying programs” betrays their own delusions and misogynist agendas: “just man up!”

Chuck Kleinhans

Who said I thought you could get good, accurate information about sex from the priest or minister? I would argue that good information from those sources or from the women’s center is hard to find.

And I will repeat again: read the academic criticisms of women’s studies (not just the simplistic overview and political talking points) to get a real sense of where the “self-pity” descriptor comes from.

@ TIND

No, I did not choose a book by two women as a way of raising my credibility. A few years ago this book was republished in an expanded new edition, meaning that its significance has been established. I pointed out the authors’ genders because you wrote about how significant it was that men were making certain criticisms. If women are making the criticisms too (and doing a better job of it, I might add), it isn’t just the men. How precisely does that qualify as “forming a stereotype?”

And you say feminism doesn’t elevate its ideas above others? Do you mean that feminists of any stripe would support the opening of campus chapters of conservative women’s organizations? (Yes, such things do exist.) Do you mean to tell me that feminists don’t privilege their “knowledge” over the perspectives offered by people on other parts of the political spectrum?

Also, you like to wave around the diversity in feminist perspectives as a way of warding off criticism of feminism as a whole. That’s kind of like the priest and the minister saying that there is a great diversity among Christians that prevents any valid criticism of Christianity as a whole. Even then, you’re still able to offer a concise definition of feminism: “Feminism is the study of power at important intersections (gender, ethnicity, sexuality etc..)” So presumably it’s not unfair to speak of the single field as a whole.

Lastly, one other issue:

I seem to remember your comments to goxewu at this other thread:

http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/fem-x-inismsquared/33333

You spent a lengthy post quoting goxewu on recent instances of where he “demonizes everybody but himself” Glass houses, stones, etc.

In a reply above to Povecem (is that ‘Povečem’ if diacritics are available?), Trendisnot… says this:

“your words reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of what feminism is… Feminism is the study of power at important intersections (gender, ethnicity, sexuality etc.).’

Then why isn’t it called “Powerism” ? Or “Powerology”?

pocvecem,

This ‘priest, minister, rabbi’ comparison is absurd. Just because you likely wouldn’t get sound advice about reproductive health, for example, from leaders of religions that have relatively narrow prescriptions about what constitutes a reasonable and moral sexual encounter doesn’t mean that you couldn’t get sound advice from a women’s center. I see that you’re trying to suggest with your comparison that all centers concerned are ideologically driven, but independent of the ideological goals of a women’s center, they serve very pragmatic functions, largely related to sexual health issues for women. That was my initial point: it’s one thing to be of an opposing political ideology, but anyone who knows anything about women’s centers on campus should understand that their primary function has little at all to do with feminisms or feminist ideologies. Unless, of course, you consider legal and emotional counseling after sexual assault, advice about contraception and reproductive health, STDs, and dealing with unwanted sexual advances, among many other things, to be unwelcome ideological attacks.

I don’t think anyone is going to like the comparison, but this discussion really reminds me of the one where people argued back and forth about whether the Tea Party was racist. Again, the problem with such broad characterizations is that evidence is really hard to come by, and your willingness to accept that evidence as sufficient depends upon what your prior beliefs about the group in question are. I looked up *Professing Feminism* on preview of Google Books, so my reading of their book is quite limited. What I see, however, is that they write that “thirty women from around the country contributed their experiences and reflections to the work” and they admit that “we have not conducted an exhaustive inventory of Women’s Studies programs.” So I’m not sure whether I would call the work “a solid intellectual discussion.” I only having a passing familiarity with the issue, but I have problems with just about every claim they make, the evidence they present, and their analysis of it.

(Look on page 9: they asked students in two Women’s Studies Programs — one, in their words, that was highly politicalized, and one that wasn’t — what Women’s Studies Programs were all about. They report that students at both institutions gave responses that were focused mostly on practical issues and not on overtly political/ideological ones — a claim that would seem to go against the thesis of their book, since the authors seem to favor the “practical” side of Women Studies. They then asked the students what students who did not study Women’s Studies think that Women Studies were all about. The answers were, surprise, surprise, “male bashing,” miltiant feminists,” create a “touchy-feely class,” etc. etc. Now, this discrepancy between students is interesting, but how does one interpret it? If students who actually study Women Studies have one characterization of it, can you really blame the professors teaching it for the characterization of Women Students by students who don’t?).

I admit that I haven’t read the entire book, so maybe they have more detailed evidence somewhere else. Before you respond with a defense, however, ask yourself: Let’s say that the group in question is one that you were sympathetic towards. Would the evidence be sufficient to convince you that their claim is true, or do they depend upon the audience already having an unfavourable impression? Remember, we are talking about ALL Women’s Studies programs in the US.

Well, first of all I can’t respond to your “Professing Feminism” comment in the slot right after it, so my thoughts will have to be down here.

If I might respond to your final question: I don’t think it’s fair to characterize ALL women’s studies programs or courses that way. Based on my personal observations, there seem to be two types of Women’s Studies: one that takes up women-centered topics that have fallen by the wayside (such as: what were women doing during those historical periods when we only hear about major male historical figures?), and one that applies political ideology to various topics. I have no criticism for practitioners of the first type of women’s studies although, based on my admittedly limited observations, those scholars seem to have integrated themselves more with traditional disciplinary homes and left Women’s Studies to the ideologues.

Your next question from above: would Professing Feminism be enough to convince me, especially if I weren’t already sympathetic to the perspective being offered? Answer: probably not. BUT: The format of the book, with its focus on individual subjectivities, is of a format that falls more closely towards the scholarly preferences of those who are inclined to disagree with me (and them). I have to wonder if Patai and Koertge weren’t using their caveat about the book not being an “exhaustive study” to needle their critics.

And do I think Larry is any better (than the women’s centers, I presume)? It depends. Larry is the openly conservative half of a pair writers who are serving the stated function of columnists. He is performing his job and is not pretending to be something he isn’t. Women’s centers, when defending themselves, generally promote their primary purpose as being the good work they do (rape counseling and the like). But what happens is that all these secondary agendas come in and suddenly you have a necessary campus entity promoting questionable projects that bear little or no resemblance to the centers’ justification for existence.

The downside of Larry, as you noted already, is that he does not rise to the level of an intellectual debate. I didn’t think Barecca did too well herself, but that’s to be expected in the forum they were writing in. I also think his implicit call to axe the women’s centers is overwrought. I would rather argue that the centers should be refocused on the critical services they provide while eliminating the excesses and political ideology that have crept in along the way. Right now, women’s centers have rightfully become lightning rods for criticism; that is a tragedy because our campuses do need an uncontroversial provider of rape-related services.

But, again, if there was this distinction between the two types of Women Studies departments, wouldn’t the students from the “political” Women Studies department that Patagai and Koertge asked have different answers about what Women Studies is than the students from the “practical” Women Studies department? If students from both the “politicized” women studies and the “practical women studies departments give “practical” answers, can you really say that the politicized Women Studies department is trying to indoctrinate its students?

It is easy to “say” that one is takes up “women-centered topics that have been marginalized” and one “applies political ideology to various topics,” but what exactly does this mean when it comes to the types of courses that are offered or the approaches within them? Do you honestly believe that Women Studies departments try to get female students to abandon heterosexuality? Or to get students to believe all men are evil? Again, saying things like “Women Studies departments promote anti-male propaganda” is easy, but it might be helpful to have an example so we could see for ourselves whether it really is, in fact, anti-male propaganda or is representative of a significant majority (And, again, I would say the same about how the Tea Party is often presented).

I’m also a bit suspicious about this so-caled split between traditional disciplinary homes and Women Studies. I might be wrong about this, but I think that there are very few full-time Women Studies instructors. I believe a lot of the classes offered in Women Studies are cross-listed, and that most of the instructors located in a traditional discipline. Moreover, haven’t conservatives complained that the academy in general is too liberal, that English, sociology, etc. have become overtly political? Which one is correct, because I can’t see how they both can be.

Finally, what exactly are all these “questionable” projects that bear little or no resemblance to the center’s justification for existence? Again, some examples would be helpful.(And, yes, I know calling something Fornication 101 is just asking for trouble, but I think the larger question is not so much what it is called but whether making that kind of information available is questionable and, if so, why.

Nicely stated edwoof and nordiexpat!

There is one more less antagonistic point that needs to be made here. This has to do with “othering”.

I am involved in 15 year cross cultural (religious, ethnicity) marriage, so maybe I am more sensitive to processes that separate difference using tradition, authority and shared “power” language than most. Sometimes these interactions reveal sexism, racism or complete inclusion. One never knows, do they? You have to stay open, risk the potential for negative energy…

What this experience has taught me (among many things) is that we humans have this insane capacity to judge from a distance (a safe distance), but when we venture out of our comfort zone (getting a passport and traveling, or taking a class on a topic we know nothing about or engaging a person who is “the other”), we close this distance and categories become less important than the story. As a Caucasian male, there are really very few requirements that challenge me to have to interact with anyone different. Even here on Brainstorm, I never really have to engage “others” positions, but we convince ourselves that we do… One can easily opt out of most situations that offer the slightest risk. My point is that the closer we get to real relationships, the more we understand context…

I am sure this is the case with many groups (one’s like the tea party — that nordiexpat so appropriately points out). My distance makes me less credible, so we rely upon “others” to help us form our opinions (like Matt Taibbi)…. Ultimately, how we construct those who are seemingly different defines our values. When I read Larry, I see someone who hasn’t done that work yet to get close enough to really understand feminism beyond how it differs from him at any one moment. When I read Gina, I see her reacting to Larry (without regard for his distance —- assuming that he will always take the position that he currently holds)….. This is what edwoof calls the shrillness.

At a time where there is so much fracture within and among communities, feminism offers a spirit that is designed to really examine how our power relations in our country work (not just the typical places that men and women retreat to when the conversation becomes irretrievable). There are some patriarchal systems that most of us can agree need to change: federal banking system, wall street executive pay, criminal prosecutions for fraud….

How we characterize those who are “other” and how we choose to react to those espousing the dominant male worldview is not working….. regardless if it is I or Pocvecem or Gina/Larry or Women’s Centers vs. Christian Coalition…. this is where we get stuck….

Judging by the San Diego Union-Tribune story, there is here as clear a violation of academic freedom as you could want. But beyond that, it appears that a dean of an academic division does not understand that knowledge of all kinds cannot change (or progress or “improve,” if you want to view things that way) without free criticism of the ideas of others. That, Elman baby, is at the very heart of it!

“Seems like there is more to this story…”? I wonder whose crystal ball that came from.  Seems pretty straight forward to me.

America’s current epitemology:
1) truth is important until and unless if offends someone
2) negatives are not legitimate comments or parts of language
3) all truths should be Disney-fied—smiley and without lions red in tooth and claw
4) be happy!!  and exaggerate your self esteem via regular exercises in lying.
5) remember the founders were mostly slave owners!!!

As a once-and-former dean in a public university, I tried but failed to imagine any circumstances in which I might send such a note to a faculty member.  (I was also puzzled
by the possibility  that a university lawyer might have supported such language.) 

If I were concerned about something a faculty member was planning to publish
(because I thought s/he might be at legal risk for slander, or just because it ran
the risk of undermining collegiality), I’d meet with the professor, explain my
concerns, and try to make sure that s/he was making an informed choice.  But I can’t imagine any sensible view of academic freedom that would permit me to say, “You can’t publish, and may be sanctioned if you do.”   And, though I’m not a lawyer, I suspect CU-Alum is correct about the first amendment concerns.

Most of the Deans are stupid.

Need for transparency at University of California
Berkeley has never been so clear. Chancellor Robert
J Birgeneau ($500,000 salary) displaces qualified for public university
education at Cal.
instate Californians for a $50,600 payment and a foreign passport.

UC Berkeley, ranked # 70 Forbes, is not increasing
enrollment.  Birgeneau accepts $50,600
FOREIGN students at the expense of qualified Californians.

UC Regent Chairwoman Lansing and President Yudof agree to discriminating
against instate Californians for foreigners. Birgeneau, Yudof, Lansing need to answer to Californians.

Your opinion makes a difference; email UC Board of
Regents   marsha.kelman@ucop.edu