 |
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
Worse Than McCarthy?
Thursday, February 9, at 1 p.m., U.S. Eastern time
During the late 1940s and 1950s, scores of academics reputed to be communists lost their jobs. Thousands more abandoned professional projects for fear of being blacklisted. Today, "despite the post-September 11 patriotic furor that discourages dissent," writes Ellen Schrecker in this week's Chronicle Review, few professors have suffered for their political beliefs or activities. Nevertheless, she says, "today's assault on the academy is more serious" because "it reaches directly into the classroom."
Citing the campaign against Middle Eastern studies and the consideration in numerous state legislatures of David Horowitz's "academic bill of rights," Ms. Schrecker argues that, in contrast to the McCarthy era, when professors' extracurricular activities were under scrutiny, conservative critics of academe now want to intrude into decisions about personnel, curricula, and teaching methods -- in disregard of the professional standards that ensure the quality of higher education. And thanks to budget cuts and dwindling public support, academe may have a harder time than ever protecting its autonomy.
Do you agree? How is the political climate for professors similar to or different from that at the height of anticommunism? Are professors censoring themselves? Is tenure protection enough?
» Worse Than McCarthy (2/10/2006)
Ellen Schrecker is a professor of history at Yeshiva University, a former editor of Academe, and the author of several books about the McCarthy era and its aftermath, including Many Are the Crimes: McCarthyism in America (Little, Brown, 1998).
Karen Winkler (Moderator):
Hello, and welcome. I'm Karen Winkler, a senior editor with The Chronicle Review, and I'll be your moderator today. We're talking with Ellen Schrecker about the intellectual climate on campus today. Ellen, would you like to begin with a few introductory comments?
Ellen Schrecker:
Hello and thanks so much for letting me participate in this Colloquy. It's exciting to be able to communicate directly with people who are as concerned as I am about the current state of academic freedom and I'm grateful to the Chronicle for giving me this opportunity.
I've been charting the condition of academic freedom, now, for more than twenty years, ever since the late 1970s when I began to work on No Ivory Tower: McCarthyism and the Universities. Since then, I've become active in the AAUP, first as editor of its magazine, ACADEME, and now as a member of the National Council. And, here, I'm making a plug for the organization. I feel very strongly that all of us in the academic community need to join the AAUP and support its work. It is the only organization in this country that is devoted to maintaining the intellectual freedom and autonomy of the academic profession as a whole. True, there are disciplinary organizations and faculty unions that do excellent work in this area. But, only the AAUP speaks for all academics; and, at a time when our freedom and autonomy seem to be in danger, it is crucial that faculty members have a strong, solid, organizational presence in the public sphere.
Let me also emphasize, before we begin our conversation, that the right-wing attack on academic freedom is hardly the most serious problem facing this country's universities. The fiscal dilemmas, embodied in the Bush administration's current cut-backs on student aid and some of its other "economies," pose a much, much greater threat to our system of higher education. So, with that in mind, let's talk. And let's be grated that we have the Chronicle around to keep us up to date on this, alas, depressing situation.
Karen Winkler (Moderator):
Many thanks, Ellen. Now Let's go on to questions.
Question from Lynn Gregory, U of Vermont:
If I remember correctly, a part of the communist hunts focused on higher education and was directed at liberal professors using their positions to proliferate communism in the classroom. Is that not true?
I have done research that seems to indicate that students anticipate being offended by instructors a great deal more than actually happens. This research asked about self-disclosure with regard to many topics including politics and religion. It appears that one of the outcomes of the attack on professors is that it heightens students' readiness to be offended. How do you see this affecting communication in higher education?
Do you see two sides to this issue? On one hand is the seemingly absolute control that some promote while the other is the professional responsibility of professors to not turn their classes into podiums for their own agendas without regard for what they are teaching.
Ellen Schrecker:
No -- despite all the hysteria of the time, the witch hunts were focused mainly on what professors -- liberal and otherwise -- were doing outside the classroom. That's why the attacks on the university today are potentially more serious. They ARE reaching into the classroom.
To question your second question: What interesting findings. I'm not surprised. After all, this is the age of the consumer. There's an expectation that students should find their courses "satisfactory" and so, obviously, if they find themselves in disagreement with what they think they should be getting in the classroom, then they will be dissatisfied. The big problem here -- and I wonder how this plays out in your research -- is that much of that dissatisfaction is not with students feeling offended as it is with students concern about their grades. And, for teachers who are insecure about their positions, it's hard to imagine they can let themselves express anything that they fear might offend their students.
To question 3, about whether professors can still have such "absolute control" in their classrooms? It's hard to imagine that in this day and age of student evaluations and increasing emphasis on accountability by administrations that anyone could get away with spewing out irrelevant
stuff in his or her classroom. The issue may well be that what is one person's "irrelevant" material is someone else's important "cultural context." And, we must be very careful not to force our colleagues into overly narrow disciplinary boxes.
Question from Martha McClary, Lower Columbia CC:
The tone of the introduction (a conservative assault on higher education) implies that only liberal ideas are supposed to be presented on campus and any opposing views are to be stopped at all costs (hence, the reference to McCarthy). I thought the college campus was to be the free forum of all ideas. Ellen wants to prevent that. Isn't she therefore guilty of the very thing she so despises? I don't really see any difference whatsoever.
Ellen Schrecker:
Martha -- I think you misunderstood my argument. I'm not against having conservative ideas expressed on campus, nor even against hiring conservative professors. What I see as the danger is that people outside the academic profession are imposing external political criteria on key academic decisions like personnel and curricula. If conservatives are qualified for faculty appointments (and many are, just as liberals, radicals, moderates, and apolitical types are too), then they should receive them. But not because some politician or pundit forces them onto the faculty.
Question from Raymond J. Jirran, retired, Thomas Nelson Community College:
Does covert racism have a place in the conservative assault on higher education?
Ellen Schrecker:
Much of the conservative assault on higher education is a backlash against the social movements of the 1960s that opened the university to new and underserved populations. Since the civil-rights movement was certainly at the center of that educational transformation, it may be the case that some kind of covert racism may be at play here, but I doubt that it would ever surface except as it manifests itself in a hostility to affirmative action and to the introduction of multiculturalism into the curriculum.
Question from John K. Wilson, Illinois State University:
When U of Colorado president Elizabeth Hoffman warned of a "new McCarthyism" last spring, a top Republican legislator demanded her resignation, which she gave a few days later. During the McCarthy Era, or anytime, has a college president ever been forced to resign for expressing concern about the climate of academic freedom? And why has the Hoffman case received so little attention compared to the criticism of Larry Summers at Harvard?
Ellen Schrecker:
I'm racking my brains, John, to think of an example of someone like Elizabeth Hoffman during the McCarthy era. But no one comes to mind. Why? Because so few college presidents lost their jobs for taking a position in defense of academic freedom. Usually, alas, they went along with the witch hunters. The more outspoken individuals, like Harold Taylor of Sarah Lawrence and Robert Hutchins of the University of Chicago, were often more cautious in private and were also usually able to count on support from their trustees. The one -- more recent -- case that does come to mind is that of Roger Bowen, the former President of SUNY-New Paltz who was forced out of his position by the Regents for allowing the expression of unpopular views on his campus. Roger is now, of course, the General Secretary of the AAUP.
Question from carol hellman, U of Texas:
I find it interesting that liberal views are "enlightened" and "progressive" and "altruistic". But you refer to conservative ideas as "an assault". The vast majority of Americans consider liberal views an assault on American traditions and moral values. So, why aren't liberal views considered assaults?
Ellen Schrecker:
There's a misunderstanding here. I don't think any kind of "views" are an assault on anything. What seems to be the problem are attempts by groups and individuals outside the academic community to prescribe what kinds of views should be taught there. That is a direct assault on academic freedom.
Question from Theron P. Snell, U of Wisconsin-Parkside:
Reading that S. Dakota's legislature has mandated "diversity of views," it strikes me that today's version is worse than the late '50s and the 70's because it is more subtle and is dressed in "freedom of expression" clothes. At the same time, proponents are actually redefining education by requiring 'balance'rather than informed inquiry and absolute truth rather than reasoning in a context. (a rehash of anti-modernist views in the 1900's) I find these issues central to goverment's willingness to intrude in the manner you describe.
How can the academy better explain that education is not simply the amassing of data; how to explain that students need not believe in or accept any specific point of view but MUST understand these various views and use them...and that such exposure may indeed create dissonance and angst in students and that this is a good thing?
Ellen Schrecker:
David Hollinger, the chair of the AAUP's Committee A on Academic Freedom and a Prof. of History at U.Cal-Berkeley, wrote a brilliant paper on the whole question of balance and why it is not an intellectually valid goal within the academy. His point, and I cribbed a lot from him, is that what we're trying to do is give students the benefit of our own professionalism, of the years of research and reading that have gone into our teaching. Balance is, in that respect, an artificial issue. Since what we're trying to give is our best judgment about the material we're teaching.
As for how to get such ideas across, I'm not sure. Sometimes I feel as if we should all get ourselves professional publicists who can help us condense our complicated and uncomfortable ideas down into a few soundbites -- just like the conservatives do. Cause what we're concerned about here is winning over the hearts and -- especially -- the minds of the American people.
Question from R.A. Shaw, independent scholar:
Dr. Schrecker: with all due respect to you, and those behind the film "Goodnight, and Good Luck" -- how can you and the filmmakers compare the U.S. today with the U.S. of the mid-1950s? Are you saying minorities are treated the same? Women? Would someone like Larry Summers at Harvard be treated like he was? Now, this constant hand-wringing by the George Clooney crowd has become a running gag on David Letterman -- "whatever the problem, blame Bush." (Also this week in "Tom Tommorrow") So -- isn't claiming "McCarthyism" all the time, counter-productive? Thank you.
Ellen Schrecker:
Dear R.A. Shaw -- I grew up in the 50s (oops, showing my age) and I can assure I certainly would not want to return to that era either. That was a period when women were discouraged from careers in academe -- I can actually recall being told at one point not to bother to apply for a certain fellowship because of my (ahem) gender. But, hey, I'm an optimist. I don't necessarily think that the situation today is the best it can ever be. Nor is it as bad in other respects as it was during the McCarthy era. But I do think there's a lot of room for improvement. And, in certain respects, especially with regard to academic freedom, we have to be continually on our guard. I'm writing a book about political repression in America and my research is not producing a picture of constant progress, but rather of crises and apologies and more crises and apologies. What I'd like to know is why this country can't learn to keep itself free?
Karen Winkler (Moderator):
We're about half way through. Keep your questions coming.
Comment from No name:
There's no Carol Hellman at the University of Texas. She's turned up in these discussions before, with similar views. http://chronicle.com/forums/colloquy/read.php?f=1&i=4312&t=4209
Question from Dustin Kidd, Temple U.:
Can/should professors be discussing this issue in their classrooms? What advice do you have for holding such discussions?
Ellen Schrecker:
Dear Dustin Kidd -- I'm not sure professors should discuss this issue in their classrooms unless it is relevant. Of course the question of relevance provokes controversy in and of itself. Obviously, it would be hard to argue that such a discussion was NOT relevant in a class on the Higher Education in America, just as it would be difficult to hold such a discussion in Organic Chemistry. At the moment, the issue of relevance is most fraught within the field of literary and cultural studies where scholars claim that it is essential to put the material they are studying in its fuller context. That provokes some people to question the relevance of what they do. But, if we believe in academic freedom, we need to leave such curricular issues to the professors involved, their departments, and their disciplines. So, how to bring these issues to our students. How about a teach-in or panel discussion? Would any students come?....
Question from Justin, University of Virgina:
Ellen, How would you respond to the quote below from the 12/2005 Chronicle. Do you think perceived bias is an impediment to federal funding?
"The biggest obstacle to increased federal support for higher education is left-wing political bias on college faculties, Sen. Lamar Alexander said on Friday during an appearance before the Secretary of Education's Commission on the Future of Higher Education."
Ellen Schrecker:
Justin, I couldn't agree with you more. It's the perception of the universities being under the control of tenured leftists that is certainly making it harder for them to obtain federal funding. But, frankly, I think that may just be a rationalization for the broader movement on the part of the current administration and its allies to cut down spending for all social welfare programs.
Question from Lee Baker, High Point University:
I've heard of some of the names of people who are attacking professors or programs, in the classrooms, names like Daniel Pipes and David Horowitz. Are there any other groups professors should look out for? How should we handle students who are in class to find fault with a professor's teaching?
Ellen Schrecker:
Dear Lee Baker -- The names you've cited are among the leaders in the prof-bashing that's been going on. But there have been other cases at individual schools where students or outside groups have independently attacked professors for their politics. Often, they seem to have ties with Young Republican or other conservative groups. How should we handle such situations? It's a problem -- After all, we don't want to become paranoid, fearful that the guy in the red baseball hat and green sweatshirt in the second row is really spying on us and about to report us to his local "I Hate the Profs" blogger. I guess the best we can do is conduct our classes in the most professional manner possible and hope that ultimately we can actually teach such students a little something.
Question from Wilbert J. Roget, Temple University:
Rather than be unduly alarmed by the putatively increasing interest that legislators are taking in acadedmic and pedagogical issues at public institutions, I would think that the professoriate would welcome such intrusion--assuming that it does in fact exist. My question, then, would be: What effective methods might professors and seriously motivated students adopt to ENCOURAGE appropriate legislators to come in and observe ongoing classroom practices? If there are any dangers in this--apart from logistical issues--could someone spell them out?
Ellen Schrecker:
Dear Wilbert Roget -- What an interesting idea! Why not invite these legislators into our classrooms -- though, you are right, it might chill the discussions there? I just wonder if empirical evidence -- which the Academic Bill of Rights folks seem unimpressed with to say the least -- would convince them that the so-called tenured radicals are not misusing their classrooms. In other words, is there another agenda here? And would opening our classrooms to outside auditors make any difference?
Question from anonymous:
David Horowitz has a new book coming out that lists 100 professors who are poisoning the mind of college students. What do you think of that approach? Is it a change of direction from the Academic Bill of Rights?
Ellen Schrecker:
I've seen Horowitz's list (though not the book) and I can assure you that it's going to cause quite a stir within academe as people who didn't make it onto the top one hundred battle to get included. Seriously, though, I don't see how such a book can do anything but damage Horowitz's cause. Naming names is such a tawdry thing to do.
Question from Karen Winkler:
Ellen: You mention the recent resolutions on academic freedom by the American Historical Association and the Modern Language Association. You were at the AHA meeting: Was the motion there controversial? How much concern among scholars was there about the perceived threat to academic freedom?
Ellen Schrecker:
Karen -- I was at the AHA meeting that voted on the resolution (which, I must confess, I helped to write). We needed -- I forget how many, 25, 50 -- signatures to get the measure on the agenda and had no problem getting twice the requisite number from some very eminent historians. There was no controversy over it; everyone there supported academic freedom and understood and opposed the threat to it from the Academic Bill of Rights and similar measures. The main controversy was initiated by a group of historians who wanted to amend the resolution by including language opposing campus speech codes. Since we felt that that was a separate issue that probably should be dealt with separately, we did not want to dilute the message of the original resolution. Since the business meeting was, like most business meetings, poorly attended (there had been no announcement that there would be a resolution on academic freedom) everybody's main concern was that we might not have a quorum. BUt, and I repeat, nobody questioned the value of taking a stand against the current threats to academic freedom.
Question from Dan Tompkins:
A small point. In the McCarthy period no one looked at syllabi and so on because the taint of Communist Party affiliation was sufficient to bring firing. Even honorable men like Meyer Reinhold at Brooklyn College, who'd never been a Party member, took the Fifth Amendment rather than testify.
But as you've told us, the Rapp-Coudert investigation of NY teachers in 1940-41 did involve syllabi (a mention of "scientific socialism), reading choice (Shelley on the Peterloo Massacre), and other pedagogic details (mentioning "class struggle").
Horowitz is inviting a return to that era, with opportunistic and sometimes mendacious selection of "cases" including some at my own university.
Thanks for your good work.
Dan Tompkins
Ellen Schrecker:
Dear Dan Tompkins --
Couldn't agree more. Obviously, syllabi are not sacrosanct. Departments, for example, do have a responsibility to vet the syllabi of their faculty members and adjuncts. But not outside politicians and pundits....
Question from Michael Collins, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, grad. '05:
I went to a university in California that prides itself in the number of job-ready graduates it produces. Over the last few years, it's become one of the most highly esteemed Cal State schools, perhaps because of this reputation. If it is true that universities are under increased pressure to move away from certain areas of study, it seems that the most effective method of doing so would come from a greater emphasis on job-ready college grads. There already appears to be a growing stigma that a university degree is worthless unless it can produce a succesful professional.
Are these ideas about higher education being promoted by members of government involved in education? Are universities being evaluated more and more based on standards such as general math and reading abilities, which would result in possibly eliminating certain subjects?
In other words, is there an increased emphasis on particualr areas that give reason to deem certain subjects unecessary or even distracting?
Are particular subjects already being eliminated because they were deemed as 'unecessary?'
Ellen Schrecker:
Dear Michael Collins --
Aren't you really asking about the current emphasis on vocationalism in higher education? That's a huge subject that deserves its own colloquy, book, conference, etc.
In many ways, the drive for a "useful" education has always been part of American higher education. Yet, in today's bottom-line society, that drive is stronger and, perhaps, more deleterious than ever. And, I think it could be more damaging to what we think of as a real liberal education than anything else -- even more damaging than the Academic Bill of Rights.
Question from R.A. Shaw, independent scholar:
Thank you for your reply. I've spent a lot of time in "fly-over America" where they have this corny saying, "America is the greatest country in the world." So, when the Lions Club hears this -- "What I'd like to know is why this country can't learn to keep itself free?" -- their general response is to suggest that those with such sentiments "find a better country?" Can you suggest a better country for freedom? Thank you, again, and have a nice day.
Ellen Schrecker:
My point is not that this country is so terrible or so lacking in freedom, but just that it could be so much better.
Karen Winkler (Moderator):
That's all we have time for this hour. I want to thank Ellen and everyone who wrote in for participating. Ellen, any final thoughts?
Ellen Schrecker:
Thanks, Karen, and all the folks at The Chronicle who put this colloquy together. It's been challenging -- and fascinating -- to get this kind of feed-back.
To sum up. I think it's important to put our conversation about academic freedom into its broadest context and to realize that whatever concerns we may have about the politics of college professors, we need to cooperate to ensure that the institutions of higher education get the resources they need to fulfill their broader educational functions. At a time of government cut-backs that are endangering access to higher education for so many people, at a time when the increasing use of part-time and non-tenured track instructors is eating away at the quality of higher education, the struggles over political diversity are damaging in the sense that they are eroding public support for the nation's colleges and universities. Instead, we should be talking about the fact that, with all its problems, the American system of higher education is the finest and probably the free-est in the world and that, unless we are able to devote adequate resources to its upkeep as well as to preserve the academic freedom that is essential to its quality, we main not be able to maintain that preeminent position for much longer.