It ought to be well-recognized that individual faculty members must be free to state controversial political views, and the same is true for groups or organizations of academics (so long as the statements do not imply “unfitness” to teach in the relevant discipline). But what about political declarations by entire academic departments? As I have explained, an avowed participant in anti-Israel academic boycotts should not be able to serve as a dean, because such a boycott itself can violate the academic freedom of other faculty and students. Does the same hold true when a department states an official position on a controversial political issue, such as the Israel/Palestine conflict?
This guest post by Cary Nelson, emeritus professor at the University of Illinois and former president of the AAUP, sets out the reasons why academic departments should not take official political positions, as he and over forty colleagues explained in a letter to the chancellor and provost of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The letter itself was written by Professor Richard Ross of the UIUC law school.
Prof. Nelson is working on a detailed account to rebut the "fiction of departmental academic freedom" and to draft a model university policy. Here is the gist of the group letter to the UIUC administration:
The distinction between individual and departmental speech is critical.
First, an academic unit that engages in political advocacy chills robust debate and potentially intimidates scholars who think differently. Can a student expect open inquiry in an environment of mutual respect if his or her department publicly commits to one side in the complicated Israeli-Palestinian dispute? Can a department that calls for the boycott and sanction of Israel (in violation of University policy) study Israeli perspectives as well as Palestinian ones? If a unit denounces Israel in inflammatory prose and promises “solidarity with Palestine,” only a brave untenured faculty member would dare voice a contrary position. Graduate students whose careers can be hurt by the withdrawal of mentorship, adjunct faculty on one-year contracts, undergraduates concerned about grades and recommendations, and academic professionals with the minimal protections of “at will” employees would need to summon even greater bravery to dissent.
The entire letter is after the jump. Tomorrow, I will post the UIUC administration’s rather troubling reply.
[Note: this post has been updated by adding Prof. Richard Ross as the drafter of the letter to the administration.]
Dear Chancellor Jones and Provost Cangellaris,
In the wake of fighting between Hamas and Israel over the early summer, four academic units at UIUC issued statements on the dispute between Israelis and Palestinians.
º Department of Gender and Women’s Studies [https://gws.illinois.edu/news/2021-05-24/gender-studies-departments-solidarity-palestinian-feminist-collective];
º Department of Urban and Regional Planning [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1xIoEAZ3Hln1dUspnhZ9Eii5OIRlfk_ZRaLVZICbeF7Q/viewform?ts=60a4abb3&edit_requested=true];
º Department of Asian American Studies [https://asianam.illinois.edu/news/2021-05-18/statement-palestine];
º Department of History [Via email: “The Executive Committee of the Department of History at the University of Illinois joins with scholars across the world in condemning the state violence that the Israeli government and its security forces have been carrying out in Gaza and standing in solidarity with Palestine and support for the struggle for Palestinian liberation. While statements are important, we are as committed to actions and practices that are aimed at imagining real and sustainable change. We firmly believe such change must be predicated on critical engagement with modes of scholarship, and especially histories that acknowledge and respect the full human rights of all peoples and the collective rights of all communities.”]
While the statements differed in their particulars, each excoriated Israel and pledged “solidarity” with Palestinian political demands (though with some vagueness about what these were). The statements in question were not issued by individual faculty or groups of faculty. They were subscribed to by departments or, in the case of History, by the executive committee acting in conjunction with the chair. They have been placed on websites and disseminated through social media and email, which created the impression that the unit was speaking for all or most of the faculty within it. This represents a worrisome development. And it is worrisome irrespective of one’s views on the dispute between Israelis and Palestinians.
The distinction between individual and departmental speech is critical. Individual faculty and groups of faculty of course enjoy the right to take political positions and voice their opinions. They have numerous methods of expression, from authoring pieces and blogging to speaking at rallies and signing petitions. The First Amendment and the principle of academic freedom protect these rights. But matters change when departments and programs adopt statements that commit the university, or at least units within it, to political perspectives and programs. The issue is not one of legality. The undersigned faculty are not claiming that it is illegal for departments to issue collective political statements. Many actions that are legal are, nonetheless, harmful. We question the propriety of departmental political statements and we write to identify and emphasize the dangers.
First, an academic unit that engages in political advocacy chills robust debate and potentially intimidates scholars who think differently. Can a student expect open inquiry in an environment of mutual respect if his or her department publicly commits to one side in the complicated Israeli-Palestinian dispute? Can a department that calls for the boycott and sanction of Israel (in violation of University policy) study Israeli perspectives as well as Palestinian ones? If a unit denounces Israel in inflammatory prose and promises “solidarity with Palestine,” only a brave untenured faculty member would dare voice a contrary position. Graduate students whose careers can be hurt by the withdrawal of mentorship, adjunct faculty on one-year contracts, undergraduates concerned about grades and recommendations, and academic professionals with the minimal protections of “at will” employees would need to summon even greater bravery to dissent. All would fear marginalization and unfair judgment. The likely result would be withdrawal from politicized departments, self-censorship or, perhaps worse, insincere mouthing of the “approved” view. Acceptance in the community of scholars and, by implication, in the community of decent human beings is thus made conditional on agreement, real or feigned, with a unit’s official position on Israel/Palestine.
Second, academic departments exist to bring together faculty and students of diverse views and interests who are committed to the study of a given subject. What would justify a department stating a political view collectively, in its corporate capacity? How does it advance the educational mission of a unit to adopt a foreign policy? The University of Illinois belongs to the State of Illinois and its people; its departments serve public and educational purposes. The University, and the departmental websites it maintains, are not bullhorns for the amplification of faculty members’ personal politics.
Third, once departments begin adopting political programs and posting them on their websites, the practice is likely to spread. This summer four units issued statements on the Middle East. Likeminded circles might applaud them for their political activism. Might the applause encourage other units to post collective positions on anything from economic policy and abortion to family life and military affairs? As party lines proliferate, freedom for debate and unorthodox thought will contract.
Finally, the four departmental statements are particularly troubling to Jewish students and instructors because of the entanglement, for many Jews, of ethnic and religious identity with Israel. Those who are pro-Israel or those who believe that Israelis no less than Palestinians have valid claims and deserve sympathy and understanding may reasonably conclude that they are not welcome in certain departments and that their academic careers may be harmed. Incendiary rhetoric that demonizes Israel makes the campus climate harsher for Jewish and pro-Israel students. It also scares off students from politicized departments and potentially turns talented students and instructors away from UIUC and towards competing institutions. If today the danger is the demoralization and discouragement of Jewish students and instructors, the potential multiplication of departmental political statements in the future risks alienating other groups.
We the undersigned ask the university to reaffirm the norm that departments—as opposed to individuals and groups of faculty—not advocate for political agendas unrelated to the University’s educational and research missions. Our concern is made more pressing as we watch departments commit themselves to one side of a complicated issue while dismissing, even scorning, alternative perspectives. Disclaimers are not enough. Allowing political advocacy behind a disclaimer provides protective cover that encourages continued action of this type. And disclaimers do not convince instructors and students that a department’s political commitment expressed on its website is anything other than a political commitment to be crossed at one’s peril.
Sincerely,
[Signed by 44 faculty at the University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign. Names omitted at the request of some of the signatories, who wanted their names to be submitted only to the Provost and Chancellor.]
The view, which I support, that universities and their subdivisions (e.g., colleges and departments) should not take official positions on social or political issues was nicely articulated in the University of Chicago's Kalven Report, published in 1967. The full text of the Kalven Report is available here: https://provost.uchicago.edu/reports/report-universitys-role-political-and-social-action
This view also was articulated by William Bowen of Princeton, who said: "The university as an institution must exercise a significant degree of institutional restraint if its individual members are to enjoy the maximum degree of freedom. … The absence of an institutional statement of ‘orthodoxy’ lessens the risk that faculty or students will be favored in some way—or will think that they may be favored—by taking the ‘right’ position on a controversial question."
Posted by: Thomas Gallanis | October 11, 2021 at 09:59 AM
"It ought to be well-recognized that individual faculty members must be free to state controversial political views ..."
As stated, yes. Of course. This is still, almost, a free country where individuals may express their views without fear (sort of).
But, the point is likened to a post not so long ago about using the moniker "Judge" when opining, especially on matters having no legal content.
Professors should be mindful that taking harsh stances, especially on matters outside their expertise (sorry, JDs, you don't know everything about everything or even something about most things), can tend to chill the freedom of their students, tarnish their institution and work to demean others in a way that, these days, seems to be rarely tolerated by the left, except when used to demean their political enemies.
Perhaps a professor should make clear that he or she expresses personal views on political questions. In that instance, there really isn't much anyone should say to stifle that pure "free" speech.
Posted by: anon | October 11, 2021 at 01:42 PM
"The university as an institution must exercise a significant degree of institutional restraint if its individual members are to enjoy the maximum degree of freedom"
What's the point of having the maximum degree of freedom if you're going to refrain from using it out of moral cowardice?
Posted by: twbb | October 13, 2021 at 09:28 AM