On June 15, the Dean of the School of Social Sciences at Harvard University spoke at the ” Harvard Crimson Believes that professors should be appropriately punished for making public remarks that could “incite” outside actors, such as alumni and donors, to “interfere in Harvard affairs.” The subtext seemed to be that faculty who spoke publicly about the leadership of the dean’s ally, former president Claudine Gay, should be punished. As syndicated blogger Jonathan Adler is quick to point out, this practice has proven controversial.
On June 20, I published a rebuttal on “Dean Bobo” chronicle of higher education. Judging from the works:
Bobo’s view was the conventional wisdom among university officials and trustees in 1900. The Harvard dean’s arguments resonate with a growing movement seeking to silence faculty. Professors have free speech as long as they don’t say anything that might upset those in authority. Those in power may not want teachers to march in lockstep, but they do like to give teachers marching orders and hope they don’t step out of line.
In 1940, the American Association of University Professors and what was then the Association of American Colleges jointly issued the Statement of Principles of Academic Freedom and Tenure, which established the rules governing faculty speech that are now widely adopted. It states that when professors “speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional review or discipline.” The statement does suggest that professors have some “special obligations” when speaking publicly, although the AAUP has long urged that these obligations be considered implicit rather than mandatory. Even so, the statement simply urged professors to be “accurate” and “exercise appropriate restraint.” They “should remember that the public can judge their professions and institutions by their words,” so they should avoid embarrassing themselves in public through rudeness or ignorance. But no one is suggesting they should avoid making university scandals public.
Harvard’s own free speech policy, first adopted during the Vietnam War, emphasized the need for officials to tolerate dissent and criticism. It states that “reasoned dissent plays a particularly important role in the existence of the University” and that all members of the University community have the right to “advocate and make public their opinions through print, signs and voices”. Dissenters are not allowed to impede “the essential processes of the University” or interfere with “the ability of University members to carry out their normal activities,” but they are free to “urge for action” and “constructive change” through organizing, advocacy, and persuasion. Bobo’s ideas about limits on faculty speech are clearly inconsistent with AAUP principles and common university policies, not to mention the First Amendment principles that bind state university officials.
You can read the full article here (behind a paywall).
