Illinois Governor Bruce Ruaner recently appointed John C. Bambenek to the Illinois Board of Higher Education as the sole faculty representative. Many have criticized the move by claiming that Bambenek’s views aren’t representative of most faculty members. I claim this is irrelevant. What is relevant is that Bambenek should not be eligible to serve as the lone faculty representative to the IBHE since he isn’t even eligible to represent the University of Illinois faculty on their Senate.
The Illinois State Senate still has to approve Rauner’s appointment. State Senator Antonio Muñoz is the Chair of the Executive Appointment Committee. Professor Gay is sending letters to both Senator Muñoz and Governor Rauner objecting to Bambenek’s appointment. There is still time for philosophers, faculty, and citizens of Illinois to ask for an actual faculty member who understands the needs and concerns of faculty in Illinois to represent them on the IBHE.
An "open letter" from twenty-one law faculty--this largely (but not wholly) a group of right-leaning law professors, though many of the issues have been raised by others across the political spectrum in law.
Votes of no confidence spread. President Cross is in a difficult situation; the Regents should all resign, they have more power and they have been complicit in laying the seeds for the destruction of what was a great state university system. Shame, shame.
A press release here. I have not yet read the complaint, but assuming his tenure contract with Marquette includes standard AAUP protections for academic freedom, he has a good claim.
ADDENDUM: I'm astonished to see that Justin Weinberg (South Carolina) continues to assert, falsely, that Prof. McAdam's original blog post was inaccurate; in fact, it was almost entirely accurate. The faculty committee report from which he quotes is astonishing, a formal confirmation that Marquette University is not a serious university that values either academic freedom or free speech. (As an amusing aside, even the committee report acknowledges at the bottom of p. 152 that the existence of inaccuracies in the original blog post is irrelevant!) It as written as though there is some legal ambiguity about whether Prof. McAdam's extramural speech is legally protected by his contract with the university; there is not. It acts as though it is up to the committee to redraw the boundaries of academic freedom; it is not. If the contract incorporates the AAUP standards, then the matter is legally closed. Most astonishingly, it invents a new obligation, namely that when faculty speak extramurally, they "avoid recklessly causing [others] harm, even indirectly." It is a shame there won't be a photo of the look on the judge's face when he or she reads this interpretation of Marquette's contractual obligations to protect the academic freedom of Prof. McAdams. There is no extant interpretation of freedom of speech or academic freedom that would license such a restriction, and for the obvious reasons that it is too vague for anyone to be able to anticipate what speech it encompasses.
Story here. This is all very sad, considering that Madison has been one of the great state research universities in the country. Will they be in the top 20 a decade from now? We'll know within a year or two the fallout of all this turmoil--not that it will matter to lowlife ignoramuses like Scott Walker.
Alas, the fired professor is a rather creepy piece of work, but his lawsuit clearly has merit. A state university can not fire a tenured professor for holding creepy views, and the justification given (failure to fill out some conflict of interest forms) is transparently pretextual. What the university should have done is initiated a normal process to evaluate his competence; his conspiracy theories clearly fall within the purview of his alleged scholarly research and expertise, and it presumably would have been straightforward to establish that he is not competent through a formal peer-review of his ideas (think of the denier of heliocentrism in the astronomy department, the intelligent design theorist in biology, or the alchemist in the chemistry department). Instead, in response to public pressure, they cooked up a justification for firing him based on failure to file some paperwork, even though it's obvious he was being punished for his constitutionally protected speech. My guess is that since FAU can afford to fight this for longer than the fired professor can, that he will end up getting a settlement of some kind.
The petition is here. (Thanks to philosopher Joel Pust [Delaware] for organizing this.) The background statement hedges a bit more than is really necessary in my view, crediting claims by the college that are nonsensical and won't stand up in court. But the basic text of the statement is good and I urge all members of the academic community to sign the petition. Here's the key text:
We the undersigned, as members of the community of scholars, protest the apparent termination without due process by Dickinson College of Professor Crispin Sartwell, a TENURED associate professor of philosophy, contrary to Dickinson's own Academic Handbook, AAUP guidelines, and the customary standards of tenure.
Unless the College can produce a formal letter of resignation by Professor Sartwell or evidence that he accepted a separation agreement, we call for Professor Sartwell to be reinstated immediately and for the administration of Dickinson College to act in accordance with Dickinson's Academic Handbook and accepted AAUP standards in all subsequent dealings with Professor Sartwell.
UPDATE: The petition was released April 21, and garnered about 100 signatures in its first five days. In the last 24 hours, since this post went up, more than 80 additional philosophers and academics in other fields have signed--thank you! But I hope even more readers will join them as signatories. Ned Block, Jeff McMahan, John Gardner, Neil Tennant, Keith Whittington, Alex Byrne, Peter Vallentyne, Richard Moran, and C.D.C. Reeve are among the distinguished senior scholars who have signed in the last day: please join them! Colleges hate unfavorable attention to their bad behavior. Legal remedies are being sought, but the academic community can make known its concern with what has transpired.
UPDATE: A reader who teaches philosophy to undergraduates writes with two objections that deserve a response:
First, I detect from the tone of your post, perhaps wrongly, the implicit view that there is something crazy about undergrads giving professors advice about what to include on syllabi in the first place. If that's your view, I disagree. I think it's awesome for students to give respectful, constructive criticism to their teachers—and I think what Taylor writes certainly counts as that—as long as it's allowed to be a two-way conversation, and professors have the courage to defend what they teach, as well as of course the ultimate right to make the decisions. Would we really rather have students who always just passively accept our curricular choices? To me criticism can be a sign that students are taking responsibility for their own education. Our role should be to take their criticism seriously, help them to articulate it better, and then respectfully disagree—or, if appropriate, to take their advice! We should be trying to encourage this sort of conversation, rather than shut it down. If we were more committed to actually teaching students how to have this sort of debate well, maybe we would end up with (a) better, more interesting philosophy courses and (b) fewer puerile, easy-to-dismiss lists of demands. A win-win! (I certainly don't mean to lump Taylor's piece in with the latter category, by the way.)
Of course, we already have a way of getting feedback from undergraduates, namely, course evaluations, and student evaluations, at all levels, are useful I've found, especially if one pays attention to recurrent criticisms or worries. The value of feedback from undergraduates has nothing to do with whether a professional association's blog should provide a platform for advice that is based simply on speculation about the effects of "diversifying" the syllabus for which there is no known empirical support.
...some of whom were involved in the disgraceful Kipnis affair (which they actually have the audacity to revisit and try to rationalize in this new letter--and see also). Here's the letter. I would guess from the content that one of the primary authors was the author of the FP blog post we discussed awhile back. (The letter even cites the FP blog post, and makes clear the author learned nothing from the discussion of it, which is part of what is quite alarming about these zealots.) This crowd has long made clear their contempt for fairness and due process, so their posture in this matter is hardly surprising. I assume the adults at the AAUP will ignore this.
MOVING TO FRONT--ORIGINALLY POSTED APRIL 9 (UPDATED, AND UPDATED AGAIN ON APRIL 12, APRIL 14)
Professor Sartwell reports this development on his blog, though he has also shared with me the documentation confirming that this is, indeed, what has transpired. (Our earlier coverage of his case.) I have assisted him in finding a suitable Pennsylvania lawyer to vindicate his contractual rights of tenure and academic freedom, which the College appears to have violated. Legal representation is expensive, and the College has all the advantages here. I urged Prof. Sartwell to create a "GoFundMe" page to assist with his legal expenses, and I have donated myself and urge others to do so. I can not emphasize enough how serious this incident is: a tenured professor, engaging in lawful extramural speech on his blog, was first removed from his classes mid-term and now informed that he is no longer an employee--without any process or hearings whatsoever. Prof. Sartwell is entitled to fair legal process to vindicate his contractual and other legal rights, and I hope the community will support him.
UPDATE: Philosopher Joel Pust (Delaware) kindly calls to my attention a highly selective account in the Dickinson newspaper about recent events. Basically, the College, after removing Sartwell involuntarily from his classes and from campus, is trying to treat statements by Prof. Sartwell on various social media as tantamount to his having resigned his position, even though the College had sent him a termination agreement, which he never signed and explicitly rejected. (Some of the statements, in context, were clearly assertions that the College planned to terminate him, an asessment that proved correct; others, in context, express Sartwell's anger about how he is being treated.) The fact remains that Sartwell was removed from his classes without any kind of hearing or process, and the College has now informed him that he is no longer a faculty member without any hearing or process, even though he declined to sign the proposed termination agreement and rejected its terms.
APRIL 12 UPDATE: The AAUP has now written to Dickinson College about the Sartwell case: Download AAUP Letter to President Roseman 4-12-16. I want to add two additional comments about some of the bizarre claims made by Dickinson and that I've even seen reiterated on social media by people clearly not very knowledgeable about law. First, posting a country music video, "Time to Get a Gun," a song which itself contains no death threats, is not itself a death threat. Making a death threat is a crime in most jurisdictions, and yet no criminal charges have been filed against Prof. Sartwell, and for obvious reasons: he committed no crime. Second, notice the hypocrisy in Dickinson's position in this matter: on the one hand, they demanded that Prof. Sartwell receive a psychiatric evaluation; on the other hand, they now want to assert that e-mails and social media comments by the person they deemed in need of psychiatric evaluation constitute resignation from the faculty, even though at the very same time he rejected, more than once, proposed termination agreements. The more I learn about this case, the more appalling Dickinson's behavior appears. Thank you to those who have donated in support of assisting Prof. Sartwell to get a fair hearing for his legal rights.
APRIL 14 UPDATE: Thanks to all those who have donated to Prof. Sartwell's legal fund. He's closing in on the $5,000 goal; I hope others will contribute. Small amounts matter too! It's important for Dickinson to see that the academic community objects to this treatment of a tenured faculty member.
The full document is available here, though the Executive Summary is quite accurate as to the contents. Apart from a largely irrelevant fixation on the "corporate university," it's an informative report, one that makes clear how the Assistant Secretaries for Civil Rights in the Department of Education have badly overreached their authority since 2011. The report argues, correctly in my judgment, that the OCR had no authority to simply change the standard of proof from "clear and convincing evidence" to "preponderance of evidence." (Note that the latter is the standard of proof in civil litigation, and also in the Title VII employment discrimination context. But without going through the normal "notice and comment" process for substantive changes to administrative regulations, the OCR should not have altered the standard unilaterally. Since findings of fault for sexual harassment and related misconduct is much more like findings of criminal liability, the standard of proof should not have been lowered in my view--especially given that the investigative and adjudication procedures are largely amateur affairs to begin with.)
The other important point the report makes is that the OCR has demonstrated a shocking indifference to First Amendment and academic freedom values in its promulgation of regulations and enforcement actions. We saw this most clearly, of course, in the disgraceful Kipnis affair at Northwestern.
I don't plan on getting into the habit of following the lead of the APA, but I've heard now from several graduate students and junior faculty that they've been bullied and harassed by philosopher Mark Lance (Georgetown) on various social media platforms, especially Facebook, that I thought it was time to raise the issue in public. He apparently has a particularly bad habit of intimidating vulnerable people (students, untenured faculty) if they happen to post a link to something on this blog. If you've been a victim of Lance's bullying, please take a screen shot and pass it on me, I'll prepare a dossier perhaps for future publication here (I'm happy to remove identifying information, of course).
UPDATE: Several readers have pointed out that philosopher Rebecca Kukla--Lance's colleague, co-author and friend--assured others on Facebook that the reports of Lance bullying and harassing junior faculty and grad students on social media were not true--though she then admitted that "Mark can argue hard and come down harshly or even dismissively at times." Alas, sometimes the targets experience that as bullying, especially when the "hard" and "harsh" arguer is a tenured full professor. Unsurprisingly, the bully's friends didn't notice.
ANOTHER: Professor Kukla writes: "I agree that what is experienced as bullying is partly a subjective affair that can't be fully determined from the outside, and I don't wish to make any statements about Mark's capacity to bully. What I specifically found absurd, knowing him, was the idea that he picked junior 'targets' or that he especially had it out for people who sent things to your blog." Almost all of this is consistent with my initial post: it is quite possible that Lance is not conscious of the pattern or of his bullying behavior. However, as anyone who has encountered Lance on social media knows, he is quite clearly obsessed with me, and never misses an opportunity to insult or defame, also doing the same to those who do not share his view.
AND YET ANOTHER: An alert reader points out that before I posted either update, above, Prof. Kukla had already responded to the initial post on Facebook as follows:
Rebecca Kukla My new plan is to bombard him with screenshot after screenshot of me typing things like go fuck yourself Brian and mind your own fucking business Brian and what the ever-living fuck are you even talking about Brian.
Goodness, such tough and scary talk; so surprising that the e-mail she sent me, by contrast, was so benign. I'm sure the APA ombudsperson will get on this abuse and harassment right away.
BEYOND PARODY: Apparently some anonymous person somewhere in cyberspace made vulgar sexist remarks about Prof. Kukla after she posted in defense of Lance on Facebook. According to the moral genius Mark Lance, this is my fault. Really. Let me quote the explanation: "Leiter, of course, knew that this was the predictable reaction...just as Trump knows perfectly well what the results of his incitements will be." You can see examples of Trump inciting violence here (it starts at about 3:40). And after viewing them, you will see that "obviously" the post, above, is exactly analogous. Really. His Holiness Monsignor Lance said so.
I used to endorse a particular brand of politics that is prevalent at McGill and in Montreal more widely. It is a fusion of a certain kind of anti-oppressive politics and a certain kind of radical leftist politics. This particular brand of politics begins with good intentions and noble causes, but metastasizes into a nightmare. In general, the activists involved are the nicest, most conscientious people you could hope to know. But at some point, they took a wrong turn, and their devotion to social justice led them down a dark path. Having been on both sides of the glass, I think I can bring some painful but necessary truth to light.
Important disclaimer: I passionately support anti-oppressive politics in general and have only good things to say about it.,,,
There is something dark and vaguely cultish about this particular brand of politics. I’ve thought a lot about what exactly that is. I’ve pinned down four core features that make it so disturbing: dogmatism, groupthink, a crusader mentality, and anti-intellectualism. I’ll go into detail about each one of these. The following is as much a confession as it is an admonishment. I will not mention a single sin that I have not been fully and damnably guilty of in my time.
First, dogmatism. One way to define the difference between a regular belief and a sacred belief is that people who hold sacred beliefs think it is morally wrong for anyone to question those beliefs. If someone does question those beliefs, they’re not just being stupid or even depraved, they’re actively doing violence. They might as well be kicking a puppy. When people hold sacred beliefs, there is no disagreement without animosity. In this mindset, people who disagreed with my views weren’t just wrong, they were awful people. I watched what people said closely, scanning for objectionable content. Any infraction reflected badly on your character, and too many might put you on my blacklist. Calling them ‘sacred beliefs’ is a nice way to put it. What I mean to say is that they are dogmas.
Thinking this way quickly divides the world into an ingroup and an outgroup — believers and heathens, the righteous and the wrong-teous. “I hate being around un-rad people,” a friend once texted me, infuriated with their liberal roommates. Members of the ingroup are held to the same stringent standards. Every minor heresy inches you further away from the group. People are reluctant to say that anything is too radical for fear of being been seen as too un-radical. Conversely, showing your devotion to the cause earns you respect. Groupthink becomes the modus operandi. When I was part of groups like this, everyone was on exactly the same page about a suspiciously large range of issues. Internal disagreement was rare. The insular community served as an incubator of extreme, irrational views.
MOVING TO FRONT FROM MARCH 10--MORE COMMENTS WELCOME
The Regents are set to approve what one correspondent aptly called "tenure lite," and faculty involved in the process are, correctly, not happy. The big issue is not post-tenure review, which many states have adopted, so far without egregious miscarriages, but rather this:
Under the final plan, tenured faculty can still be laid off and programs downsized in financial emergencies....They also could lose their jobs if their programs are discontinued for "educational considerations," which include long-term student and market demand as well as "societal needs." Each system campus will be free to develop its own policies under the plan....
Now Wisconsin chancellors can cut programs that aren't generating revenue regardless of the courses' educational value and can fire professors who teach concepts such as climate change that aren't popular with conservative legislators who hold the system's purse-strings, [critics] contend.
"If professors are put at risk for telling the truth, for seeking out the truth, for teaching the truth, and losing control of what they teach, we have lost something very essential in public higher education," said Barmak Nassirian, director of federal policy for the American Association of State Colleges and Universities.
Opponents also warned that quality instructors will flee to schools with stronger tenure protections.
I do think this is a disastrous revision of the tenure rules, that will invite political meddling and mischief. It will also put Philosophy Departments at risk, if not at Madison, certainly in other parts of the UW System. I am not aware of any other state authorizing programs and tenured faculty to be terminated under the vague and much lower standard of "educational considerations." (Am I wrong? Please correct me in the comments, with links please.) And to think that this catastrophe happened in a state that used to be at the progressive vanguard!
Thoughts from readers, whether in Wisconsin or elsewhere?
UPDATE: IHE clarifies the issue about the role of "educational considerations," noting that the AAUP "also allows for faculty layoffs for educational reasons determined by faculty members" (emphasis added).
I had withdrawn my original post about this from several days ago, because many details were unclear, and there was a risk then, I was led to believe, that publicity would adversely affect the interests of Prof. Sartwell and perhaps others. But now I am persuaded that the matter warrants public scrutiny, and I hope reporters from CHE or IHE will investigate what is going on.
Here, briefly, is what is now a matter of public record.
Prof. Sartwell, on his blog, accused two philosophers, Alexander Nehamas (Princeton) and Linda Zagbeski (Oklahoma) of plagiarism of different aspects of his work; both denied the allegation, and I have no reason to think the allegations are true since I have not investigated them for myself. It also does not matter. As a matter of academic freedom, Prof. Sartwell has a right to accuse other professors of plagiarism; if the allegations are not true, he should be sued for libel. It is not for Dickinson College to discipline him.
In complaining about Prof. Zagbeski's alleged plagiarism, he concluded by posting a country-music video by a singer named Melissa Lambert called "Time to Get a Gun." Prof. Sartwell writes about country music, and posts lots of music videos. Prof. Sartwell denies making any threats, and if, on the basis only of the original blog posting, Professors Riggs and Zagzebski from the University of Oklahoma actually reported him to the police, as alleged, they acted wrongfully. And, worse, if Dickinson College, put Prof. Sartwell on a temporary leave on the basis of this blog post, the College also acted wrongfully. (I have experience with mentally ill cyber-stalkers posting apparently threatening messages; I have never, however, reported them to the police, but I have taken prudent measures to investigate what's going on. The behavior in question was quite a bit more serious than posting a music video.)
But the matter deserves scrutiny from journalists who cover higher education. It may be that there are other factors that explain both the behavior of the philosophers at Oklahoma and the behavior of Dickinson College. But the academic community deserves to know at this point, since what is public so far is alarming and suggests a possibly serious breach of academic freedom and the rights of tenured faculty.
At last, we have a genuine anti-semitic loony-tune in academia, one Joy Karega, Assistant Professor of Rhetoric & Composition at Oberlin College, with a PhD from the University of Louisville. So far, the evidence is she confines her anti-semitic ravings to her Facebook page. After initially defending on academic freedom and free speech grounds her right to be an anti-semite on Facebook, Oberlin now appears to be changing course, which is unfortunate. The College would be well within rights to find out what's going on in her classrooms, but given that she's an assistant professor in a field with no discernible wissenschaftlich standards, it's not clear quite how that would work. In any case, even if Oberlin holds firm and resists punishing her for her Facebook speech, I would expect this to come back to haunt her at tenure time, by which time the media's 30-second attention span will have moved elsewhere.
...from The Atlantic, commenting on a recent debate at Yale, which included philosopher Jason Stanley, whose intervention, alas, appears again not to have been helpful from the account given. Interestingly, the "there is no free speech problem on campus" position lost in a landslide with the audience after the debate!
...and in violation of its own procedures in the way it dismissed Assistant Professor Melissa Click. Just to be clear about the differences from the Salaita case: Click was not a tenured professor, and she was not fired for her scholarly or political views. Click pretty clearly did engage in inappropriate conduct, but she was still entitled to a formal faculty review prior to Board action, as the comments from Missouri law professor Ben Trachtenberg make clear. However, she is unlikely to have any meaningful legal remedy, given that the same result probably could have resulted from the regular procedures, and the Board's action was not wholly capricious or without any review and evaluation. Alas, like the University of Illinois incident, or the Barnett case at the University of Colorado, or the earlier Churchill case at Colorado, or the LSU case of the "vulgar" professor, it's now quite clear that controversial speech is no longer protected by tenure or due process, the way it once was in public universities. And, alas, the APA's irresponsible "civility" statement plays right into the hands of this administrative mischief.
[I]t was someone in the faculty senate and not the university that offered the advice to UH faculty that you linked to this morning. I’m certainly no fan of the new law—it’s absurd. But I also think that some of the fear-mongering of my colleagues goes too far (a class in statistical fallacies might be in order for those who think the new law gives them reason to change their curriculum—I say this as someone who teaches an intro to ethics course that’s basically designed around the idea that many of the things that we value the most are worthless). I am far less concerned about the students who will wait until 8/1 to carry a concealed handgun on campus than I am of the ones who are probably already carrying.
Predictably, I suppose, some pontificators on social media are mystified that the irresponsible APA statement could be at all controversial. Indeed, philosopher Jenny Saul (Sheffield) has reiterated her view that controversy about the statement reflects badly on the state of the profession. My view is, unsurprisingly, different: the absence of controversy in certain parts of academic philosophy is what suggests the "profession" is populated with people who are not really grown up. The deficiencies of the APA statement are so obvious that it should hardly be surprising that, for example, no group of academic lawyers has promulgated a statement so ridiculous.
Let us recall what the statement said--not regarding the criminal threats and racist abuse suffered by Prof. Yancy--but regarding the lawful anonymous speech on metablogs:
Abusive speech directed at philosophers is not limited to responses by the public to published op-eds. A look at some of the anonymous philosophy blogs also reveals a host of examples of abusive speech by philosophers directed against other philosophers. Disagreement is fine and is not the issue. But bullying and ad hominem harassment of philosophers by other philosophers undermines civil disagreement and discourse and has no place in our community.
I'm not entirely sure why the statement targets anonymous speech, since it seems to me there are many possible examples of speech that runs afoul of the APA statement that was not anonymous. But they all raise the question: what exactly is the "abusive speech" that is now according to a handful of philosophers at the APA forbidden? Consider:
1. Philosopher Rachel McKinnon (Charleston) launched a Twitter tirade against Justin Weinberg (South Carolina), because he had linked to a part of a discussion by Leslie Green (Oxford) of whether Germaine Greer was correct about transgender women. Prof. McKinnon wrote, inter alia, that those she attacked should "suck it up, buttercup," and proudly proclaimed "we're not polite" after denouncing Weinberg for having "fuck[ed] up just now." Indeed, she regularly calls her opponents "philosophy asshat," "fuckwhistles" and tells them to "shut the fuck up" and "fuck off." Surely this speech violate the APA's new policy! If so, what is the APA going to do about it?
2. I have, on multiple occasions, made harsh criticisms of anti-gay bigotry in the philosophy profession, for example, here, here, and here. Does this speech violate the APA's new policy? (Admittedly, if it does, the APA can't do anything about it, since I am not a member.)
3. After I criticized a badly reasoned opinion piece co-authored by Jason Stanley (Yale), he denounced me on his very public Facebook page before hundreds if not thousands of my colleagues, dismissing me as "old, dated, shrill, and frightened." This certainly sounds like ad hominem abuse (though admittedly it did lead dozens of philosophers to friend me on Facebook!). Does this volate the APA's new policy on speech? If not, why not?
My own view is that (a) all of this speech ought to be legal; and (b) none of it should be the object of sanction or opporobium by a purportedly professional organization. Yet all of it appears to fall within the scope of the APA's careless statement. And the reason why professionals in other fields, especially law, don't promulgate statements like this is precisely because such standards are vague and overbroad and thus inconsistent with the values of freedom of expression central to all intellectual and political life. That the APA has been captured by some academics who don't see this should be a cause for concern.
Via Anne Jacobson at FP, comes this very amusing video, prepared I gather by philosopher John Schwenkler (Florida State). The "Hitler" character this time is the Chair of the Board of Trustees who learns, to his dismay, what President Newman has done!
UPDATE: Prof. Schwenkler informs he did not prepare this video, he merely shared it. He also kindly shares another one (also not of his making).
Professor Naberhaus asked me to share the following statement regarding his plans and recent events:
Having been reinstated as a member of the Mount St. Mary’s faculty, I have decided to return to the classroom beginning tomorrow. For my 8:00 a.m. lecture class I will be teaching on the scheduled topic, Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, in which Plato presents his radical notion that education is not a matter of filling the mind with knowledge, but of turning the soul toward Truth.
My return to teaching has nothing to do with accepting the “mercy” of President Newman. (It should be remembered that the charges against me still have not been specified.) Rather, I am returning for my students, who were left without a replacement for me last week. My aim in returning is the same as my aim in teaching generally: to deepen the hunger for truth in my students.
I have invited my colleagues at the Mount and other universities to join me in solidarity by exploring, in whatever way they deem appropriate, similar themes in their classes this week.
I am grateful to many people for their continued support--of me, and more importantly of the principles of academic freedom and the sober, fearless pursuit of truth.
Continental Philosophy Farhang Erfani, a philosopher at American University, provides a useful set of links to news, events, interviews, reviews, videos, etc. related to "Continental philosophy" (broadly construed)