Old news, of course, but it has an amazing ability to come in fresh versions. A sensible set of remarks from John Wilson of College Freedom in the comments at InsideHigherEd:
Lobbying of a university not to hire a particular professor is a serious threat to academic freedom. The decision to hire or not hire should be based on merit, not politics. If Yale was influenced by this campaign (and we’d all like to know the truth), then it is a danger to academic freedom. Public (or private) campaigns to pressure universities not to hire someone because of their politics are morally wrong. Juan Cole would be the first professor on David Horowitz’s list to be so treated. Criticism of Juan Cole is perfectly acceptable. However, it should be criticism of his views, not a call for a blacklist.
Listening to the delusional moaning of right-wingers, you wouldn't realize that, as usual in the U.S., the actual victims of political persecution in the universities--folks who lose jobs--are almost all on the left. (In this case, the damage to the target, Professor Cole, is, happily, minimal, as he remains a professor at a leading research university, and part of one of the top History Departments in the nation.)
ADDENDUM: Given the byzantine hiring process at Yale, it's perhaps worth noting that politics might not explain the outcome (hence the question mark in the title). Although it is true the appointment had been approved at the departmental level, it is not uncommon for those decisions to be overturned higher up. In this case, though, given the volume of the orchestrated attacks by the right-wing on Professor Cole, it seems a plausible assumption that the political attacks were a significant factor in the decision to reverse the departmental recommendations.
Recent Comments