Last fall, we noted an Internet mob calling for the head of a young scholar, Noah Carl, who has some reprehensible political views, but who had been awarded a post-doc on the basis of his scholarly work, not his views. Now The Guardian reports that he has been fired, although the statements from college officals suggest many different possible reasons, some perhaps legitimate ("A special investigation panel appointed by the college upheld the complaints and said Carl 'had put a body of work into the public domain that did not comply with established criteria for research ethics and integrity'"), and some improper and incompatible with academic freedom (e.g., Matthew Bullock, the Master of the Cambridge college where Carl was located, is quoted as follows: “There was a serious risk that Dr Carl’s appointment could lead, directly or indirectly, to the college being used as a platform to promote views that could incite racial or religious hatred, and bring the college into disrepute....In addition, the panel also noted that the way in which Dr Carl has conducted himself with regard to his publications and the ideas he has expressed have had a detrimental effect on the atmosphere within the college, with feelings of hurt, betrayal, anger and disbelief that the college could be associated with such views.”). Bullock should resign or be fired, given his open contempt for academic freedom, which apparently can be defeated simply by keeping the wrong company and causing "feelings of hurt, betrayal, anger and disbelief" or bringing the reputation of the College "into disrepute." (Master Bullock has done exactly that!)
Barring further detail about the alleged deficiencies in "research ethics and integrity," I am inclined to conclude that academic freedom does not exist at Cambridge University and that the Internet mob has been rewarded and incentivized for future cases.
(Thanks to Daniel Came for the pointer.)
UPDATE: Perhaps one should not be surprised to learn that Mr. Bullock is not even an academic. What an embarrassment for St. Edmund's College, and for Cambridge.
ANOTHER: Useful perspective and context from philosopher David Wallace, who spent many years at Oxford before moving to the US:
Of course I agree with the main thrust of your piece, but I’m not sure it localizes the blame correctly, given how very different an Oxbridge college’s governance structure is to a US university’s. The Master of St.Edmund's will have been elected by the Fellows of the college, the overwhelming majority of whom will be academics. It’s fairly common for a Master to be a non-academic but he will hold his position only because the academic staff of the college chose him. Colleges are sovereign (so there’s not an external person who could fire the Master) and tend to give relatively little power to the Master unilaterally. In this case it looks as if the college appointed a committee (chaired by an academic, probably consisting mostly of academics) to look into this, and then just went with its recommendations - and it would be exceptionally unusual, and plausibly not within the Master’s unilateral gift, for a recommendation of that sort to be rejected. If you read the Master’s statement (linked to in the Guardian piece), what he says in his own voice is mostly about process, and most of the substance is quoted or paraphrased from the committee’s report.
Now, that’s not to exculpate the college - quite the reverse. I don’t think the actual report is online but it appears that it’s invented a philosophy where the shield of academic freedom is removed as soon as your work fails to meet certain academic standards, so that you can then be fired for bringing the college into disrepute. That’s shockingly dangerous and wide open to abuse. But this can’t be blamed on outside non-academics: it looks as if it’s squarely on the Fellows of St. Edmund's.
(Disclaimer: I’m assuming St.Edmund's matches the general governance structure of Oxbridge colleges, but I admit I haven’t checked.)
Recent Comments