...and now there is an uproar because Singer holds incorrect views, for example, about euthanasia, infanticide and the disabled. An uproar is fine, what isn't fine are the demands that his event (slated for tomorrow) be cancelled, which have come from, among others, the History faculty and the Anthropology/Sociology/African Studies Program at Rhodes. For example, the historians sent out the following campus-wide email:
As historians, we the undersigned condemn Prof. Peter Singers’ abhorrent views that some humans have less value than others. We object to inviting him to Rhodes College to speak as part of a “Pandemics Ethics” panel. Positioning him as an expert on ethics only legitimizes his reprehensible beliefs that deny the very humanity of people with disabilities. Hypothetical philosophies on morality cause real violence. We historians are all too familiar with ideas that justify labeling marginalized, vulnerable, and minority populations as “life unworthy of life,” and the murderous consequences for those deemed “unfit” to live. Adhering to the College’s own IDEAS Framework that seeks to foster “a sense of belonging” and embrace “the full range of psychological, physical, and social difference,” we historians assert that Prof. Peter Singers’ blatant inhumanity has no place in serious academic exchange here at Rhodes.
The first sentence is fine: the historians can decide that Singer's views are abhorrent and can condemn them. But the rest of the email is a call to violate the academic freedom rights of their colleagues in the philosophy department, who have a right to invite someone they judge (quite reasonably) to be an expert in applied ethics to give a talk. (Academic freedom includes the freedom of members of a discipline to decide which speakers are appropriate speakers in their departments, just as it includes freedom to design the curriculum, set requirements, and so on.)
The campus-wide email from the Anthropology et al. Program was long, but also calls on philosophy to cancel the event:
We, the faculty in the Department of Anthropology and Sociology and the Africana Studies Program, wish to express our deepest dismay at the invitation of Professor Peter Singer to our campus. We believe that proceeding with this event as currently structured could further alienate students, faculty, and staff, particularly after the unresolved racist "incident" against African Americans that occurred in early September.
Professor Singer’s longstanding advancement of philosophical arguments that presume the inferiority of many disabled lives is dehumanizing and dangerous. The creation of a hierarchy of lives as a justification for the allocation or denial of limited resources (whether “pleasure,” medical care, insurance, etc.) is a logic that has a long and violent history. It is a logic that underlies eugenicist arguments marking various marginalized populations as unfit to be a part of the advancement of the human race. In the United States, such hierarchies were used to justify genocide of Native Americans who were viewed as incapable of self-governance, portray the enslavement of Africans as a civilizing act of benevolence, defend sex assignments, pathologize homosexuality and queerness, and moralize forced sterilizations and mass incarceration of impoverished populations and minorities, all of whom were deemed to be “burdens” on an otherwise “healthy” or “normal” society.
There's actually a good, substantive point in that second paragraph, but it doesn't justify cancelling an invited talk, but it does suggest an excellent topic for another conference or lecture. The email concludes:
It is safe to say that every single faculty member at Rhodes believes in freedom of speech and the free intellectual exchange of ideas. The relevant issue is that these principles do not exist in a vacuum without context and consequences, and it is irresponsible to ignore power dynamics that amplify certain voices and ignore others. Rather, these principles must be tempered with a moral discernment about when speech perpetuates injustice, inequality, exclusion, and dehumanization. The question is not whether wecan invite anyone. The question is whether we should. And, in this case, we should not.
"It is safe to say" that the faculty responsible for this email do not, in fact, "believe[] in freedom of speech and the free intellectual exchange of ideas." If they did, they would have confined themselves to a substantive critique of Singer's ideas, rather than calling for his invitation to be rescinded.
The Interim President and Provost sent an email to the Philosophy Department in which they noted that "our institution’s spirit of supporting expressive speech does not prohibit Professor Singer’s participation in this virtual panel. At the same time, our community’s values compel us to denounce some of the views he has expressed repeatedly over years through various addresses, writings, and media interviews." Clearly Rhodes College's commitment to academic freedom does not include the principles embodied in Chicago's Kalven Report: university leaders should not be condemning the excercise of academic freedom by faculty members to invite speakers in their discipline to campus.
The current Chair of Philosophy at Rhodes is Professor Rebecca Tuvel, who, of course, had her own experience with mobbing by the thought police for having incorrect philosophical views. Rhodes and the Philosophy Department stood behind her then--kudos to them!--and now the Department will need to stand firm in the face of this utterly disgraceful attack on their academic freedom.
(Thanks to a philosopher in New York who called this to my attention.)
UPDATE: The Rhodes College philosophers involved in the event have sent out an email to their colleagues:
We write in response to one of our colleagues, who has publicly expressed concern about the Philosophy department’s invitation to Peter Singer—and he has every right to do so. The objection raised is apparently not to the topic, but to the speaker. We are of course aware that Professor Singer has advanced philosophical arguments on bioethical issues that many find not only disturbing but deeply offensive, a reaction by no means confined to members of the disabled community. Indeed, the organizers also take issue with some of Dr. Singer’s views.
Serious intellectual exchange about matters of significance cannot avoid sometimes causing anger, offense, and pain and no one should be cavalier about that fact. It is not clear to us, however, what follows from our colleague’s understandable expression of disturbance at some of Professor Singer’s views. Do those views disqualify Singer from participating in the exchange of ideas that ought to occur at a liberal arts college? If that is the conclusion, we respectfully disagree, for its premise is that ideas that cause anger and dismay ought not, for that reason, be part of the exchange and that premise, we think, is incompatible with our mission to teach students how to engage in productive dialogue even, and indeed especially, with thinkers with whom they vehemently disagree.
That's a fine statement, although I would not have conceded that a talk by Peter Singer causes "pain" to anyone: if it does, that's a matter for the person's doctors, not the college.
Recent Comments