Oh how the mighty have fallen; Committee A of the AAUP used to be a reliable defender of academic freedom, but since its capture by the enemies of academic freedom, it has been going downhill fast. The latest absurd statement in defense of "diversity statements" reflects pretty clearly the influence of UC Davis law professor Brian Soucek (a member of Committee A), whose mistaken views we have discussed many times before (see especially). Let me quote the appropriately scathing comments of Professor Tyler Harper (Bates College) from Twitter:
The AAUP statement insisting that mandatory DEI statements are compatible with academic freedom—and not political litmus tests—is ridiculous. DEI is not a neutral framework dropped from the sky, it’s an ideology about which reasonable people—including people of color—disagree. I have benefited from and support affirmative action, and there are some things that fall under the rubric of DEI that I agree with. But pretending that DEI is not a political perspective or framework—when only people of one political persuasion support DEI—is a flagrant lie. Evaluating a professor’s teaching with respect to their adherence to a DEI framework is a clear violation of academic freedom. DEI is not some bland affirmation that diversity is important and all people deserve accessible education. It’s a specific set of ideas.
Professor Harper adds: "Recent events should have made clear that professors, particularly those of us on the left, must defend academic freedom without compromise, even when we disagree with how others use that freedom. When academic freedom is softened, we are always the ones who end up losing."
This capitulation by the AAUP is bitterly ironic coming on the heels of this. According to the AAUP;
A college or university might institutionally value (1) recruiting and retaining a diverse student population, (2) recruiting and retaining a diverse faculty to teach those students, and (3) teaching, research, and service that respond to the needs of a diverse global public. These are legitimate educational goals—in fact, goals recommended by the AAUP—and institutions may adopt appropriate strategies to achieve them. Such strategies may include requiring faculty members to demonstrate the professional competencies necessary for teaching a diverse student body; developing strategies to recruit, hire, mentor, and retain a diverse faculty; and funding and protecting work that addresses a diversity of audiences and needs. While faculty members have the right to engage in extramural or intramural expression criticizing any such policies—as they do with any other institutional policy—the AAUP does not consider it a violation of academic freedom per se when an appropriate larger group, such as a faculty senate or a department, collectively adopts an educational policy or goal and evaluates individual faculty members’ performance by reference to them even though they dissent.
Now rewrite this for the next Trump Administration:
A college or university might institutionally value (1) recruiting and retaining a pro-American student population, (2) recruiting and retaining a pro-American faculty to teach those students, and (3) teaching, research, and service that respond to the needs of Trump's America and its allies. These are legitimate educational goals...and institutions may adopt appropriate strategies to achieve them. Such strategies may include requiring faculty members to demonstrate the professional competencies necessary for teaching a pro-American student body; developing strategies to recruit, hire, mentor, and retain a pro-American faculty; and funding and protecting work that addresses a pro-American audiences and its needs. While faculty members have the right to engage in extramural or intramural expression criticizing any such policies—as they do with any other institutional policy—the AAUP does not consider it a violation of academic freedom per se when an appropriate larger group, such as a faculty senate or a department, collectively adopts an educational policy or goal and evaluates individual faculty members’ performance by reference to them even though they dissent.
DEI is an extramural social goal, just as much as being pro-America in MAGA-land is. Committee A is dead. We are fortunate that both FIRE and the Academic Freedom Alliance are actually still defending academic freedom. I would encourage all readers to resign their membership in the AAUP. It's a disgrace.
Recent Comments