|
Part of the criticism is valid. Part isn't. And neither affects academic freedom, to research and teach that research in the classroom.
Teaching _only_ that research gets into thornier questions, and isn't confined to politically charged topics, as is requiring that only certain views are judged defensible. This has little to do with politics, per se, and moves far beyond what the average "progressive" or "freeper" would possibly care about.
Moreover, a point lost on many people is that you can debate an issue in rational, calm, tones, or you can be intentionally inflammatory. Both are protected speech; but while I'd argue that the former is always covered by academic freedom and the latter isn't. Some research requires speech some find offensive, hats off to Haj Ross. You have a right, when tenured, to research as you will; but intentionally trying to piss off people in the name of "speaking truth to power"--couched in incendiary language that is virtually guaranteed to close the ears of "power" and shut down dialog, while energizing your political base, isn't academic freedom. It's goal is frequently to pick a fight, and no such fight can be decried as victimization just because the bully finds the fights either fair or he's possibly about to be out-bullied. I don't care whether you're on the right or the left. Academics are highly educated and can, presumably, choose their words with care (for which reason it turns out many English professors are more dysfluent than factory workers).
|