CUNY is deservedly taking it on the nose for denying tenure to a prominent young historian because he was not "collegial." This is a growing trend, one that is transparently designed to enable departments to fire people they don't like or whose politics turn out not to be in conformity with campus norms. I've written at length in the past about the glaring problems inherent in using that entirely subjective and abusable category, "collegiality," as a criterion in tenure cases, concentrating on a disturbing case in the biology department at Nevada-Reno. In that piece I note that the American Association of University Professors--the official watchdog organization for academic freedom--has become concerned enough about this growing trend to issue a formal statement about the ethical morass that is formed when collegiality becomes a decisive factor in tenure cases. The CUNY case proves the AAUP's point--not least because the alleged episodes of "uncollegiality" on the part of this professor centered on his suggestion that his department make hires on the basis of merit rather than gender preference and that a proposed panel on 9/11 should represent more than one viewpoint. When such sensible and ethical statements qualify someone as "uncollegial" and cost him his job, you know both that academic freedom is a farce and that the academy itself is more committed to perpetuating bias than to fostering the exchange of ideas.