Ever since Cumberland College professor Robert Day was fired for publicly criticizing the school administration, Douglas Bass has kept close track of events at the school--the AAUP's unsuccessful defense of Day, Day's chairman's unsuccessful defense of Day, and now, the departure of that chairman and the disappearance of the website that got Day into so much trouble, wecareforcumberland.com.

We can only wonder whether things would have turned out differently--for Day, for Day's chairman, and for academic freedom at Cumberland College, had a group like FIRE become involved in it. When I first learned last fall about what was happening with Robert Day, I urged him to contact the people at FIRE, and he did so. But nothing appears to have come of it--just as nothing came of it when Nona Gerard, the Penn State theater professor who was fired for her unwelcome criticisms of her colleagues, brought her case to them (something I urged her to do, too).

FIRE is a small organization, and I know the people there cannot take on even a fraction of the cases that come before them. But I will say I was deeply disappointed last year that these two cases in particular were not addressed publicly and decisively by what is really the only group around that had a chance of saving the careers of Day and Gerard from the reckless and arrogant administrators who sought to ruin them--Day and Gerard seemed, to me at least, to have much more pressing problems than, for example, an openly religious adjunct who did not get to teach his first choice of courses and conservative students who were getting into trouble for holding affirmative action bake sales. The latter took up a huge proportion of FIRE's work over the fall and early winter last year--which was precisely the time that Robert Day and Nona Gerard found themselves in need. I spoke up for those students myself--their rights were being violated, and that was wrong. But in the grander scheme of things, I can't help but feel FIRE's time would have been better spent defending Day and Gerard, and I can't help but wonder whether their careers would still be intact if that had happened.

It seems to me that the common thread is that these are cases of institutional dissenters, not political dissenters, and it is the latter, particularly conservatives, that engages FIRE's attention.

And that is unfortunate, because we need advocates for institutional reform as well (or perhaps more, since institutional reform could enable better political protection).

Thanks for the update. I decided to turn off the website for personal reasons but continue to CARE in any other way that I can. Your site and Belief Seeking Understanding have helped a great deal. When the AAUP finally publishes the report of their invesitigation there may be some final vindication.

It seems unlikely that FIRE would have any more influence than AAUP at a private college like Cumberland. Even in the explicitly political-speech cases in which they specialize, they can exert influence mainly at public institutions, which are vulnerable to first-amendment lawsuits in a way that private institutions are not.

Why is it only FIRE that is supposed to ride to the rescue on these matters? We can't expect them to do everything (unless we are going to provide them with sufficient funding).

Where was the ACLU (for example), or the other groups with much bigger budgets than FIRE?

FIRE's agenda seems to emphasize the creation of political martyrs--especially conservative martyrs--rather than advancing a genuine individual rights agenda.

Skip,

How do you differentiate political martyrs from individual rights agenda. Seems as though they would be the same at the level of what FIRE is working with. FIRE specializes in conservative martyrs mainly because most the problems cropping up in Academia are because of conflicts between the super-liberal agenda of the institution and those who are fighting it who are mainly conservatives. If they were liberals, then they would have the support of the institutions. I think you are looking at this from the wrong end.

Skip,

How do you differentiate political martyrs from individual rights agenda. Seems as though they would be the same at the level of what FIRE is working with. FIRE specializes in conservative martyrs mainly because most the problems cropping up in Academia are because of conflicts between the super-liberal agenda of the institution and those who are fighting it who are mainly conservatives. If they were liberals, then they would have the support of the institutions. I think you are looking at this from the wrong end.

The reason FIRE supports mainly conservative martyrs is that with the super-liberal makeup of the institution, liberals would get the support and there would not be a problem. Conservatives need the support because the institutions do all in their power to keep the conservatives caged up and toothless. There is a reason for FIRE to support them whereas liberals already get all the support they could want.

"Academic freedom", especially at private institutions, is not a legally guaranteed civil right. My impression is that FIRE concentrates on issues where a legal case may be made (the Penn State one arguably fit the bill -- IANAL -- but I doubt if the Day case does). A public institution that discriminates against a faculty member because of his religious beliefs is precisely what FIRE is designed to deal with.

As a Canadian with one foor in academia and the other in the "real world" (I try to imbue my classes--psychology courses, as my work is clinical psychology--with the latter), I am amazed at how persecuted Conservatives appear to be on campuses (from what I've seen via both liberal and conservative sources), yet who can deny that an extremely Conservative agenda rules your country, whether it's the Republicans or Democrats in power (interestingly, the same can sort of be said about Canada, to a slightly more moderate degree).

Where are you?

Dear Canadian, Are you kidding? Or are you a marxist? The sweeping changes that have taken place in this republic over the course of its history are by definition liberal and can only be thought of as liberal. If you are referring to the last vestiges of the original intent of our Constitution as proof of a "ruling conservative aganda" you have chosen your words poorly. Good day.

Check out these new great cars ...