When individuals or groups issue strong criticism of academe's politicization, they are almost reflexively labelled "McCarthist." This labelling is so ubiquitous that it's tough to cite examples -- but just a couple come to mind for those who don't immediately recognize the justness of the observation. The first is Beshari Doumani's edited collection, Academic Freedom after September 11; the other is Henry Giroux's new recycling of his perennial arguments, The University in Chains.

Anyway. The occasion for this post is the Chronicle of Higher Education's summary of an article--not available online, alas--about how academics have been overstating the threat to their academic freedom that is posed by legitimate criticism:

Scholarly criticism, particularly from the political right, is too often mischaracterized as a threat to academic freedom, says Robert J. Lieber, a professor of government and international affairs at Georgetown University. "The problem is much less acute in some disciplines than in others," he writes, "but the resulting effects truncate the kind of critical engagement, or the sifting and winnowing of serious ideas, that best reflects the ideals of the university."

In Middle East studies, for example, denunciations of America's foreign policy from scholars on the left are common, says Mr. Lieber. Not surprisingly, he says, a good deal of professorial writing and speaking on those topics has been subject to criticism. In turn, many Middle East scholars "have complained about what they consider to be intimidation and threats to academic freedom."

Mr. Lieber says such "expressions of concern exhibit a great deal of hyperbole." As he writes, "Criticism of such judgments is fair game -- Indeed, such criticism can even be unfair, but cases in which moderate, conservative, or right-wing criticism has led to genuine infringement on academic freedom--through censorship, punitive action, or dismissal--are very hard to find."

"The scholars who experience real threats to academic freedom," the summary continues, "are the ones 'who do not share the dominant sympathies, ideologies, and beliefs' that characterize their discipline. Such scholars become 'marginalized, often excluded, and thus isolated and even stigmatized. ... What is insidious about this marginalization ... is that the ideas and writing of these scholars are less subject to critical engagement.'"

Ya think?

It's good to see these ideas finally getting a hearing in a scholarly journal (International Studies Perspectives). But it's sad to see them behind both the journal's own electronic barrier and CHE's subscription wall.

UPDATE: The article is now online.