![[comment image]](http://www.erinoconnor.org/archives/commentimage.gif)
Entry: Don't mess with the sacred cows
"Academic freedom" has become synonymous with "freedom to say, do, and advocate whatever you want," particularly if you are tenured.But that's not true, as Lefkowitz's experience shows. It's not that kind of anarchy, which frankly might well be preferable, but a substitution of political values for academic ones.
Posted by Annoying Old Guy at April 15, 2008 10:18 AM
AOG -- you are right; I left out the crucial qualifier: "as long as you are on the right side." I have amended the sentence accordingly.
Posted by Erin O'Connor at April 15, 2008 10:24 AM
I followed the Afrocentrism business several years ago and read some of Mary Lefkowitz on it at the time. I also read the John Leo piece in the Wall St. Journal with interest and sympathy.
However, I'm troubled with "What should the university do when a professor insists on teaching demonstrable untruths? No prattle about academic freedom, please."
Well, academic freedom is not just prattle to me. And suppose I want to say something in one of my classes, undergraduate classes say, expressing doubt about the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory (or hypothesis, as I prefer to call it). I don't teach a geoscience department, but some of what I teach is close enough to bring up AGW.
I guarantee, if it became publicly know that I was doing this, plenty of climate scientists, and maybe others, would be happy to tell you that I'm teaching "demostrable untruths", even if I were just explaining why there are, in my opinion, quite legitimate doubts about AGW. And some would be happy to have the university "do" something about it, i.e. put a stop to it, if they could.
So, the issue is not so easy or clear to me.
Posted by Mike at April 15, 2008 12:37 PM
Mike wrote:
I guarantee, if it became publicly know that I was doing this, plenty of climate scientists, and maybe others, would be happy to tell you that I'm teaching "demostrable untruths", even if I were just explaining why there are, in my opinion, quite legitimate doubts about AGW. And some would be happy to have the university "do" something about it, i.e. put a stop to it, if they could.So, the issue is not so easy or clear to me.
[sarcasm]
I agree.
As someone who believes that the earth may not be round, I'm having a great deal of trouble denying the flat earth people their say . . .
[/sarcasm]
Posted by minerva at April 16, 2008 5:31 PM
minerva that is just such a dumb thing to say, if you knew how dumb it is you would be embarrassed for yourself. It shows you don't know anything about science including the state of the science of the planetary climate.
Within the past week I have corresponded with two members of the National Academy of Sciences who are deeply skeptical of the standard global warming story.
Now please tell me two people in the National Academy of Sciences, or any scientist whatsoever, who entertains the belief that the earth is flat.
And please, don't make a fool of yourself by coming back with the comparison to the law of gravity.
Posted by Mike at April 16, 2008 6:34 PM
Oh dear! I've revealed my dumbth and you missed my point!
I guess I was too obtuse; I'd better spell it out.
To liken the "controversy" of Afrocentrism to the controversy of AGW is like likening the "controversy" of whether or not the earth is flat to the controversy of AGW. At least to me.
I guess I just don't have a problem in dismissing both Afrocentrism and the notion that the earth is flat with equal verve, given the evidence.
Just an opinion. Feel free to disagree.
Posted by minerva at April 16, 2008 7:40 PM
minerva, sorry if I misinterpreted what you said to mean that you consider AGW skepticsim to be akin to believing the earth is flat.
Even if you don't believe that, I can assure you, a good many people do, if one expresses skepticsim about AGW, one is likened to a flat-earther.
I'm not sure then, what point were you trying to make about someone who would teach that there is a skeptical side to the AGW question?
Posted by Mike at April 16, 2008 8:45 PM
David Suzuki, a well-known Canadian tv science personality, has suggested--seriously, as far as I can tell--legal consequences for people who dispute the anthropogenic hypothesis for global warming.
As to Ms. Lefkowitz, it all came out all right...after six years of litigation, and she was fortunate to find someone who would defend her without bankrupting her. The opposing professor...didn't get a raise. But I rather think that anyone else contemplating critcizing him had second thoughts.
Meanwhile, some years ago I worked for a department of the City of Detroit and most of my colleagues were black. A number had a poster distributed by Budweiser, "Great Black African Rulers." One of the rulers was Cleopatra, who was depicted as dark-skinned, sporting a large afro, dressed in a leopard skin and sprawled on a zebra skin couch. And when, as occasionally happened, I heard someone talk about how Cleopatra was really black, I had enough sense to keep quiet.
Posted by Alex Bensky at April 26, 2008 6:44 AM
This argument is akin to the plight of white men in the U.S. These poor guys have been taken advantage of by their own women first, who caused them to lose their manliness by pointing out their faults a bit too often. Then came the blacks who denigrated them for similar alleged transgressions. As a result, white men in America live such destitute lives becasue they have lost their identity and their livelihood has been stolen by Afirmative Actioned blacks. What a terrible life must theirs be!
Posted by PeelingLayers at June 11, 2008 9:31 PM