On The New Republic website today, the distinguished sociologist Alan Wolfe pens a defense of a left-wing academic, William I. Robinson.The Anti-Defamation League and others are attacking Robinson for recent actions he took in conjunction with a course he teaches at the University of California, Santa Barbara, on the “Sociology of Globalization.”
Robinson did the following. Last January, he sent an e-mail to students in his course accusing Israel of war crimes in Gaza, said that the occupation of Gaza by Israel was the equivalent of the Nazi occupation of the Warsaw Ghetto, and sent photographs which he argued showed that what Israel was doing to the Palestinians was the same as what the Nazis had done to the Jews. In protest, the Anti-Defamation League has called for an investigation of Professor Robinson.
Wolfe comes to Robinson’s defense by making the following argument. He does not agree with his beliefs as expressed in the e-mail. Indeed, Wolfe acknowledges that “neither Robinson’s leftist kind of sociology nor his activist kind of politics are mine.” Yet he finds the idea of investigating Robinson “appalling” and writes that “the ADL should be ashamed of itself.” As Wolfe sees it, censoring Robinson would set harmful precedents that could have ramifications for anyone teaching at public universities.
Robinson’s defenders say his academic freedom is in danger of being abridged, especially since the University has said it will investigate his actions. Wolfe does not buy Robinson’s critics contention that propagandistic e-mails have nothing to do with the subject he is teaching. Wolfe maintains that professors at our universities who teach controversial subjects should “provoke, and even outrage, their students.” This certainly is what Robinson has done, especially to the school’s Jewish students. Wolfe worries about “academic apathy;’ he thinks it is a good thing when a professor cares so much about issues of the day that he e-mails students about them. Even if his actions caused damage or hurt to some, Wolfe says, the “arguments and discussion” they provoke outweigh the damage he might have done.
Moreover, those opposing Robinson, like the ADL, are condemned by Wolfe as “thought police,” who are “monitoring campuses for any sign of what it considers offensive speech and putting pressure to bear on university administrators to stop it.” So Wolfe has joined a new committee “to Defend Academic Freedom at UCSB,” which includes Noam Chomsky, a man who has never found an extremist critic of Israel he has not rushed to defend. Noting that his own college cancelled a speech by Bill Ayers and that Clark University considered cancelling a speech by the self-hating Jew Norman Finkelstein, Wolfe is concerned that “this whole business is threatening to spin out of control.”
So Wolfe, who claims he opposes the “smug political correctness of the academic left,” says it is imperative that he also oppose “the new version of political correctness” of those who want to censor ideas they oppose.
Is Alan Wolfe correct? I think not. First, he confuses the concept of free speech- guaranteed by the First Amendment of our Constitution, with the concept of academic freedom. As a political philosopher and sociologist, Wolfe should know this. A David Duke may have ideas we despise and detest; that does not give Duke to teach a course, let us say, on English literature, and send out his anti-Semitic hate material to students by e-mail. It does guarantee Duke the right to spout his bile in public, and for us to denounce him in return.
No one has made the distinction better than Stanley Fish, writing in The New York Times on July 23, 2006. Fish wrote: “Academic freedom is the freedom of academics to study anything they like; the freedom, that is, to subject any body of material, however unpromising it may seem, to academic interrogation and analysis…Any idea can be brought into the classroom if the point is to inquire into its structure, history, influence and so forth. But no idea belongs in the classroom if the point of introducing it is to recruit your students for the political agenda it may be thought to imply.”
I do not think Professor Robinson and his supporters could provide evidence that these anti-Israel e-mails meet that criterion, or Wolfe’s criterion that they provoke thought. Robinson did not e-mail counter arguments with his e-mail. He sought instead to indoctrinate students with his own political agenda, using his power over them via the course he is teaching to make them pay attention to his own political views.
The second document I cite is the famous “1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure,” passed by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) when the group had clout and influence in the academy. Written at a moment when our country was at war, the AAUP statement says: “Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject….When they speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline, but their special position in the community imposes special obligations. As scholars and educational officers, they should remember that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances. Hence they should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint…and should make every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution.”
In 1970, the AAUP printed an addendum, in which they said the intent was not to discourage what is controversial, since controversy is “at the heart of the free academic inquiry.” It was only meant to “underscore the need for teachers to avoid persistently intruding material which has no relation to the subject.”
To sum up: Alan Wolfe should look closely at Stanley Fish’s argument, as well as the AAUP statement. Freedom of speech is not the same thing as academic freedom. Too many left-wing academics, like Ward Churchill, have hidden under the rubric of the latter to assert a false case that their free speech is being challenged. It is not. They have a perfect right to make idiots of themselves as citizens; students have the right to let an administration know that as captives in the classroom, they do not have to listen to a professor’s political agenda and to be subject to indoctrination.
How can you claim to defend free speech and impose a code of political correctness at the same time?
Teachers indulging in propaganda are failing their duty to help young minds develop. If you use your power to push young people into one intellectual groove or another, you are not developing their mind, you are preparing them for servitude.
And you have to pay a tuition for THAT?
These sentences stand out: “Wolfe comes to Robinson’s defense by making the following argument. He does not agree with his beliefs as expressed in the e-mail.”
It amazes me how often leftists say they don’t agree with Joe Anti-Semite’s views, and yet they continually defend the bigot’s right to “free speech.” The trick is growing old. And we know this is a trick, because they never defend my right to free speech as a real Protestant, or my neighbour’s right to free speech as a Mormon, or my neighbour’s neighbour’s right to free speech as a Catholic. Mathematically speaking, it screams selective-free speech politics.
The ability to make distinctions is the beginning of all wisdom. William I. Robinson is too idiotic to be teaching students. They should be getting far more for their money. Also, how are they going to get their own act together if their teacher is such an incompetent fool? What about their rights? Aren’t they trying to earn a legitimate credential to enhance their resume? Robinson has every right to make a fool of himself on his own time—and dime! Nonetheless, the paying customers are not obligated to endure his insane rants.
There is something else that cannot be ignored: this issue involves Jews. The leftist academic community has declared open season on them. Do you think I’m exaggerating? If so, imagine what would occur if Professor Robinson was talking about black people! Does anyone think that Alan Wolfe would be contending that the resulting “arguments and discussion” would be an adequate justification?
Fun, isn’t it? The public universities all hire exclusively liberal academics, and then insist on their right to free speech in defense of dissent (always against conservatives) and academic freedom (as long as they parrot the liberal mantra on any particular subject). Truly silly.
Robinson has a right to be stupid and in poor taste when he speaks (unfortunately, he’d probably want to ban things he just didn’t like in return). It’s, of course, Robinson’s responsibility to put forth an argument supported by evidence– namely, one that addresses and answers any counterarguments ideally– but who’s counting? Unsupported emotional ranting while not allowing (and retaliating against, if possible) any disgareement or counterargument– that’s leftoid “free speech” (i.e., only-for-leftists free speech)… just like it’s “free speech” to say nasty things about Israel because all their leftist buddies and Iran insist upon it.
“Will the Left ask Ahmadinejad which side is he on? Or the same for Hugo, Raul, and Kim Il Jr?”
Not a chance! You only ask which side you are on only to your allies (and slander them if they are not on your side). To your enemies, you need to move toward their side to be on the same side. Never expect them to move to your side.
2. Professor Guvinoff:
“How can you claim to defend free speech and impose a code of political correctness at the same time?”
Yeppers, Prof. Guvinoff! That ‘thar’ mentality is an oxymoron, wrapped in a riddle of Liberal lies, wrapped in a PC-lib-slanted tortilla.
Ya see, you have to get with the program[ming], Sir! No more time to think on your own. Freedom of speech is only relevant if you’re on the ‘other’ side of the PC tortilla.
The nepenthe the 0bots are drinking in must be some good SH*T!
“To sum up: Alan Wolfe should look closely at Stanley Fish’s argument, as well as the AAUP statement.”
Yes to the AAUP Part, NO to Stanley Fish. In the 90s at Duke he was caught with a memo calling for pedagogic (not political) “conservatives” to be blacklisted, including an ex head of amnesty international. Having a fake like Fish talk about academic freedom is like having Jim Baaker preach about fidelity.
It is no problem at all to expose this piece as shameless ideological posturing.
The course in question concerns global issues. Robinson is an historical sociologist whose forte is researching and teaching global issues. Comparative analysis is the method of historical sociology. Cultivating critical comparative thinking in students is its striving. This is why Robinson was hired and tenured and promoted: he’s a brilliant comparative historical sociologist.
Robinson would have been failing his students and acting ideologically had he avoided this topic. After all, it was the major global story of the day. It is a common teaching method to illustrate classroom concepts with contemporary public issues. The e-mail, whether you agree with the content or not, is appropriate in the context of a sociology class covering global issues.
Radosh misses the point of a public education, which is troubling given that he has attempted to provide one for so many years. The purpose of a liberal arts education is to promote, along with critical, comparative, and historical thinking, the work of citizenship, an endeavor that demands attention to moral concerns. This isn’t technical or vocational training we’re talking about here, but a liberal arts education. This is the place where these types of discussions are supposed to take place. Why else would the school have a sociology class on global issues if not to enlighten students and encourage them to actively engage the world around them?
For Radosh, it’s as simple as this: he doesn’t like what’s in Robinson’s email. He’s gotten himself all twisted in knots trying to argue for the suppression of speech in a way that allows him to preserve his self-identity as somebody who believes in academic freedom. The effort is an obvious failure.
More broadly, this affair is a transparent attempt to intimidate the critics of Israel into silence and discredit them in the eyes of the public. They are making Robinson an example. I don’t think it’s going to work. For liberty’s sake, I hope it doesn’t.
Academics have been at war with all that is best in America for decades. Now the ADL is complaining? You’re the last under the bus. I’m too tired right now, but this complaint of the ADL begs for a parody of Niemöller’s statement.
First they came for the… now they’re coming for the Jews, and there are damn few left about to take their side.
Po-tee-weet.
6. Delia
Yes, thinking on your own is so inefficient, when all these gurus are volunteering to do it for you.
On how many points of comparison does Robinson have to be wrong until his viewpoint is considered wrong? There are only two logical answers: Either he has to be wrong on only one point, which muddies his argument enough to disqualify it as truthful or he has to be right on only one point to prevent complete rejection of his opinion. And Wolfe is correct – in academia it apparently does not matter who is hurt or how much someone or some institution is hurt, as long as the “point of view” stirs up controversy.
These “academic” values suck in the real world. If the comparison of Israeli actions to that of the Nazis is mostly wrong and Jews die because the “mostly wrong” view becomes the accepted version, then great evil has entered the world and Robinson and the institutions who support him should be brought to justice. The real world needs to impose standards on the academic world. Truth, if you admit to its existence, is exhaustively inclusive, not “a point of view.” Justice is the societal prerogative to impose inclusiveness on “points of view” even if there are consequences for “academic freedom.”
This nonsense would likely never occur in a hard science classroom. A student hoping to get into medical school, for instance, cannot cut slack for a whacked out chemistry professor spending precious class room time on irrelevant matters. They would immediately complain to the academic authorities. Tacitly, people no longer take the liberal arts seriously. A goofy teacher like William I. Robinson really doesn’t matter—because presumably the degrees are phonier than a three-dollar bill. The students are going to get a good grade just for attending the class.
#10: David Thomson
“This nonsense would likely never occur in a hard science classroom.”
I had the pleasure and honor of taking three courses from Linus Pauling in the fifties. This was during the height of his work on the Nuclear Test Ban.
I cannot recall his even mentioning the Test Ban in any of these courses: Introductory Chemistry-1, Quantum Chemistry – intermediate, or The Nature of the Chemical Bond – graduate level. He was willing to discuss and argue with you after class (the man was polite to a fault), but business was business. There was too much to learn and discuss to waste time on things that were irrelevant to the subjects.
This concentration on essentials is the hallmark of a professional and the lack of same is a sure sign of a hack.
As a result we were more likely to listen to and evaluate his Ban arguments…Linus was wise enough to realize this basic fact of human nature.
One would assume that a “historical sociologist” would have some minimum historical sense. The Warsaw ghetto was created by Nazis with one ultimate purpose: the destruction of every person who would be confined there. Under no reasonable view could this be compared with the Gaza incursion which had no such purpose.
Most of the comments on this post thus far have been abstract and theoretical. The concrete reality is quite different, and can be expressed in a few simple axioms:
1. Any advocacy that results in the murder of children is apodictically evil.
2. The Jew-hatred spewed by Professor Robinson will — as such Jew-hatred always has in the past — ultimately lead to the dead and mutilated bodies of Jewish children.
3. Therefore, Professor Robinson’s preachments are apodictically evil, and have no place in the academy or in any civilized community. No amount of talk about academic freedom can change that fact.
Professor Robinson should be booted from the University of California system, and ostracized from any and all teaching jobs.
After that, he can go to hell.
10. Andrew
Methinks thou fire rapidly.
Robinson is a Jew-hater, regardless of what religion his parents were born into. Can anyone imagine the outrage if this sort of bile were directed at any other ethnic group in America? Somehow I think that if this was a “Stormfront” type nutjob sending his propaganda to students, the establishment (read: the Left) would rightly be calling for his head.
What the hell is “sociology”, anyway? Leftoid claptrap, that’s what.
Oh, and “Andrew” (Comment #10) is a complete idiot, who himself probably has a “degree” in “sociology” from the “university” of California at Santa Barbara, or something of similar worth (such as toilet paper).
What about each of us including the media (because we are all only practicing to READ MEDIA, we really are, or need to be,experts in READING OURSELVE)accepting responsibility for allowing distractions to be mistaken as “life” while we all(mostly) go on accepting as “reality” that people are dying in wars, famines, due to capital punishment “laws”, and we continue to have our “fix” of negativity in our “drug” of choice: a “reality” stream of unconsciousness that lulls us with a “limitation high” of: “It has to be this way,” “Thats just the way it is,” “It’s hopeless”. What about the advice to me: “You have to focus on one thing to make a difference”, “You have to eliminate what will prevent you from being taken seriously” (meaning keep skeletons in your closet, remain sick by stuffing your emotions, only allow ego and dram to be vicarious by expressing yourself via images of celebrities).All these limitations ARE what needs to be dealt with. Instead of worshipping the limitations we need to demonize and villify THEM instead of any human being. But we first must become HUMAN by embracing our vulnerability by finding strength in the resilience that dealing with our self hatred brings. Then we can we can begin to admit that our social roles, our various cultures,ie what we get our identity from is just PRACTICE for the really tough job ahead of being uniquely HUMAN because when we emerge from the PRACTICE “game” of pre or virtual life that is when we want to FLOW free in authentic life but instinctively know that unless everyone can do so, my Freedom “flow” is instead a freedom “flaw” due to defensivenss. Well I AM focussing on one thing. It just happens that one thing is that my life is secondary to feeling that I have done my best to make a difference even if it takes making everyone, even myself, uncomfortable. I have succeeded at being kicked out of Kabbalah class, kicked out of a so-called? professional academic association, Justice(!)Studies Association, The ACLU prefers to consider that I am threatening them when I say that I am going to tell the NEW YORk Times that even they are made uncomfortable with my issues involving freedom of speech (being open about being formerly homeless, with PTSD and prostitution in my past 23 years ago)that have resulted in being fired and/or replaced by universities.
Pete Seeger considers himself a link in a chain. The same could be said for Ron Radosh – he’s part of a chain that stretches from Joe McCarthy. Seeger has tried to be meticulously fair on Israeli-Palestinian affairs – if anything, he’s probably been too reluctant to criticize Israel. If he hadn’t privately been appalled by some Israel’s actions, it would have been deeply disappointing. There are plenty of Israeli Jews who are willing to compare the actions of the IDF with those of the Nazis. But hardly anyone in America dares to do it, for the fear of vultures such as Radosh pouncing on them and accusing them of antisemitism. This incredibly stupid attitude is contributing to Israel behaving more and more like the fascists who committed genocide agaisnt European Jews in the 1930s.
Pete Seeger stands tall at 90. Radosh can’t help reinforcing his own stature as a perennial pygmy by his gratuitous criticism of someone of whom all Americans ought to be proud.
lol “Has Seeger ever thought of taking his Clearwater project over to China which has been leaping forward in the past three or four decades in its effort to poison the world’s air?” The answer is: “probably”. One man can only do so much good in the world, and Mr. Seeger has done more for this country in his 90 years than you will ever accomplish in yours.
“How can you claim to defend free speech and impose a code of political correctness at the same time?”
Am I reading the argument that follows correctly to say that when a person who can’t see how free speech can exist in the context of imposed political correctness then advocates political correctness (find some way of stopping Robinson from speaking freely) that he is therefore opposing free speech?
Fascinating post. Many thanks for posting