In the wake of Ward Churchill’s controversial dismissal from CU, academic freedom remains a complex and heated issue.
Just ask Benjamin Whitmer, a lecturer in CU’s Ethnic Studies department.
Throughout the Churchill case, and for several months after Churchill’s official dismissal in June of 2006, Whitmer wrote regularly in a blog on TryWorks.org defending Churchill and venting his acrimony towards the media and the CU administration for their handling of the case.
The content of Whitmer’s blog was so scathing that Whitmer chose an alias, “John Moredock,” to disguise his identity.
But on the Internet there are no secrets.
Whitmer’s identity was discovered in December 2006 when documentarian Grant Crowell tracked the IP address of e-mails sent to him from “Moredock.”
Crowell then confronted Whitmer via e-mail.
As a result, “Moredock” disappeared from the Internet and Whitmer immediately removed the blog from TryWorks.org.
When asked about the blog in an e-mail interview, Whitmer said this.
“I’m not answering any more questions about The Try-Works. My involvement had nothing to do with my work at the university. It was Internet rabble-rousing done solely in my personal time, and I want to keep the line between it and what I do at CU as sharp and clear as possible.”
In the world of academia, however, the line between professional duty and personal opinion is vague.
“There is no line. This is an issue with a lot of gray area,” said Barbara Bintliff, professor of law and chair of the Boulder Faculty Assembly.
Article 5.C.1 of the Laws of the Regents reads, “A faculty member may be dismissed when, in the judgment of the Board of Regents and subject to the Board of Regents constitutional and statutory authority, the good of the university requires such action.”
The grounds for such dismissal are professional incompetence, neglect of duty, insubordination, conviction of a felony or any offense involving moral turpitude.
Although the Regents have not taken action against Whitmer, the entire Ethnic Studies department is well aware of being under close scrutiny by CU.
“Although Professor Churchill has been the primary subject of scrutiny and of investigation, it is evident that he has not been the only person placed under the academic, bureaucratic and political microscope,” wrote Albert Ramirez, chair of the Ethnic Studies department in a statement concerning the Churchill case.
When asked about Whitmer’s blog, Ramirez said, “Why should it concern me? As I understand it, he didn’t use any university resources to do so.”
While using university resources to express a personal opinion may represent a breach in academic integrity, it also calls into the question the notion of academic freedom.
Various CU law conferences held last year discussed academic freedom. In one conference, entitled, “Horowitz, Churchill, Columbia-What’s Next for Academic Freedom?” Larry Alexander, a professor of law at Yale University, said that political undertones limit academic freedom by undermining the traditional academic criteria of evidence and argument. In other words, politics limit professors in their exploration of controversial subjects.
Whitmer said his experience with the Churchill incident discouraged his beliefs about academic freedom
“Academic freedom and the right to free speech never existed. They were fantasies. Yeah, you may not always be hauled off to jail for exercising them, but the media will do everything they can to ruin you. They won’t bother getting you for what it was you said, they’ll just find some trumped-up charge to ruin you with,” Whitmer said. “Make no mistake, the only difference between it and McCarthyism is the manner of the smear.”
Ramirez disagrees.
“I believe it is possible for a professor to express his or her opinions in a marketplace of free ideas, as with any other citizen of the U.S.,” Ramirez said.
Elly Cushman, a sophomore psychology major, said she can remember numerous incidents in her classes where her professors declined to comment on controversial subject matter.
“I think it would be nice to hear what they have to say,” Cushman said. “I mean, we’re not all pods sitting there in class. We have our own opinions.”
The debate about academic freedom has sparked many academics to organize, sign petitions and hold forums.
Teachers for a Democratic Society are a national organization devoted to defending dissent and critical thinking. Their Web site is http://www.defendcriticalthinking.org/.
Students have shown their concern as well.
In December 2006, 25 CU students organized a chapter of Students for Academic Freedom that picketed and dispersed flyers to raise awareness about the issue. Josh Dillabaugh, a sophomore history major, was among the students involved.
“Everybody who is employed by somebody else has certain responsibilities to their employer, yet at the same time they have a responsibility to their personal beliefs. In these types of cases, the two responsibilities may overlap,” Dillabaugh said.
In politically charged cases like Churchill’s the issue becomes a question of professional duty versus civic duty.
“There is a duty to speak out about these issues,” Whitmer said. “The first duty is to the students, and they deserve all sides of a story. They deserve to be treated with the respect of telling them the truth. They deserve professors who engage them, who challenge the status quo, who care more about making them think than about getting them to regurgitate the same crap they learned to regurgitate in high school.”
Many professors have been criticized based on their willingness to approach issues with civic consciousness rather than remain neutral. Critics maintain that this approach may interfere with professional standards.
“I think people make a big deal out of these kinds of controversies these days but I don’t think you can grade a professor’s teaching abilities on their personal opinions,” said Ryan Whitmore, a freshmen open-option major.
The debate about academic freedom is a debate that continues to shape the way policy makers think about education. Its future is intertwined with the future of free speech in America.
Whitmer said that the future of academic freedom is up to students. He concluded his e-mail interview with an anecdote.
“I grew up on a farm, and there’s a joke I remember. It ran: How do you get a mule’s attention? The answer was: with a 2-by-4. Institutions like CU can be awfully slow mules. It’s up to the students to choose the appropriate 2-by-4.”
To learn more about academic freedom visit the Center for Values and Social Policy for a schedule of relevant lectures that will be held throughout the semester.
Excerpts from Whitmer’s TryWorks blog can be found at http://www.pirateballerina.com/blog/entry.php?id=514.
