Michael Berube is the Edwin Erle Sparks Professor of Literature at Penn State, and Jennifer Ruth is a film professor at Portland State University. They discuss the vital distinctions between free speech and academic freedom, especially in light of today's social justice movements. They explore the challenges around extramural speech, the complexities of tenure, and the political dynamics affecting faculty autonomy. Key issues include how public statements can impact careers and the need for procedural protections to safeguard academic integrity.
The podcast emphasizes that academic freedom and free speech serve different purposes, with academic freedom grounded in intellectual standards versus free speech encompassing all expression types.
Michael Berube and Jennifer Ruth advocate for faculty committees to evaluate controversial extramural speech, ensuring accountability through peer assessment instead of unilateral administrative decisions.
The conversation highlights the importance of context in faculty speech evaluation, arguing that an understanding of statements' context is crucial to preserve academic integrity.
Deep dives
Exploring the Conflation of Academic Freedom and Free Speech
The discussion highlights the growing confusion between academic freedom and free speech, emphasizing that although both are protective, they serve different purposes. Academic freedom is grounded in intellectual standards, whereas free speech encompasses all forms of expression regardless of quality or justification. The authors argue that the conflation of these concepts can lead to the acceptance of unfounded beliefs and conspiracy theories in academic discourse, diluting the integrity of educational institutions. They assert that maintaining distinct boundaries to evaluate the relevance of faculty speech is crucial for preserving the standards of academia.
Defining Extramural Speech
Extramural speech refers to the communication of faculty members outside of teaching and scholarly work, often in the public sphere. This includes various platforms such as rallies, blog posts, and op-eds where professors express personal opinions on broader social issues. The authors intend to establish criteria for evaluating how such speech should be protected and under what circumstances it could lead to disciplinary action. By addressing these parameters, the authors hope to clarify the conditions under which extramural expressions intersect with academic fitness.
The Role of Faculty Committees in Evaluating Speech
The podcast discusses the need for faculty committees to assess cases of controversial extramural speech, advocating for peer evaluation rather than unilateral administrative decisions. Such committees would ideally serve to protect faculty members from arbitrary actions while ensuring that standards and accountability are maintained. The authors stress the importance of a properly composed committee, ideally consisting of respected faculty members who can objectively assess whether a colleague’s speech aligns with academic integrity. This collaborative approach aims to foster an environment of mutual respect while safeguarding academic freedom.
Upholding Academic Standards Amid Political Pressure
The conversation acknowledges the increasing pressure from political entities to regulate academic discourse, suggesting that traditional faculty self-policing has been diminished. The authors emphasize that unreasonable actions against faculty based on public speech can lead to an erosion of academic independence and integrity. They argue for the necessity of a robust system where faculty can address misconduct or incompetence among peers, rather than succumbing to external political pressures. Such systems would require clearly established standards of professionalism, allowing academic institutions to retain their autonomy.
The Importance of Context in Academic Discourse
The need for context in evaluating faculty speech is a key concern in the discussion, focusing on how the context of statements significantly impacts their interpretation and consequences. The authors illustrate that statements made in personal settings or on social media may not accurately reflect a professor's qualifications or teaching abilities. There is a highlighted tension between the immediacy of public reactions and the nuanced understanding required in academic discourse. The goal is to create a process where a committee can consider the entirety of a faculty member’s work and context, rather than reacting hastily to isolated incidents.
The AFA's Keith Whittington sits down with Michael Berube and Jennifer Ruth to discuss their recent book, It’s Not Free Speech: Race, Democracy, and the Future of Academic Freedom. Michael is the Edwin Erle Sparks Professor of Literature at Pennsylvania State University. Jennifer is a professor of film at Portland State University. He is the author of such books as What’s Liberal about the Liberal Arts? Classroom Politics and Bias in Higher Education, and she is the co-editor of the recent book, The Right to Learn: Resisting the Right-Wing Attack on Academic Freedom. They both served as members of Committee A on academic freedom at the American Association of University Professors.
Remember Everything You Learn from Podcasts
Save insights instantly, chat with episodes, and build lasting knowledge - all powered by AI.
