Gideon Steinbach argued at Heterodox STEM, “It is time to redefine academic freedom, and restore scholarly discourse on campus.” Redefining academic freedom with the dream of removing a perceived evil is a dangerous approach.
The better approach to addressing the radicalization at the universities is to address the untold billions in funding the schools are receiving from Arab countries and China. Having foreign countries bribing our schools is a problem.
Why should we care if the rich people funding our universities are foreigners? Is "bribery" better from rich Americans and corporations? Wouldn't it be better to limit the influence of all donors rather than just the ones you think come from the wrong countries? The fact is, people think "radical" things because they want to, and they should have the freedom to do so, and there is no foreign plot to push radical ideas.
No foreign plots to push radical ideas? Really? Wow...that is quite some statement.
So if I was on the Left, I would claim Israel is pushing radical ideas on campus and in the US. I happen to agree with these "radical ideas" so I find that less troublesome than Islamism or DEI or CRT or AntiRacism or Marxism or Han Chinese Supremacism or any one of dozens or hundreds of ideologies that are incompatible with Western Civilization. How about those who claim truth does not exist, and evidence does not exist and all mathematics and science is racist and therefore MUST be destroyed at all costs? Do you have an issue with that?
Sure, you could say that these questionable statements can be countered with more speech. And I would normally agree, except we have unilateral censorship RIGHT NOW, in the media, on the internet, on campuses and in society. So how do you counter these destructive statements if you are not allowed to? That is what is going on at the moment. I have been censored and banned from numerous websites for things like providing a link to peer-reviewed published studies. Or objecting to threats from drug dealers. As long as things are so strikingly unbalanced, there is no free speech. Period.
I can give lots of other problematic examples. I do not know about you, but I personally do not relish the prospect of being a slave under massive surveillance in a totalitarian dictatorship. If that is your cup of tea, you can easily go try it out and see how you like it.
they aren't just individuals, but nations. They have seen that by buying power within our elite universities they gain leverage in the institutions that these young people will go on to run. When only one side's view is taught, a side that is from our enemies, it is unhealthy for our country. Would you have a problem with China or Saudi Arabia just buying our politicians or the CEOs of our largest companies? This is what they are doing indirectly.
There are still untouchable topics that are completely off limits in universities. Many of them have to do with human differences based on biological sex and ethnic origins. Surely some of these have been severely misused in the past when implemented as official policies, but no discussion topic should be prohibited in academia. As long as such topics exist, the search for truth suffers deeply.
It continues to shock me how common is this notion that we need curbs on free speech, that any entity can exist which is a reliable arbiter of the truth. The foolishness and propensity toward tyranny of such thinking is incomprehensible to any intelligent person, who understands that human fallibility requires free speech as its antidote. Free speech underpins all freedoms.
You mainly distinguish "good" and "bad" ideas by if they are "liked" or "disliked" (by a certain audience). In Science, we actually distinguish "good" and "bad" ideas by if they are "truthful" or "untruthful": Officially, you can only publish ideas that properly represent the Truth. Indeed, Scientific Freedom is inhibited in comparison with Constitutional Freedom. Freedom in Academia needs more or less correspond with the former type.
Oh, I've definitely noticed,,, but that's exactly why it's the perfect time for redefining, whilst reinvigorating, that procedure!!! Most of the nonsense that we have these days is because we don't constrain the Freedom of some disciplines (for example, in the infamous departments of Gender Studies, that totally ignore Science).
I am glad this is being discussed. I am not sure where to draw the line exactly. And when I read comments here, I think many are not quite aware of how biased "speech" has become in certain quarters. Let me give a couple of examples:
(1) Where I am from, death threats can result in imprisonment. But many who are "protesting" on behalf of the Left get a pass for death threats.
(2) The Left has defined speech as violence, and violence as speech. But that ONLY applies to speech that they approve of.
(3) If we can have lots of chants and speech about killing all Jews and killing all whites and so on, and this seems perfectly fine (and even acting it out is perfectly fine and encouraged by many university administrators), why not have chants about killing all blacks and all women and all trannies and homosexuals and so on? I know some will mutter some mumbo jumbo about power dynamics and so on, but that is just pure nonsense. How do you measure that? For whatever statistic you give me, I can give you 10 or 100 providing evidence for the opposite point of view.
(4) We have had commenters on Heterodox STEM approving of the death threats against federal judges at the Stanford Law School. And they got themselves worked up into such a lather that I suspect they would like to kill anyone who thinks death threats against federal judges are a bad idea. Is that free speech? Try it in a federal court room and see how far you get. Try threatening to kill a heavily armed police officer, to his face.
(5) In some places, there are people who have lost their jobs and their houses and their families and are locked in prison right now for saying things like "there are two sexes". Do you want to restrict that kind of "free speech"? Should they be tortured to death live on the internet for daring to say males and female are different? Would you approve? Would you support killing anyone who thought this went too far?
(6) How many support putting Elon Musk in prison for allowing "free speech"? Many, many do, including lots of government figures in Australia and the US and the EU and the UK and South Africa and Brazil and Scotland. It is interesting that the same government in Australia that was upset about Julian Assange being in prison and possibly being prosecuted for some problematic free speech activities, are only too glad to threaten the same for far less egregious free speech activities. Amazing.
A lot of the drive to put Elon Musk in prison comes from NATO and the EU who were upset when ethnic Russians in the Eastern Ukraine democratically voted in a way they did not like. That sort of "free speech" is not allowed, you see. Only some kinds are allowed, sort of.
(7) Stanford University and lots of other academic places are taking money from the US government to help in censoring the internet. Seems to be a bit problematic, for "free speech", if you ask me.
(8) The speech pendulum has swung pretty far to the left. I live in a red town in a red county. Most people support the Republicans. But no one dares put out a sign to that effect because the members of the opposite party might assault them or burn their house to the ground. Just free speech, right? I guarantee that anyone putting a sign up for the Democrats in a Blue neighborhood or even a Red neighborhood has no such fears. I would bet a million dollars on it. So do we have free speech? Really? It is all one sided because Republicans are vile ogres, is that correct? How did you get that impression?
SInce party affiliation is public here, I switched my affiliation from Independent to Democrat. Out of fear for my life. Do I have free speech? I have been assaulted by Democrat leaders in public for daring to say I lean to the right politically. But that is perfectly fine, and even should be encouraged, shouldn't it?
How many times have I heard a Democrat leader suggest herding all conservatives up to put them in concentration camps for re-education or even enslavement or execution? Hundreds of times. It is so common that no one pays attention. Is that free speech? I have never heard a conservative say anything remotely similar.
I have even seen Democrat members of Congress calling for the US military to perform a military strike on the Supreme Court of the United States, killing all the judges and everyone working there. Is that free speech? No one batted an eye over that. I have NEVER heard a conservative say anything remotely similar. But I have heard many Democrat leaders encouraging assaulting conservatives in public or even at family gatherings.
So, if you think that there is a balance now, and "both sides are bad", I would respectfully suggest you are not paying attention.
How about death threats? How about plans for building nuclear weapons? Bioweapons? Chemical weapons? You have no issue with any of those? Are you kidding me?
The problem with concepts like censoring perceived dangerous ideas suffers always from a few issues, which I as the following.
1. What is considered "dangerous" in such cases is very subjective, biased and often self-serving.
2. Because such ideas are so subjective they are ripe for doublespeak and deliberately vague and ambiguous language which obfuscate the real reasons and make them open for unbridled interpretation, which will always sow partisan divedes, polarisation and strong us vs them division. Which incentivize people treating each other badly.
3. Such ideas are always very sensitive for slippery slopes, which can be fallacious, but also can be real. Because censorship is self-serving, when culture shift, and when what is considered dangerous changes this kind of thinking can turn around and bite those who started it in the faces. It is a sword that tends to cut everyone in it comes in contact with.
4. Every political movement that looks to gain power uses this. You are all very likely to point the fingers at the left. But the right has been using the same tactics for years. And is still doing so. This kind of thinking is bad for everyone, regardless of one's believes. And the moment one side uses this to vilify the other it's often a tactic for propaganda. So be careful how this is used if you really purport to be politically neutral it will also be good to point out that these tactics are used and abused by both sides equally and are always bad no matter who uses it.
“Why We Must Not Redefine Academic Freedom” is in the format of a Malicious and deliberately Deceptive Attack unrelated to the target article. As such it is an afront to STEM integrity, scientific discourse and peer review. To remain silent on this STEM platform is to endorse this new standard.
The author is rallying the base to machinations: “dream of removing a perceived evil; belief that censorship is a useful tool for spreading truth; enemies vs allies; dream of creating a utopia by controlling ideas; seek to create a totalitarian society where people tremble in terror; argue for limiting academic freedom; political views deemed undesirable should guide the definition of malpractice; banning bad ideas; calling for professors to be banned for expressing bad ideas; why not imprison everyone with a bad idea; the process of banning bad ideas and firing professors who believe them,”” ???
Yes, let’s agree with: “ensure that academia is a space for an ongoing debate of good and bad ideas.” Let’s work on how to “ensure.” Yes, let’s redesign the university campus as a platform for debate. We have and uphold freedom of inquiry. We have and uphold freedom of expression. We have scientists committed to science. We are missing the progression from “expression” to evidence-based debate on campus. We do have work to do. Let’s begin right here with constructive pursuit of this discussion, aiming to reach consensus.
I agree with this view more than the contrary. The "anti-truth" and "anti-science" crowd currently has the upper hand, by an immense margin. And the situation is growing MARKEDLY worse, all the time.
You cannot pursue truth if those in charge have stated that truth does not exist, or that truth is evil, or racist, or whatever. You cannot do science if mathematics and empirical evidence are verbotten, as somehow belonging to "white supremacism" or similar nonsense.
Calling for the imprisonment and even mass slaughter of your opponents is not really "free speech", at least where I am from. But many on the left (and perhaps some here on Heterodox STEM) think it is. And this kind of anti-civil discourse cannot be squelched (according to the wokists), because it makes them feel bad in their quest for complete domination and power.
We are in the middle of a Cultural Battle. And STEM is caught up in it, whether we like it or not. We have to stand against these forces of darkness, or else STEM will be no more. And this has happened repeatedly in a variety of cultures, like Islamic Culture and the Chinese Cultural Revolution and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. Let's not succumb to these same demands. We know what lies down that path.
From someone who grew up in the USSR, the very exchange of ideas in this venue - without fear of a knock on the door and a free trip to a cold mosquito-infested land to break big rocks into little ones - is something that should be savored. Of course, there is a demonstrable bias and a double-standard in what is “tolerated” on campus and even in who makes the pronouncements. We should strive to elect politicians devoted to preserving our liberties and protecting the hard-working law-abiding individuals from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
What a vapid "scholarly" debate. Perhaps if one defined Academic Freedom (actual liberty), then redefining it would not be very controversial. Academus is reputed to have told Castor and Pollux where Theseus had hidden their kidnapped (by Theseus; Heroic King of Attica) sister, the youthful (at the time) Helen, who became Helen of Troy after growing up. So Academus was a brave mortal who told the truth even though Theseus could have squashed him like a bug for opposing his semi-divine will, with the truth. There you go --- Academus told the truth despite potentially giving offense to a seriously powerful King. That is what Academic Liberty actually is --- not really "truth to power" but, rather, truth DESPISING power. The important word is TRUTH rather than liberty/freedom run excessively to the license of lying your Marxist's mouths off!
You know, there was something in the US Media decades ago called "the fairness doctrine". It was repealed in the 80s. But both sides or all sides of an issue had to be presented by law.
Maybe we need some kind of "fairness" doctrine in academia. Because if one looks at various surveys, there is clearly a MASSIVE bias. And since the public one way or another pays for what goes on on campus, perhaps they should have some say in the balance and biases on campuses.
The call to redefine academic freedom and restore scholarly discourse at the university was addressed to a STEM audience. It was self evident that STEM would not recommend censorship. It was (& is) presumed that (in response) STEM members would pursue the scientific process which includes iterative self-inquiry, critical evaluation, and self-correction.(1,2)
The unabated & rapidly growing intrusion of ideology & disinformation into science & education, & its dismantling effect on our societal institutions and values is well documented by STEM authors (& on HeterodoxSTEM). An effective path forward is not formulated or debated, but is defined below, and in the “appeal.”
FIRE & Heterodox do wave the orthodox banners of Academic Freedom, Free Expression, Viewpoint Diversity at the university (all shared by Woke) as the rallying cry to the forward march. Like classic battle cries, our banners invoke the fear that someone is taking away these freedoms.
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION: 30 years ago we heard near zero voices. Today we are exposed to billions of voices, every day, all day. Freedom of expression is alive and well & growing.
FREEDOM OF INQUIRY: is alive and well in the USA. This is supported by the phenomenal advancement of knowledge. &, by 1915, the American Association of University Professors declared that “freedom of inquiry & research” “is everywhere safeguarded” and therefore does not need to be addressed.
If we seek the above, our problems are solved. We are closer to Nirvana than at any time in human history.
In real world, however, the above battle cries are the call to blind orthodoxy that abandons reality. Let’s redirect ourselves and face our actual problems.
From the academic perspective, disinformation (along with distrust of academia) is a major societal problem (please view yesterday’s Real Time with Bill Maher: loss of trust in academia and spread of disinformation creates a totalitarian society).
First: We abandoned the students to whom we are responsible and who are the real victims of our slogans. Let’s just “shut the chat” (confess our guilt?) and look at what is being taught in class. Let it be open for all to see and critically evaluate.
A valid response to “restore scholarly discourse” on campus should begin with a focus on class content.
FIRE, Heterodox Academy, and other advocates of “Freedom” have the expertise, resources, power, and responsibility to do the above, restore scholarly discourse, and abate the teaching of disinformation. To do otherwise is to betray the public trust in education and invite the political extremes to intervene.
The past 2 decades demonstrated that abating the intrusion of ideology into science is difficult (? impossible) for Academia to accomplish. Science-based due diligence at the university, however, should be easy for FIRE, Heterodox Academy, and advocates of Education to implement. And the public is actually on our side.
The better approach to addressing the radicalization at the universities is to address the untold billions in funding the schools are receiving from Arab countries and China. Having foreign countries bribing our schools is a problem.
Why should we care if the rich people funding our universities are foreigners? Is "bribery" better from rich Americans and corporations? Wouldn't it be better to limit the influence of all donors rather than just the ones you think come from the wrong countries? The fact is, people think "radical" things because they want to, and they should have the freedom to do so, and there is no foreign plot to push radical ideas.
No foreign plots to push radical ideas? Really? Wow...that is quite some statement.
So if I was on the Left, I would claim Israel is pushing radical ideas on campus and in the US. I happen to agree with these "radical ideas" so I find that less troublesome than Islamism or DEI or CRT or AntiRacism or Marxism or Han Chinese Supremacism or any one of dozens or hundreds of ideologies that are incompatible with Western Civilization. How about those who claim truth does not exist, and evidence does not exist and all mathematics and science is racist and therefore MUST be destroyed at all costs? Do you have an issue with that?
Sure, you could say that these questionable statements can be countered with more speech. And I would normally agree, except we have unilateral censorship RIGHT NOW, in the media, on the internet, on campuses and in society. So how do you counter these destructive statements if you are not allowed to? That is what is going on at the moment. I have been censored and banned from numerous websites for things like providing a link to peer-reviewed published studies. Or objecting to threats from drug dealers. As long as things are so strikingly unbalanced, there is no free speech. Period.
I can give lots of other problematic examples. I do not know about you, but I personally do not relish the prospect of being a slave under massive surveillance in a totalitarian dictatorship. If that is your cup of tea, you can easily go try it out and see how you like it.
they aren't just individuals, but nations. They have seen that by buying power within our elite universities they gain leverage in the institutions that these young people will go on to run. When only one side's view is taught, a side that is from our enemies, it is unhealthy for our country. Would you have a problem with China or Saudi Arabia just buying our politicians or the CEOs of our largest companies? This is what they are doing indirectly.
I agree!
There are still untouchable topics that are completely off limits in universities. Many of them have to do with human differences based on biological sex and ethnic origins. Surely some of these have been severely misused in the past when implemented as official policies, but no discussion topic should be prohibited in academia. As long as such topics exist, the search for truth suffers deeply.
It continues to shock me how common is this notion that we need curbs on free speech, that any entity can exist which is a reliable arbiter of the truth. The foolishness and propensity toward tyranny of such thinking is incomprehensible to any intelligent person, who understands that human fallibility requires free speech as its antidote. Free speech underpins all freedoms.
You mainly distinguish "good" and "bad" ideas by if they are "liked" or "disliked" (by a certain audience). In Science, we actually distinguish "good" and "bad" ideas by if they are "truthful" or "untruthful": Officially, you can only publish ideas that properly represent the Truth. Indeed, Scientific Freedom is inhibited in comparison with Constitutional Freedom. Freedom in Academia needs more or less correspond with the former type.
The problem is, this procedure is under massive attack at the moment. Or have you not noticed?
Oh, I've definitely noticed,,, but that's exactly why it's the perfect time for redefining, whilst reinvigorating, that procedure!!! Most of the nonsense that we have these days is because we don't constrain the Freedom of some disciplines (for example, in the infamous departments of Gender Studies, that totally ignore Science).
I definitely think we need to reconsider how we operate. So I would agree with you.
I am glad this is being discussed. I am not sure where to draw the line exactly. And when I read comments here, I think many are not quite aware of how biased "speech" has become in certain quarters. Let me give a couple of examples:
(1) Where I am from, death threats can result in imprisonment. But many who are "protesting" on behalf of the Left get a pass for death threats.
(2) The Left has defined speech as violence, and violence as speech. But that ONLY applies to speech that they approve of.
(3) If we can have lots of chants and speech about killing all Jews and killing all whites and so on, and this seems perfectly fine (and even acting it out is perfectly fine and encouraged by many university administrators), why not have chants about killing all blacks and all women and all trannies and homosexuals and so on? I know some will mutter some mumbo jumbo about power dynamics and so on, but that is just pure nonsense. How do you measure that? For whatever statistic you give me, I can give you 10 or 100 providing evidence for the opposite point of view.
(4) We have had commenters on Heterodox STEM approving of the death threats against federal judges at the Stanford Law School. And they got themselves worked up into such a lather that I suspect they would like to kill anyone who thinks death threats against federal judges are a bad idea. Is that free speech? Try it in a federal court room and see how far you get. Try threatening to kill a heavily armed police officer, to his face.
(5) In some places, there are people who have lost their jobs and their houses and their families and are locked in prison right now for saying things like "there are two sexes". Do you want to restrict that kind of "free speech"? Should they be tortured to death live on the internet for daring to say males and female are different? Would you approve? Would you support killing anyone who thought this went too far?
(6) How many support putting Elon Musk in prison for allowing "free speech"? Many, many do, including lots of government figures in Australia and the US and the EU and the UK and South Africa and Brazil and Scotland. It is interesting that the same government in Australia that was upset about Julian Assange being in prison and possibly being prosecuted for some problematic free speech activities, are only too glad to threaten the same for far less egregious free speech activities. Amazing.
A lot of the drive to put Elon Musk in prison comes from NATO and the EU who were upset when ethnic Russians in the Eastern Ukraine democratically voted in a way they did not like. That sort of "free speech" is not allowed, you see. Only some kinds are allowed, sort of.
(7) Stanford University and lots of other academic places are taking money from the US government to help in censoring the internet. Seems to be a bit problematic, for "free speech", if you ask me.
(8) The speech pendulum has swung pretty far to the left. I live in a red town in a red county. Most people support the Republicans. But no one dares put out a sign to that effect because the members of the opposite party might assault them or burn their house to the ground. Just free speech, right? I guarantee that anyone putting a sign up for the Democrats in a Blue neighborhood or even a Red neighborhood has no such fears. I would bet a million dollars on it. So do we have free speech? Really? It is all one sided because Republicans are vile ogres, is that correct? How did you get that impression?
SInce party affiliation is public here, I switched my affiliation from Independent to Democrat. Out of fear for my life. Do I have free speech? I have been assaulted by Democrat leaders in public for daring to say I lean to the right politically. But that is perfectly fine, and even should be encouraged, shouldn't it?
How many times have I heard a Democrat leader suggest herding all conservatives up to put them in concentration camps for re-education or even enslavement or execution? Hundreds of times. It is so common that no one pays attention. Is that free speech? I have never heard a conservative say anything remotely similar.
I have even seen Democrat members of Congress calling for the US military to perform a military strike on the Supreme Court of the United States, killing all the judges and everyone working there. Is that free speech? No one batted an eye over that. I have NEVER heard a conservative say anything remotely similar. But I have heard many Democrat leaders encouraging assaulting conservatives in public or even at family gatherings.
So, if you think that there is a balance now, and "both sides are bad", I would respectfully suggest you are not paying attention.
Stopping encampments, occupation of buildings, use of bullhorns and spray paint seems reasonable. But not stopping speech itself.
How about death threats? How about plans for building nuclear weapons? Bioweapons? Chemical weapons? You have no issue with any of those? Are you kidding me?
I agree 100% with John WIlson's assessment.
The problem with concepts like censoring perceived dangerous ideas suffers always from a few issues, which I as the following.
1. What is considered "dangerous" in such cases is very subjective, biased and often self-serving.
2. Because such ideas are so subjective they are ripe for doublespeak and deliberately vague and ambiguous language which obfuscate the real reasons and make them open for unbridled interpretation, which will always sow partisan divedes, polarisation and strong us vs them division. Which incentivize people treating each other badly.
3. Such ideas are always very sensitive for slippery slopes, which can be fallacious, but also can be real. Because censorship is self-serving, when culture shift, and when what is considered dangerous changes this kind of thinking can turn around and bite those who started it in the faces. It is a sword that tends to cut everyone in it comes in contact with.
4. Every political movement that looks to gain power uses this. You are all very likely to point the fingers at the left. But the right has been using the same tactics for years. And is still doing so. This kind of thinking is bad for everyone, regardless of one's believes. And the moment one side uses this to vilify the other it's often a tactic for propaganda. So be careful how this is used if you really purport to be politically neutral it will also be good to point out that these tactics are used and abused by both sides equally and are always bad no matter who uses it.
“Why We Must Not Redefine Academic Freedom” is in the format of a Malicious and deliberately Deceptive Attack unrelated to the target article. As such it is an afront to STEM integrity, scientific discourse and peer review. To remain silent on this STEM platform is to endorse this new standard.
The author is rallying the base to machinations: “dream of removing a perceived evil; belief that censorship is a useful tool for spreading truth; enemies vs allies; dream of creating a utopia by controlling ideas; seek to create a totalitarian society where people tremble in terror; argue for limiting academic freedom; political views deemed undesirable should guide the definition of malpractice; banning bad ideas; calling for professors to be banned for expressing bad ideas; why not imprison everyone with a bad idea; the process of banning bad ideas and firing professors who believe them,”” ???
Yes, let’s agree with: “ensure that academia is a space for an ongoing debate of good and bad ideas.” Let’s work on how to “ensure.” Yes, let’s redesign the university campus as a platform for debate. We have and uphold freedom of inquiry. We have and uphold freedom of expression. We have scientists committed to science. We are missing the progression from “expression” to evidence-based debate on campus. We do have work to do. Let’s begin right here with constructive pursuit of this discussion, aiming to reach consensus.
I agree with this view more than the contrary. The "anti-truth" and "anti-science" crowd currently has the upper hand, by an immense margin. And the situation is growing MARKEDLY worse, all the time.
You cannot pursue truth if those in charge have stated that truth does not exist, or that truth is evil, or racist, or whatever. You cannot do science if mathematics and empirical evidence are verbotten, as somehow belonging to "white supremacism" or similar nonsense.
Calling for the imprisonment and even mass slaughter of your opponents is not really "free speech", at least where I am from. But many on the left (and perhaps some here on Heterodox STEM) think it is. And this kind of anti-civil discourse cannot be squelched (according to the wokists), because it makes them feel bad in their quest for complete domination and power.
We are in the middle of a Cultural Battle. And STEM is caught up in it, whether we like it or not. We have to stand against these forces of darkness, or else STEM will be no more. And this has happened repeatedly in a variety of cultures, like Islamic Culture and the Chinese Cultural Revolution and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. Let's not succumb to these same demands. We know what lies down that path.
From someone who grew up in the USSR, the very exchange of ideas in this venue - without fear of a knock on the door and a free trip to a cold mosquito-infested land to break big rocks into little ones - is something that should be savored. Of course, there is a demonstrable bias and a double-standard in what is “tolerated” on campus and even in who makes the pronouncements. We should strive to elect politicians devoted to preserving our liberties and protecting the hard-working law-abiding individuals from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
What a vapid "scholarly" debate. Perhaps if one defined Academic Freedom (actual liberty), then redefining it would not be very controversial. Academus is reputed to have told Castor and Pollux where Theseus had hidden their kidnapped (by Theseus; Heroic King of Attica) sister, the youthful (at the time) Helen, who became Helen of Troy after growing up. So Academus was a brave mortal who told the truth even though Theseus could have squashed him like a bug for opposing his semi-divine will, with the truth. There you go --- Academus told the truth despite potentially giving offense to a seriously powerful King. That is what Academic Liberty actually is --- not really "truth to power" but, rather, truth DESPISING power. The important word is TRUTH rather than liberty/freedom run excessively to the license of lying your Marxist's mouths off!
You know, there was something in the US Media decades ago called "the fairness doctrine". It was repealed in the 80s. But both sides or all sides of an issue had to be presented by law.
Maybe we need some kind of "fairness" doctrine in academia. Because if one looks at various surveys, there is clearly a MASSIVE bias. And since the public one way or another pays for what goes on on campus, perhaps they should have some say in the balance and biases on campuses.
The call to redefine academic freedom and restore scholarly discourse at the university was addressed to a STEM audience. It was self evident that STEM would not recommend censorship. It was (& is) presumed that (in response) STEM members would pursue the scientific process which includes iterative self-inquiry, critical evaluation, and self-correction.(1,2)
The unabated & rapidly growing intrusion of ideology & disinformation into science & education, & its dismantling effect on our societal institutions and values is well documented by STEM authors (& on HeterodoxSTEM). An effective path forward is not formulated or debated, but is defined below, and in the “appeal.”
FIRE & Heterodox do wave the orthodox banners of Academic Freedom, Free Expression, Viewpoint Diversity at the university (all shared by Woke) as the rallying cry to the forward march. Like classic battle cries, our banners invoke the fear that someone is taking away these freedoms.
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION: 30 years ago we heard near zero voices. Today we are exposed to billions of voices, every day, all day. Freedom of expression is alive and well & growing.
FREEDOM OF INQUIRY: is alive and well in the USA. This is supported by the phenomenal advancement of knowledge. &, by 1915, the American Association of University Professors declared that “freedom of inquiry & research” “is everywhere safeguarded” and therefore does not need to be addressed.
If we seek the above, our problems are solved. We are closer to Nirvana than at any time in human history.
In real world, however, the above battle cries are the call to blind orthodoxy that abandons reality. Let’s redirect ourselves and face our actual problems.
From the academic perspective, disinformation (along with distrust of academia) is a major societal problem (please view yesterday’s Real Time with Bill Maher: loss of trust in academia and spread of disinformation creates a totalitarian society).
First: We abandoned the students to whom we are responsible and who are the real victims of our slogans. Let’s just “shut the chat” (confess our guilt?) and look at what is being taught in class. Let it be open for all to see and critically evaluate.
A valid response to “restore scholarly discourse” on campus should begin with a focus on class content.
FIRE, Heterodox Academy, and other advocates of “Freedom” have the expertise, resources, power, and responsibility to do the above, restore scholarly discourse, and abate the teaching of disinformation. To do otherwise is to betray the public trust in education and invite the political extremes to intervene.
The past 2 decades demonstrated that abating the intrusion of ideology into science is difficult (? impossible) for Academia to accomplish. Science-based due diligence at the university, however, should be easy for FIRE, Heterodox Academy, and advocates of Education to implement. And the public is actually on our side.
1. https://journalofcontroversialideas.org/download/article/3/1/236/pdf
2. https://open.substack.com/pub/gideonsteinbach/p/heterodox-and-fire-free-expression?r=3ufx3u&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true