academic freedom

Barely a couple of weeks ago—almost strategically coinciding with the climax of the hunger strike affair—some Columbia faculty members issued a “statement of concern” regarding what they saw as President Bollinger’s failure to defend academic freedom.

On Nov. 12, 70 members of faculty signed a “Statement of Concern” alleging that “President Bollinger has failed to make a vigorous defense of the core principles on which the university is founded, especially academic freedom.” I wonder how many considered the ironic and, at times, unbelievable fact that the same University President Lee Bollinger helps pay Hamid Dabashi’s salary.

The Marxist theorist Antonio Gramsci argued that the strongest ideologies are ideas taken for granted.

The recent tenure battles regarding professors Nadia Abu El Haj and Joseph Massad have led to renewed allegations that undue “outside political influence” is threatening the academic freedom that is at the heart of Columbia University.

Tuesday’s meeting of the Executive Committee of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences is not the first time that University President Lee Bollinger—who can evoke themes like the “global university” and expansion into Manhattanville—has faced criticism from faculty over his defense—or lack thereof—of academic freedom.

A group of faculty members in the Arts and Sciences has been circulating for signature a “statement of concern” to be presented to the Arts and Sciences Faculty meeting on November 13. The main accusation in the statement is that the university administration has failed to make a vigorous defense of academic freedom.

We speak for a growing number of faculty members at Columbia University who believe that President Bollinger has failed to make a vigorous defense of the core principles on which the university is founded, especially academic freedom.

Here at Columbia, as at most top universities, we enjoy belittling conservative beliefs. Even the professors are in on it, and conservatives often find their beliefs directly challenged by academic trickery, like thinking about things, and facts. But shouldn’t good pedagogy incorporate all sides of an issue?

Four professors debated academic freedom and the line between squeamish discomfort and real threats in light of recent campus controversies at an event Tuesday night.

It’s a wonder that MEALAC professor Joseph Massad isn’t a hoax perpetrated by conservative activist David Horowitz. No doubt Horowitz excites over academics who so perfectly epitomize everything wrong with the academy, and whose published works read like dossiers from Campus Watch.