In a post on his blog today professor of education and former Weather Underground leader William Ayers responds to the cancellation of two of his lectures at the University of Wyoming.  

The bulk of his piece is a criticism of UW President Tom Buchanan’s official statement claiming to support academic freedom while cancelling Ayers lectures.  But towards the end of his response Ayers points out that much of his talks would have focused on the importance of academic freedom in educating the citizens of a democracy.

“We want our students to be able to think for themselves, to make judgments based on evidence and argument, to develop minds of their own. We want them to ask fundamental questions—who in the world am I? How did I get here and where am I going? What in the world are my choices? How in the world shall I proceed?—and to pursue answers wherever they might take them. Our efforts focus not on the production of things so much as on the production of fully developed human beings who are capable of controlling and transforming their own lives, citizens who can participate fully in civic life…

A primary job of teachers and scholars and journalists, and a responsibility of all engaged citizens, is to challenge orthodoxy, dogma, and mindless complacency, to be skeptical of all authoritative claims, to interrogate and trouble the given and the taken-for-granted. The growth of knowledge, insight, and understanding depends on that kind of effort, and the inevitable clash of ideas that follows must be nourished and not crushed.”

That a significant portion of Ayers’ talk was to focus on the free exchange of ideas adds a certain sense of poetic injustice to an already unfortunate incident.  You can read the full text of Ayers response here 

Last week the University of Wyoming cancelled a proposed talk by education professor William Ayers amidst threats of violence.

Ayers is a respected professor of education from the University of Illinois – Chicago. He was invited by the Social Justice Research Center, a group of faculty at the University of Wyoming, to deliver two lectures on education and democracy.

In the 60’s Ayers was a co-founder of the radical anti-war group the Weather Underground who carried out bombings of the Pentagon and U.S. Capitol.  During the 2008 presidential election his involvement in the group became a national controversy when Republican candidate John McCain ran a series of ads linking Ayers to President Obama.  Ayers became a central element in the debate over academic freedom when both the University of Nebreska-Lincoln and Boston College canceled proposed lectures by him amidst growing controversy.

The lectures at UW were canceled due to security concerns after members of the Social Justice Research Center, received threats on their persons and their families.

As we’ve said many times before , the Center for Campus Free Speech believes that the right to hear speakers of your own choosing is an integral part of academic freedom.  While the organizers’ of the event have the right to make calls on its safety, It’s disheartening to see a hecklers veto and threats of violence trump the rights of the campus community. 

For a university to fulfill its educational mission students and faculty need to be free to investigate and engage in a free exchange of ideas and evaluate competing claims on their face.  By canceling Ayers speech the University of Wyoming has dealt a saddening blow to the Academic Freedom of its campus community. 

The Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI) published a new report last week titled Shaping the American Mind: the Diverging Influences of College Degrees and Civic Learning on American Beliefs aimed at gauging the impact of university education on graduates’ political opinions.  While we have no problem with the Institute pursuing this question, their methodology and analysis wouldn’t hold up in the academic institutions it seeks to criticize, much less in front of a skilled reporter.

The Intercollegiate Studies Institute has somewhat of a track record for putting out questionable scholarship.  Two years ago we called out the Institute’s report on “Civic Literacy” for using an ideologically based questionnaire to argue for mandatory civics classes in public colleges and universities. 

In its latest report ISI argues that completing higher education makes an individual more likely to align with a set of issues from supporting same-sex marriage to opposing teacher-led prayer in public schools. 

Un-shockingly, ISI has been representing their findings to media sources like C-SPAN as “evidence” of campus indoctrination.  That claim is simply unsubstantiated by this report.  None of ISI’s research touched on what actually happens on campus or in the classroom.  Making the assertion that this statistical preponderance in one survey is evidence of malfeasance in the classroom is poor analysis if not downright misrepresentation.

A close examination of “scholarship” like this continues to make clear that the accusations of campus indoctrination are nothing more than the manufactured controversy we typically see out of ISI, David Horowitz and their allies.  

In many states this month marks the beginning of a legislative session.  For lawmakers and advocates alike, the next few months will be one of the busiest times of the year.  The Free Exchange on Campus Coalition will be closely monitoring statehouses around the nation for new attacks on academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas.

This year legislation similar to Horowitz’s “Academic Bill of Restrictions” has been introduced in West Virginia, Missouri, and Indiana.  While these bills purport to promote “intellectual diversity,” they instead seek to put restrictions and limits on what can be taught in college classrooms.  Thankfully none of these initiatives have yet to even be given a hearing in committee.  Of course the Coalition will be watching them, and any other threats that arise, to ensure that none of these bills is adopted.  

Inside Higher Ed is reporting that a federal court has found that Idaho State University did not infringe upon professor Habib Sadid's - a vocal critic of the university's administration - First Amendment rights when it dismissed him from employment, despite the finding of a faculty panel that there was no reason for such a dismissal. 

The court's finding is another troubling application of the Supreme Court's Garcetti decision - which limits the free speech of public employees at the workplace - on the academic workplace. Specifically, these decisions impinge on the principle of shared governance, where faculty have a voice in important decisions facing their institutions. Circumscribing the faculty's ability to voice criticizing their adminstrations is tantamount to circumscribing their role in the governance of the academy.

As IHE points out, the Garcetti decision is being applied unevenly, depending on the jurisdiction, and the original decision does not necessarily suggest it should be applied to higher education. Given the spate of cases where it has been applied, however, it appears likely that it will need to be legally resolved at a higher level.