Later this month a new collection of essays entitled The Academic Bill of Rights Debate: A Handbook (Praeger) will be released.  The book, edited by University of Akron professor, Stephen Aby, is a comprehensive look at the campaign by conservative activist David Horowitz to get legislation enacted to allegedly bring a "balance" of perspectives to college classrooms and campuses.  We got a chance to ask Stephen Aby a few questions about the genesis of the collection and some of his thoughts on the whole "academic bill of rights" (ABOR) movement. Below the jump, you can read the whole interview, but we can't help but whet your appetite with this comment from Aby about the book's contents:

I can't help but note that David Horowitz has five unedited pieces reproduced in this volume, for which he granted permission.  And there are many other pieces sympathetic to his views that are annotated in the bibliography.  Ironically, one would be hard pressed to find that diversity of views in his last two books.

We hope you enjoy the full interview.

Aby:  I have always had an interest in academic freedom, dating back to the 1970s when two faculty members I worked with as a graduate student, at two separate institutions, were fired for what I thought were political reasons.  More recently, I have been following the ABOR debate fairly closely.  In fact, Ohio (where I work) was one of the states that entertained ABOR legislation.  Faculties around the state, including the state AAUP, mobilized to help get the legislation withdrawn.  It struck me at the time that previous academic debates that had captured broader public interest, such as debates over IQ testing, The Bell Curve, or political correctness, had generated a cottage industry of response books.  I thought this was incredibly healthy and good for advancing a more complete understanding of the issues.  In my mind, the Academic Bill of Rights, and the attendant debate, was similarly worthy of such coverage.  I knew people in Ohio who were active on this issue, had seen others talk about the ABOR at conferences, and had been in email contact with still other faculty engaged on the ABOR.  I thought I would propose an edited collection, with contributions from some of these individuals, to appeal to interested readers who were not yet immersed in the subject.  Fortunately, the authors and the publisher agreed.

Free Exchange:  The debate over academic freedom has a long history in the United States.  How would you evaluate the current debates in the context of this history?  Do you see academic freedom as under serious threat, or is the academy's commitment to it robust enough to weather this particular attack?

Aby:  Academic freedom continues to be contested terrain, as it has been from the founding of the AAUP in 1915.  As we've seen in the 20^th century, academic freedom was at risk during WWI, the McCarthy period, the student movements of the 1960s and 1970s, and the more recent period (beginning in the 1980s) when there were charges that the academy had been taken over by tenured radicals.  Despite the compelling rationales for why academic freedom is critical in a free society, there are recurring threats, whether from legislatures, political and economic interests, or university administrations.  

I think the academy is capable of weathering this particular attack.  Certainly, enough interested parties have mobilized to ward off ABOR legislation to date.  That said, I think the danger is in complacency.  There are still too many faculty members who take academic freedom for granted and do not fully appreciate how hard won it was and how contingent it still is.  I'm reminded of the late Stephen Jay Gould, who talked about the myth or assumption of progress.  Though he was speaking of a misunderstanding of evolution, I do think it speaks to a similar danger in the academy.  To the extent that we assume that academic freedom is guaranteed and is our inalienable right, we may not actively nurture and support it, or defend it against outside interference.

Free Exchange:  Given the sometimes dizzying turns the arguments about David Horowitz's so-called Academic Bill of Rights take, the heart of the debate sometimes remains unclear. What do you feel is the key assumption or belief being contested by Horowitz? What do you believe is his main goal in advocating for that position?

Aby:  Horowitz is contesting both the assumption that the academy is suitably diverse, writ large, and that there are inherent safeguards in the methods and processes by which knowledge is created, reviewed, and challenged.  By proposing the ABOR, and by getting state legislatures to intrude into these processes, he seems to be opting for political intervention into the academy as a means of fixing what he says is wrong.  To the contrary, I think the academy is quite diverse.  Joan Scott's testimony before the Pennsylvania legislature, which is included in the book's appendix, does an incredibly good job of explaining how this diversity manifests itself.  Ultimately, faculty in their disciplines have to be free to teach and research as they see fit, driven by their understanding of their fields.  They also must be free to teach from distinct theoretical or methodological approaches to their disciplines.  We cannot and should not make every course a survey course, with some politically determined balance of expressed views.  Like many who have been fortunate enough to go through higher education, I remember teachers who were passionate about a specific approach to a particular field of study.  Faculty must be free to inspire others as they have been inspired.

At its core, the ABOR is a battle over what knowledge and ideas are considered legitimate in higher education, and who gets to decide that.  It's a battle over the control of knowledge at its highest levels, and over one of our most important socializing institutions, education.  Interestingly, when David Horowitz is on television making anecdotal points about some offending professor, he often seems to pick on assigned textbooks or readings.  This is revealing.  It implies that the fix is to impose some supposed balance on those readings, as determined by someone external to the class. And if you sanction institutional or legislative interference in this exercise of academic freedom, then you have violated it. This whole argument of balance and diversity, and who would decide it, is central to the exchange between Graham Larkin and David Horowitz, which is reproduced in the book.

Free Exchange: What do you think the impact of Horowitz's campaign has been on academic freedom in terms of how legislators and administrators think about the issue?  What impact do you think he's had on how faculty members approach their teaching and research?

Aby:  Without the benefit of working in higher education, and possibly driven by ideological considerations, some legislators are susceptible to the stereotyping and demonizing of faculty that David Horowitz engages in.  It's war by anecdote.  And whether the anecdotes are true or not is irrelevant to the goal, which is to characterize the academy as controlled by extremists.  Administrators on campus are possibly conflicted on this.  In Ohio, as Rodger Govea notes in his chapter, university presidents worked to have the ABOR legislation withdrawn.  From their view, hopefully, such intrusion into the academy was offensive and an erosion of traditional administrative rights and responsibilities.  That said, given the patronage appointments to Boards of Trustees by the party in power in many states, there may be some sympathetic ears. 

There are no definitive data, yet, on the ABOR's impact on faculty.  But there are questions.  First, it's important to remember that faculties across the country are now dominated, at least numerically, by contingent faculty.  With either part-time or fixed term appointments, these faculty members have a tenuous hold on academic freedom.  Teaching anything controversial, in an environment poisoned by the ABOR and its legislative initiatives, could lead to the non-renewal of a contingent faculty member's appointment.  Thus, the real danger is self-censorship, which might also affect tenure-track and tenured faculty who want to avoid being attacked.  In that respect, Horowitz may be successful at the institutional cultural level even when he fails at the legislative level.  This is hard to document, of course.   

Free Exchange:  You bring up the point that supporters of ABOR seem less concerned that many college and university trustees are politically conservative.  Why or how is this related to the discussion about academic freedom?

Aby:  In my state, Ohio, state college and university trustees are appointed by the governor.  One can easily argue and document that they have been patronage appointments, with the qualifications of the appointees varying widely, though party contributions are a commonality.  Yet, while they are not in the classroom, their influence on academic freedom can be profound.  They or their administrative hires can decide which faculty positions to refill, which academic programs to support or allow to languish, how many contingent faculty to hire, and where to allocate all manner of university resources.  Any and all of these decisions can affect the climate of academic freedom and the diversity of ideas on a campus.  Yet because trustees are not in the classroom, the issue gets a pass.  If a growing majority of faculty are contingent, with no guarantee of their position, how much academic freedom do they have?  Recent proposals on contingent faculty, by the various higher education faculty organizations, have tried to address these concerns.

Free Exchange:  We often argue that ABOR distracts from real problems that face higher education, such as the growing reliance on underpaid contingent faculty or the rising debt students and their families are taking on in order to attend college.  Do you believe ABOR is a distraction, and if so, what do you think should be the focus of policy debates regarding higher education today? 

Aby:  It's obviously a distraction from the core problems facing higher education today.  The focus of policy debates should include making higher education affordable and accessible, promoting a climate of freedom in which contingent and tenure-track faculty can pursue their work without external or internal intimidation, and promoting the dissemination of knowledge (commercial and otherwise) for the common good.  This is not a complete list, of course, but these should make the short list.

Free Exchange:  Can you give us a few highlights from the book? Arguments or particular points that you feel are especially important?

Aby:  I believe that the case studies are quite useful and well done.  We have them on Ohio (by Rodger Govea), Pennsylvania (by Mark Smith), and Colorado (by Dana Waller).  They are somewhat revealing of the motivations of the legislators (for better and ill), and of the role of faculty, administrations, and their supporters in the defeat of ABOR legislation.  I also think that it is important that the book articulate an alternative message about what the real problems are in higher education.  One serious one, as mentioned above, is the growing influence of corporate values and practices on the values and mission of the institutions.  This has implications for the costs and accessibility of higher education, the control of knowledge and its dissemination, and academic freedom.  The chapters by Rudy Fenwick and John Zipp, and by David Witt, get at these issues, as do many of the cited books and articles in the annotated bibliography chapter.  Lawrence Poston's chapter on the history of academic freedom shows how precarious it has been and continues to be.  And the chapters by Kevin Mattson and Michael Bérubé do a terrific job of raising questions about inherent contradictions in the ABOR movement. 

Finally, to capture some of the give and take of the debate, most of the Graham Larkin-David Horowitz exchange is reproduced, as is the exchange between the AAUP and Horowitz.  These are core documents in the debate.  Also, I can't help but note that David Horowitz has five unedited pieces reproduced in this volume, for which he granted permission.  And there are many other pieces sympathetic to his views that are annotated in the bibliography.  Ironically, one would be hard pressed to find that diversity of views in his last two books.

Free Exchange:  Thanks again for agreeing to share your thoughts with us about the book.  Any last comments?

Aby:  I do hope that there are more books on the ABOR in the works.  As always, the best antidote to bad ideas is more and better ideas.

Free Exchange:  Thanks for your time and for your work and good luck with the book.

Free Exchange will be chatting with a few of the book's contributors over the next couple of weeks leading up to its release.