Free Exchange: HiProfessor Nelson!  Welcome to FreeExchange on Campus and thank you for taking the time to chat with us.

The AAUP just released a statement titled Freedom inthe Classroom which responds to critics of higher education who believethat faculty are more in the business of indoctrination than education.  What is it about the nature of thesecontemporary attacks (as opposed to the previous attacks on faculty that arenoted) that compelled the AAUP to draft this statement?  Why now?

Cary Nelson: First, let me give a littlehistory of how this statement developed. That will also open a window on how the AAUP typically develops suchdocuments.
 In June 2006, just before I was scheduled to become AAUP president, Iattended a meeting of our Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure and toldthem my first priority for a new AAUP statement of principle was to clarify ourseveral documents dealing with political speech in the classroom. In 1970 wehad elaborated on our classic 1940 statement by specifying that instructorsshould avoid "persistently" introducing
extraneous material into the classroom. Over time it has become apparent thatthis leaves open not only the question of what constitutes"persistence" but also what defines "extraneous."
Even the most severe critics of the academy would not dare to say that someoneteaching a class on September 12, 2001, the morning after the attacks on the World TradeCenter, would have tostick to the course syllabus. Midway through the day, most classes had beencancelled, but all over the country teachers who met early morning classesfound it
impossible to talk about anything else but the events of the previous day. Oncethe subject came up, it seemed that students possessed the academic freedom tobring the topic up again later in the semester. But that doesn't really addressthe issue of what counts as extraneous.
In November 2006, at the next Committee A meeting, we discussed some of theseissues and agreed that the Committee chair, David Rabban, would appoint asubcommittee to talk further and draft a statement. That is our standardprocedure, since the 40 members and staff attending meetings cannot research asubject and write a report as a group.
All four members of the subcommittee--Ernst Benjamin, Matt Finkin, Robert Post,and myself--had previously published essays about academic freedom. Except forme, all also had long experience on Committee A.  After initial conversations, we agreed thatMatt would attempt a first draft. We discussed and revised the draft by email,with staff member Eric Combest keeping track of our changes, and eventuallypresented the
text to the whole committee for comments at its June 2007 meeting in Washington.
There ensued a remarkable two-hour discussion and debate about our argumentsand our language. The subcommittee was charged with incorporating suggestions,which we did. But then several weeks of intense email exchanges followed. Theend result was a statement less flamboyant than our original draft butsubstantially more clear and
precise. It would serve us better in reaching out to a wide audience.

Over the last several years a number of people outside theacademy have initiated new debates about classroom practice. They have arguedagainst the notion that students and teachers should be able to makecomparisons with contemporary culture and politics no matter what class theyare taking.
Critics of the academy have also insisted that instructors should not only givecoverage to disciplinary debates but also "balance" disciplinaryconsensus with the beliefs of external groups. And some have argued thatstudents should not have to examine their fundamental religious beliefs, evenin a university setting. While the AAUP's position on such matters is implicitin many of our previous statements, it became clear that we now needed toaddress these claims in much greater detail.

Free Exchange: Thestatement notes draws upon the work of noted educator John Dewey in drawingdistinctions between education and indoctrination:

Dewey's point suggests thatindoctrination occurs whenever an instructor insists that students accept astruth propositions that are in fact professionally contestable. If aninstructor advances such propositions dogmatically, without allowing studentsto challenge their validity or advance alternative understandings, theinstructor stands guilty of indoctrination.

What value do you see in professors advancing their learned professionalopinions in class, and how does this differ from indoctrination?  What are the educational and pedagogicalbenefits of having professors advance their own scholarly opinions in class?

Nelson: The AAAUPhas been addressing this issue for more than half a century.  But it is apparent we need to defend ourposition yet again. Instructors should not impose their beliefs on students.That constitutes indoctrination. But they have the right to express them andurge students to agree or disagree. That right is fundamental to the learning
process. It has the potential to expose students to well argued commitment. Itencourages students to form their own opinions. It lets students see howintellectuals express their convictions. The classroom, we point out in ourstatement, would be a very bland and ineffective place indeed withoutpassionate and learned conviction.

Free Exchange: Thestatement draws a distinction between the abstract goal of "balance" in the classroomadvocated by critics of the academy and a more nuanced vision of balance thatis contextualized by the course content and standards of the discipline.  How do these two different conceptualizationsof balance affect what students learn in class?

Nelson: If thereare fundamental debates in a discipline, instructors may well feel the need tocover them and thus balance one theory or argument against another. But no onewho teaches evolution should feel it necessary to discuss "intelligentdesign," let alone give it equal time.
It is clear that some critics of the academy really do not care for the waysome academic fields--like biology or women's studies-have evolved over thelast few decades. Instructors, we argue, have a right to honor the consensus oftheir discipline.

Free Exchange: Thestatement also takes on the idea that faculty members inject "irrelevant"material into their courses.  Whatconstitutes "relevancy" to a particular class or subject?  How would proposals to limit the introductionof "irrelevant" materials impact what goes on in class?

Nelson: That isthe next key issue. As we worked on the statement, we realized that mostclassroom comments on other subjects-including political comments--do not occurbecause a teacher or a student suddenly launches into a lecture on anothersubject. They occur because someone thinks of an interesting comparison,contrast, or analogy with the subject at hand. There is a fundamentaldifference between an instructor who indulges in lecturing about an irrelevantsubject and an instructor who urges students to think about cultural andhistorical relationships.
A number of critics of classroom practice argue that the catalogue coursedescription should limit what can be discussed in class. We realized that is avery destructive imposition on freedom in the classroom. It inhibits learning.It inhibits the free flow of
discussion. It inhibits intellectual growth. It inhibits the capacity to becomeinformed citizens.
In the end both the instructor and the students have the right to introducematerial they decide is relevant to the official subject. No state legislator,no parent, no faculty member from another department, should have the right todecide this matter.