The following is a piece by Monica J. Kern, associate psychology professor at the University of Kentucky, appearing in yesterday's Lexington Herald Leader.
Academias Double Standard
It may be March Madness for basketball, but its the silly season for academia. The ivory towers have always had their share of bad scandals, but rarely do they spill over into general awareness.
That all changed with the Ward Churchill and Larry Summers controversies that have attracted significant public interest in the past couple of months. In many ways, these are similar controversies, and both ultimately revolve around the issue of academic freedom.
A brief recap for those who have been wrapped up in the Michael Jackson trial: Ward Churchill is the embattled professor who first attracted attention with an essay in which he called the victims of 911 little Eichmanns. That would have been enough to rouse the publics ire but subsequent investigations suggest that Churchill, who won tenure despite lacking a Ph.D., and without undergoing the usual rigorous review process, does not have Native American heritage, despite his indicating so in his employment application and despite affirmative action having played a major role in his hiring.
He also has been alleged to have dabbled in art fraud and plagiarism. Oh, and did I forget to mention the allegations of inciting terrorist attacks and taking a swing at a reporter?
So, Wards in a heap of trouble, and it seems every day a new allegation emerges. You have to feel sorry for the Colorado regents. It appears that these pesky things called academic freedom and tenure will make it well-nigh impossible to fire Churchill unless the regents can make the plagiarism allegations stick. Even so, Churchill has made it clear that he will not go quietly, and that any attempt to dismiss him will result in a protracted, expensive legal struggle.
Compare now the Churchill mess with the Summers Brouhaha. Summers is the president of Harvard University who had the temerity to speculate publicly on why there are so few female professors in the hard sciences at elite universities. Turns out that there are a number of possible reasons, each with some support in the scientific literature, but Summers acknowledgement that one reason might involve documented sex differences in innate mathematical abilities may be his Waterloo.
Despite having apologized roughly 3,265 times and formed new committees and initiatives to increase female faculty, Summers recently suffered the ignominy of a faculty vote of no confidence. His future as president of Harvard is in doubt.
Watching these two controversies play out in the media glare leaves me cynical, depressed and embarrassed to be an academic. On the one hand, we have a buffoon who is clearly unsuited to be a professor and who was hired on the basis of a presumed Native American heritage that turns out to be phony. Yet it is clear that he will be at Colorado for years, pending a lawsuit that the university has no stomach for.
On the other hand, we have Summers, who may not win any awards for political sensitivity but is widely acknowledged to be a man of great talent and intellect. Moreover, a careful examination of what he actually said shows that it is supported by empirical data.
Yet, he is the guy who is probably going to be out of job. Some have argued that what made Summers actions so horrible is that he was speaking as the president of Harvard, but I dont buy that.
If what he said has merit and most people who look at the controversy dispassionately will concede that Summers arguments are reasonable hypotheses that deserve further scrutiny it should not matter who makes the arguments.
Whats wrong with this picture? The guy who has the guts to tell the truth is vilified by his own faculty, whereas Churchills colleagues paid $1600 to run a full page ad in his defense. Why doesnt the umbrella of academic freedom that protects a charlatan like Churchill cover Summers as well?
Or could it be that academic freedom works only if youre spouting the politically correct liberal-female-leftist line?
