Recently, Harvard’s Lawrence Bobo argued that Harvard faculty members shouldn’t criticize the university, saying that it was an abuse of academic freedom for them to say things that helped the school’s opponents. Really? He received a lot of pushback against his position.
In today’s Martin Center article, Professor Joseph Knippenberg weighs in on the controversy, mostly to disagree with Bobo. He writes:
Plenty of people have responded quite effectively to Bobo, arguing that his position threatens academic freedom, which includes not only the freedom to argue and publish in professional channels about one’s area of expertise but also the freedom to speak “extramurally.”
What about the university’s need for support from society generally? Shouldn’t faculty members be concerned about saying things that could reduce it, thereby limiting its independence?
Knippenberg states that academic freedom “is based on an implicit contract, in which we faculty members are left relatively free to teach and study what we will with the promise that what we produce — research, scholarship, and well-educated students — will be good for our employers and our country. The less trustworthy we seem, and the less apparent ‘good’ we produce, the less willing governments, donors, and tuition-payers are to part with their money.”
What to do? Knippenberg suggests that colleges and universities could avoid troubles such as Harvard has experienced lately by adopting a posture of institutional neutrality — that is, to steer clear of having the school take sides on heated issues.