In this case? Yes. She’s not having some purely academic discussion. She’s not even really having a discussion. She’s defending white supremacists and attacking a group fighting for the right of black people not to be killed. Of course any institution that is trying to be inclusive is not going to see that as something they want to support.
It makes sense that her employer may not want to be seen as supporting that sort of thing. It makes sense that her students would see the hateful way she talked about this as being supportive of racism, and would thus bring this to the attention of said employer. And she should know her tenure contract, and the limits of said contract.
There are ways of talking about the issue of violence in BLM protests that don’t disparage the whole movement. There are ways of arguing that there are people who identify as alt-right but are not white supremacists without saying that anyone who is against the alt-right’s racism is part of a cult.
Her arguments aren’t even intellectual. They’re not the sort of thing you’d expect to see from a professor at all. They’re all emotional, without any seeming reference to facts. Her arguments are just repeating the same talking points you see in TV news. I have to assume that the subjects at hand are outside her field of expertise, (And she does herself no favors affecting her cutesy way of speaking, being unable to refer to herself in first person.)
If this were an academic discussion of these topics and not a fact-free diatribe, I would think it was acceptable–even if I disagreed. But we have better arguments here on this board. Heck, your post is better than the stuff she’s written. Sure, it’s also basically an appeal to emotion using false equivalencies to disparage those who disagree, but at least it’s replying to the topic at hand.
From the brief articles I’ve read, faculty groups are concerned about the chilling effect on academic freedom. So while I’d be concerned for BIPOC students in her class feeling very uncomfortable with her (as I would feel if my children had Holocaust denying professors), the academic freedom issues are not negligible. I would also be concerned that the investigation may have revealed campus issues with her as well, which would not be surprising given the suspension.
The expressed concerns of an academic freedom group and that there may have been issues directly affecting students do kinda ruin the “academia run amok with wokeness” narrative though, huh.
Over the past two months, an independent investigator has reviewed complaints from students alleging discriminatory conduct, stemming from blog posts and student interactions," Robert Hiscock said in the memo.
In general terms, an academic should be free to express bona fide intellectual perspectives on social matters. But surely nobody would argue that academic freedom of expression should have no limits. At the extreme, nobody would suggest that an overt Nazi or a proponent of pedophilia should fall under the umbrella of academic freedom of expression.
So what’s in dispute here is not an absolute principle, but where the line should be drawn.
The problem with this person is that these diatribes are so poorly written that I have no idea what her views really are, so how can I possibly defend her right to express those views? Of course reasoned criticism of BLM is not beyond the pale. But this is not reasoned criticism, it’s a barely coherent rant. From her articles, I have no idea what her point is. I realize that she’s not a native English speaker, so this complaint has nothing to do with superficial errors in her writing - I’m talking about the (lack of) coherence of her underlying ideas and arguments.
In one article, she explicitly uses the phrase “All Lives Matter”. Is she so dumb that she’s oblivious to the fact that this carries far more semantic baggage than its literal meaning, that in this context it’s a racist dog-whistle?
The two possibilities seem to be that she’s either very stupid, or she’s an actual racist. And either possibility would seem to disqualify her from her job.
Rima Azar, an associate professor of health psychology
Yikes. That’s definitely a concern. Health psychology is the study of psychology and social factors and their affects on health. She definitely should be more aware of these social phenomena, and the psychology involved. She should be able to make better arguments than this.
Hmm. Academic freedom and freedom of speech should be pretty close to absolute.
The critique is perfectly fine regardless of whether or not it appears to be a rant or not. Either people are free to explore ideas and/or oppose ideologies and movements or they are not. The failure of academic institutions to recognize this and to actually punish this is truly alarming. The fact that it is not alarming is telling. It’s explicitly the case that institutions now are no longer neutral nor governed by principles of liberty but are now concerned with pushing a dangerous agenda using the seemingly virtuous yet naive goal of equality of outcome. We saw that during the early months of the pandemic when ‘peaceful protesting’ was more important than taking steps to prevent transmission. Instead of class it’s now how many boxes one can check in intersectionality of victimhood list that determines one’s worth in this new movement.
None of these issues with academia are particularly new. So people should be somewhat sensitive about what they say. Free speech is important in education and many will disagree where those lines should be drawn. These disagreements have become louder and more strident with regards to class content, or who is permitted to speak on campus. At a very minimum, the professor’s words seem very badly chosen.
An incoherent rant is not the same thing as exploring ideas.
And saying that freedom of speech should be “pretty close to absolute” really just acknowledges my point that there is a line somewhere, and evades addressing the important question of where you think that line is. For me, any kind of bigotry crosses that line, since it creates a hostile environment that inhibits the free exchange of ideas. Denying somebody the freedom to express (say) their prejudice against black people or transgender people facilitates the comfortable participation of black people and transgender people in all debate, and thus is a net positive for the free exchange of ideas - independently of whether you think the prejudice is morally wrong.
Is it just an incoherent rant or is there somewhere on that page real evidentiary reasoning that Black Lives Matter is not a protest movement as it seems to be but has a hidden agenda etc etc.?
Universities have always been able to get rid of you one way or another if enough of a scandal brews. Occasionally they will have someone’s back, though, like the Torture Memos guy.
And these posts are part of the problem. Anyone can make the accusation that someone is a witch or a blasphemer and then the angry mob of zealots empowered by cowardly and/or complicit institutions capitulate and sanction.
In the late twentieth century, there were a number of prominent tenured holocaust deniers in mainstream U.S. universities (google Austin App and Arthur Butz). I think the idea that they stifled the free flow of ideas is preposterous. If anything, their presence increased hiring of faculty whose research resulted in publication of contrary views.
The line is not bigoted ideas, but how it impacts teaching. Students don’t deserve to have their most deeply held viewpoints respected. But if a professor repeatedly tries, to, say, get individual non-white students to drop her classes, that would be an issue. In practice, these academic freedom conflicts are almost always about the ideas.
P.S. The reason I said “repeatedly tries”. two sentences ago is to resist the tendency to find the stupidest tweet a professor ever made and use an ungenerous interpretation of that to condemn them.
P.P.S. This isn’t meant to concede that Rima Azar is a bigot. It would take much more research than I have time to do to do that fairly – especially because there is a case to be made against it.
Of course I’m not suggesting that allowing people with reprehensible ideas to continue to hold academic positions is likely to make those ideas prevail, I’m not saying that it will inhibit the broader academic response to counter those ideas. I’m talking about the free exchange of ideas in the context of students participating in a class when a professor has teaching responsibilities.
Of course it’s about teaching. Students have no right to have their viewpoints held sacrosant and immune from criticism. But they certainly have a right to have their dignity as human beings respected. Are you really suggesting that it doesn’t create a hostile environment for a Black student who wants to participate in a class if a teacher holds openly racist views? You really think it’s sufficient that the teacher does not explicitly try to get Black students to drop the class?
The right says nasty things about college professors all the time, how they manipulate kids in the name of their liberal agenda. “Don’t go to college,” they say, “lest the words of the progressive college elites warp your brain! You may be seduced by their evil words!”
And then they cry big crocodile tears about how professors are silenced. Ok, right. Let’s see a college professor of woke gender studies published an article suggesting that parents shouldn’t be allowed to intervene if their tweens want gender reassignment surgery, and see how they’re lauded for their willingness to engage in a free exchange of ideas. I’m sure that sort of free speech will be championed far and wide on conservative blogs. Bravo, brave professor for not being silenced by cancel culture, I’m sure they’ll say.
I could think up some other theoretical bad behaviors, but they would sound silly because of the unlikelihood.
In reality, this is about ideas, not behaviors. Suppose the professor wants the school’s admissions policies changed. That’s a position. I’d say an idea. Many progressives have that idea, as do many conservatives. It implies that, if the rules were better, some students now attending wouldn’t be there.
If the professor started telling existing students to get out, that would be an unacceptable behavior. But if, as far more likely, they are making a proposal to take effect with the next class to be admitted, that’s an idea. To some, whether it is punching up or down will determine whether it is a racist idea. They are more than entitled to that opinion. There is real evidence for it. And there is some against it. Questioning this is in the range of ideas and should not be suppressed.
One thing I am wondering – if Rima Azar gets fired, what about U.S. Black conservative professors who question AKA minimize the degree of discrimination faced by African Americans. Fire Glenn Loury, at Brown? What about John McWhorter, a self-described moderate Democrat at Columbia? What about most white economists of the sort who advise Republican U.S. administrations? Fire them all, and the range of remaining views you and I hear, on one of our greatest public policy questions, will be radically truncated.
I suppose those fired could, if American, then get a job at Grove City College, or Hillsdale College, or Wheaton of Illinois, or Liberty University, or maybe Yeshiva University. But having a dual university system, where all the professors at some schools are progressives, and all of them at others are not, seems to me a terrible idea. With academic freedom we have a good alternative.
Has there been a case of a college professor being fired for left-wing views because a bunch of enraged conservative students demanded it? Maybe back in the 50’s or 60’s?
There’s nothing wrong with criticism of ideas - even vociferous criticism. That’s part of free speech. However, there is a big bright line that you cross when you stop criticizing and instead start trying to ruin people or silence them because you don’t like what they say and don’t want other people to hear them. That’s reprehensible.
I’m trying to remember the last time a political movement that encouraged the censoring of speech and the harassment and destruction of people with the ‘wrong’ ideas were the good guys. I’m coming up blank.
This fellow put together a list. I’m on my phone so I don’t feel like quoting some of the specific examples, but they’re there and they’re not from the 50s.
Conservative students? Not that I recall. But googling finds examples coming from administration.
In the U.S., conservative Christian colleges often have a statement of faith professors have to sign to get the job. Here’s a five year old example of what happens if you violate it:
There are a few colleges that surveil their students all the time. There was a case that went to the Supreme Court when a student did not make the top school team and said “f—- [the type of team] f—- school f—- everything” on social media and was expelled. There is a sensible balance somewhere and there should be ways of talking about these things and deciding on a reasonable action respecting legal principles such as due process. Of course, this should apply to everyone in academia. Presumably, there are avenues for appeal if there was injustice.
I’m trying to reconcile that with the excerpt GreenWyvern excerpted. You don’t see that as racist? Are you saying she hasn’t presented those views in conversations with you, so therefore you doubt her sincerity in the article? Or are you saying you don’t see the views as expressed as racist?