ALAN WOLFE APRIL 29, 2009
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
William I. Robinson teaches sociology at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Describing himself as a "scholar-activist" on his website, Robinson deals with recent economic trends such as globalization. He does so in a manner reminiscent of the leftism once so popular in the 1970s as if, no matter how much the world changes, academic fads should never go out of style. I try to keep abreast with the field of sociology; Robinson is not a name that would appear on any list I would make of its most distinguished practitioners.
In January, Robinson sent an email to the students in his "Sociology of Globalization" course. In it he accused Israel of war crimes in Gaza, drew analogies between the Israeli occupation of the area to the Warsaw Ghetto, and included photographs comparing Israeli actions in the region to the actions the Nazis had taken against the Jews. Some students complained. The Anti-Defamation League has called for an investigation. UCSB's response has been to say that an investigation is already underway. Many faculty have sent letters of protest arguing that Robinson's academic freedom is being abridged. On the contrary, say his critics: Robinson went way beyond his academic responsibilities by sending propagandistic emails to his students on a subject that had nothing to do with his academic interests.
For me, this is an open and shut case. Neither Robinson's leftist kind of sociology nor his activist kind of politics are mine. Yet the idea of investigating him is appalling and the ADL should be ashamed of itself. Precedents are being set in this case that could have serious ramifications for everyone teaching in public universities--and perhaps even private ones.
We ought to want professors in our universities who teach about controversial subjects to provoke, and even outrage, their students. We should be pleased that they care enough about the issues of the day and about what students believe to send emails to them when things happen in the world that bear on the major issues of the day. Academic apathy is a serious problem. No one could ever accuse William Robinson of that.
At the same time, we should be wary of anyone who views the university not as a place for the exchange of ideas, but as an environment for therapeutic self-affirmation. "This professor should be stopped immediately from continuing to disseminate this information and be punished because his damage is irreversible," one unnamed UCSB student argued. Nonsense. Whatever damage words and pictures can do is out-weighed by the arguments and discussion they provoke. This student was angry. That was the point. The idea that Robinson caused some kind of irreversible damage here is preposterous. Seeking to punish him is even worse.
The ADL operates at the same level of this confused student. The director of its Santa Barbara office described Robinson's comparisons as "offensive" and claimed that writing to students is "intimidating." But there can be little doubt who is trying to intimidate here. The ADL's mission is to protect us against the hatred of anti-Semitism. Once upon it time it believed that the best way to do so was to call for open discussion on the grounds that minorities subject to majority stereotyping benefit most when the intellectual air is free. Now it has become part and parcel of the thought police, monitoring campuses for any sign of what it considers offensive speech and putting pressure to bear on university administrators to stop it. We now have a world in which Catholics try to prevent Barack Obama from receiving an honorary degree at Notre Dame while the ADL leads similar campaigns against Desmond Tutu speaking at North Carolina. This is the kind of ecumenicalism we do not need.
A Committee to Defend Academic Freedom at UCSB has been formed and it includes a protest against Robinson's treatment from Noam Chomsky. I almost never find myself in agreement with my fellow alum of Philadelphia's Central High School. But I would be dismayed if only those protesting the ADL's actions in the Robinson case were those who shared his political views.
There are all too many inquisitors out there in the world opposing this or that speaker or campus, watching what professors are saying; in my own neighborhood, Clark University considered cancelling a speech by Norman Finkelstein while Boston College did cancel one by Bill Ayers. This whole business is threatening to spin out of control. Those of us who once opposed the smug political correctness of the academic left ought to be just as opposed to the new version of political correctness adopted by the ADL and its supporters.
18 comments
As an academic historian (and someone who wouldn't mind working in Santa Barbara--ahem), I can say that there are two criteria by which Robinson should be judged:
1 - Do his views spill over into his grading? That is, if a student disagrees with him, does that guarantee an F?
2 - Does his overall performance (the classic three stools--teaching, scholarship. service) meet the standards of the profession in general and his discipline in particular?
If the answer to 1 is yes and 2 is no, then he should be fired.
Besides, in today's academic climate, trust me, if you alienate enough students, you're not long for academia. at least in a second tier public university where institutional survival depends on the number of students who enroll in your classes.
- timteeter
April 30, 2009 at 8:28am
are you serious? Would you defend this if a professor tried to "provoke" his students by suggesting that the KKK was worthy of their membership and support? Why is a professor sending emails like this at all? This is far beyond instructional or educational. There's just no pedagogical reason for a professor to make these arguments on his own. Why not assign a series of readings about the topic that provide a range of views, and then debate the topic? The defense offered in this post is laughable and insulting to anyone with half a brain.
- stowelllian
April 30, 2009 at 9:03am
I know that this guy would have been out on the street in a second if he were sending out comparable propaganda for any less trendy position, but I think that's a contemptible flaw in academe and not a justification to act as self-righteously and asinine as this guy.
- Simon Greenwood
April 30, 2009 at 9:38am
Obama's First 100 Days Saw War, Financial Ruin, Pandemic, And More. Just Wait Until You See His Second
- Anonymous
April 30, 2009 at 10:10am
“For me, this is an open and shut case. Neither Robinson's leftist kind of sociology nor his activist kind of politics are mine. Yet the idea of investigating him is appalling and the ADL should be ashamed of itself. Precedents are being set in this case that could have serious ramifications for everyone teaching in public universities--and perhaps even private ones.”
Alan what Robinson did is unprofessional. How do his accusations further the study of sociology?
Moreover, as a person unique power in his domain he can compel assent. Hid conduct therefore is closer to bullying than it is to teaching.
Besides, his tactics rather than asking students to have an open mind merely present debatable dogma as accepted fact. We all know the virtues of having an open mind, but if that kind of openness must apply to the teacher as well as the students.
It doesn’t sound as if Robinson was practicing the virtues of openness much less allowing dissent in his classroom.
Robinson is of course free outside the classroom to believe what he wants, but he has no right to force his views on students in the name of freedom of speech.
Finally, what are we to make of his use of antisemitic tropes in the classroom?
Suppose another “sociologists” gave a lecture on Jews as racists? Would Alan then also claim that criticizing the Professor would set a precedent “that could have serious ramifications for everyone teaching in public universities--and perhaps even private ones.”
- jacksondyer
April 30, 2009 at 10:30am
The key point is not his "right" to send this email but his lack of any common sense. The email was clearly unrelated to what his teaching is about, so it is only done to provoke a backlash. Why would any professor want to offend students.
I teach International Finance at a big research university. I always try to make it very difficult for students to infer anything about my personal beliefs. I want them to learn the material because they think it is important and interesting, not because we share some political beliefs. I think it is an intrusion for a Professor to let personal political beliefs invade the classroom. If the Professor had shared his political opinions with other students who were not in his class, that would be free speech. It would reflect only his odious views. But to communicate them to his own students is just a horrible act of betrayal to his profession.
What is really offensive is that this Professor is communicating personal opinions about which he is not an expert. That should not be part of his interaction with his students.
- bwickes
April 30, 2009 at 10:52am
My original post seems to have been eaten by TNR's backwards message board system, so I'll post a shorter version...
When did provocation and outrage become the main criteria for a good educator? Provocation and outrage are easy but have no inherent relation to the quality of the information, wisdom, or education being imparted. Hitler was a great man - there, I have provoked and outraged. But did I teach? I think not.
Professors, like all Americans, enjoy free speech in their personal lives. Professors, unlike other Americans, also enjoy unprecedented free speech within their professional lives. They are able to and in fact encouraged to hold forth on any topic - often outside of their narrow area of expertise - at any time of the day in almost any situation.
No, the real issue is not the amount of speech, it is the quality of the speech. Universities should have a bias towards the truth. When the bias is towards provocation and outrage, we are easily made victim to any charlatan who speaks loudly enough.
Like many others, I do not believe in blindly giving equal time to all sides of the story. Intelligent design should not be taught in biology classes. Apologias for racism do not deserve respectful treatment in sociology classes.
Of course, the issue is not black and white - there are always gray areas - but the same standard should be applied to our Social Sciences. Instead, we get professors making willfully provocative and outrageous statements without ever holding them to any standard of review.
Consider the Iraq war. You would be hard-pressed to find a single professor who made any statement in support of the Surge. Yet you can easily find quote upon quote by professors stating that the US would never allow democracy to flourish in Iraq or that the US would never withdraw from Iraq because capitalism made us a relentless empire builder opposed to native democracy. In fact, the subject of this blog post, Professor Robinson, made this very argument in a paper on his web site. With two rounds of successful national elections in Iraq that elected an Iraqi government pushing us out of the country, will Professor Robinson ever be held to account for his incorrect views?
Of course, we know that the answer is no. Instead, he will be applauded by his peers for his willingness to provoke and outrage.
- jgalun
April 30, 2009 at 11:27am
wolfe:
Many faculty have sent letters of protest arguing that Robinson's academic freedom is being abridged. On the contrary, say his critics: Robinson went way beyond his academic responsibilities by sending propagandistic emails to his students on a subject that had nothing to do with his academic interests.
george:
Like most academic conflagrations, this one is fought on both sides largely with words. They never get resolved of course because the words they use can never reflect...essentially...the relationship between the conflicting meaning of words on the one hand and the manner in which these conflicting meanings precipatate conflciting behaviors on the other.
For example, what IS and what is NOT propaganda? Can this ever be decided in the manner in which chemists distinguish the element hydrogen from the element helium from the element gold? No, it can't.
The same with "academic freedom" or "academic responsibility". Where do they start and where do they end? Can this be calculated with the exactitude in which astrophysicists calculate solar eclipses? No, it can't.
Consequently, Wolfe may see this as "an open and shut case", but there is no way in which he can demonstrate this other than by insisting everyone must share his own definitions of the words above; thus precipitating a shared meaning; thus precipitating a shared sense of what either does or does not constitute a "knowledgable" point of view.
Epistemologically, though, it all begins to fall apart the deeper you probe. Why? Because there is no scholastic methodology we can all agree on such that it confirms...universally...what words like "propaganda", "freedom" and "responsibility" MEAN.
The reality of this crucial distinction, in fact, makes for inherent conflicts. It is one thing for a professor to demand that the historical facts and figures...the empirical evidence...reflect what either did or did not happen materially. It is another thing altogether to then assign a moral or a politcal or a religious value to what these relationships are alleged to mean deontologically. There is simply no way in which value judgements can be tresated in the manner in which we share the sort of knowledge the hard sciences take as a matter of course..
An example:
Professor X is lecturing a class on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. With respect to the Israeli invasion of gaza last december, she presents what she believes to be an accurate accounting of who did what, when, where, how and why. Students can absorb this empirical assessment and point out things they believe the professor missed or was in error regarding. These material relationships either happened or they did not. And they either happened in one particular order or in another.
Either/or. Neat and clean. Precise.
But this sort of knowledge is clearly at odds with the manner in some agggregate it in order to insist, in turn, that, from this existential collage, motif, montage etc., we can derive an essential moral, political or religious narrative. This cannot be done other than by way of self-delusion
In other words, the professor can test the students knowledge of the facts on the ground. But she cannot pass or fail a student because he or she either does or does not share the professor's moral or political view the Israeli invasion. Except by way of what Sartre called "bad faith".
In fact, these flare-ups on college campuses might possibly be avoided or mitigated if everyone would agree that neither the professors nor the students can make moral, political or religious assessments of the facts on the ground other than as prejudiced points of view that can never be fullly resolved.
george walton
- iambiguous
April 30, 2009 at 11:48am
FWIW, to judge from his Ratemyprofessors.com ratings, Robinson is pretty popular and seems to most students like a good teacher (although I have to wonder about any class in which half the time is taken up with films). Below is a sampling of recent student opinion:
"Sent the class an email with horrific pictures that had nothing to do with the lecture or text material. He may be passionate about his middle east convictions but forcing his (distorted) perspective on students is TOTALLY unacceptable!"
"This professor in amazing and among the best ones I've had. Extremely knowledgable and although class is 3 hours, he keeps my interest up. Fair, easy grading and quizzes will be OK if you do the reading. Papers are interesting and so are the films shown in class. Excellent!"
"Be prepared read many books in this class (esp grad level) and prior knowledge of sociology theories are not required but very useful. While people disagree with teaching method, he has modified it based on students input. This is the perfect class for someone who loves passionate professors who will clarify anything upon request."
"Lots of reading but I learned so much in this class. Can be a bit dry but if you see beneath the surface and really listen you'll learn so much. Long class, 3 hour night class. Usually will let you out early if everyone is good."
"The class was boring, the lectures were too long, and the grading was very unfair. He is not an understanding professor. I did not need to read all the books he assigned. Quizzes were not graded fairly, and were tricky. Questions were not specific."
- timteeter
April 30, 2009 at 12:05pm
mr. wolfe's anger is misplace, and seems to be clouding his judgement. firstly, robinson did not fulfill his professor's task of encouraging thoughtful dialogue. secondly, he did the opposite - he erected barriers that impede open conversation. thirdly, academic freedom is not at issue, because robinson was free to publicize his opinions in a way that did not compromise the opinions or the expression of the opinions of his students. finally, the adl is perfectly justified in its actions. an intimidator will back off only in the face of intimidation. this is what you call defense.
an educator's task is not to tell student's what position to take. his or her task is to give the student the critical and scholarly tools to come to the correct or at least a thoughtful conclusion. robinson is guilty of the former. furthermore, he did so in an intimidating matter. even if untrue, how could you blame a student for wondering whether his grade will be compromised by disagreeing? how can we expect the student who feels threatened by the viciousness of a professor's views to feel comfortable exchanging ideas in this atmosphere.
robinson is an authoritarian: he is guilty of trying to impose his own beliefs rather than foster rigorous thinking habits. he, as authorotarians tend to be, is a bully, in his means of imposing his beliefs. by censuring him, no loss in academic freedom is incurred, for no one impeded him from publicizing his thoughts. the adl is to be commended for defending against indoctrination, specifically antisemitic, and fulfulling the task for which it was created.
in any case, mr wolfe shoul d hold nothing against the adl: if provoking anger is a valuable tool for provoking thought - one of the grounds on which wolfe defends robinson - then the adl has performed a valuable service. mr. wolfe's indignation is the evidence.
- ILANSANDBER
April 30, 2009 at 12:22pm
mr. wolfe is missing an important distinction. not allowing a speaker on campus is not quite the same as not allowing a teacher to email his opinions to students.
- ILANSANDBER
April 30, 2009 at 12:40pm
This is UCSB, a campus on Coastal California's version of East Egg a hundred miles to the north of Los Angeles. Students come here for the beach, the sun, the surf, the girls (the boys), the alcohol. These are impressionable kids.
- dylanposer
April 30, 2009 at 1:01pm
wolfe misses another distinction. academic freedom does not mean the academic is free to do whatever he or she wants.
- ILANSANDBER
April 30, 2009 at 1:06pm
A lot of great postings here, not much to add just that I think the guy is just a shit head, one of those wankers who have lived in Academia all their lives, living in a delusional bubble of self-importance. Why do so many Universities give tenure to so many shit heads? I guess there are lot more idiots in Administration.
What bothers me most about this wanker is not what he said, but how boring and unoriginal it is in its provocation. If you are going to be an asshole, be original. I read that and think go away little boy.
- blackton
April 30, 2009 at 3:48pm
A letter I got about this mentioned, among other things,
"Two students promptly dropped the class. They later filed grievances, claiming that Professor Robinson had violated the Faculty Code of Conduct: that there should not be "significant intrusion of material unrelated to the course" (II A, 1, b); that faculty members should not use their "positions of power to coerce judgment or conscience of a student" ((II, A, 4); and that faculty should not use "University resources for personal, commercial, political, or religious purposes" (II, C, 3)). "
And,
I do not think that a professor has to explicitly threaten that grades will depend
on students' opinions, or the like. The atmosphere created by this kind of behavior
certainly rhymes better with bullying or at best sanctimony than with academic inquiry.
- yerubal
April 30, 2009 at 4:21pm
PS -- Two things:
a) Both academic freedom and something more poisonous academically than the equivalent of academic junkfood are at play here, and in both senses this is a disgrace. Reminds me of Ward Churchill in my neighborhood.
b) There's a petition at www.standwithus.org , that might be of interest. The professor's email, including the photo collage he included, are there, as well as the protest against the protests.
- yerubal
April 30, 2009 at 5:41pm
Here's the answer: www.hoover.org/.../26074024.html
- basman
April 30, 2009 at 6:39pm
told ya'
- basman
April 30, 2009 at 10:09pm