The Pope Center defends academic freedom against Pope Center attacks on academic freedom (?!)

-
Surfing around on the Pope Center site, I came across this provocative exchange.

 There was a very interesting essay by Robert Lawson, who, in trying to defend so-called "free enterprise" centers against irresponsible forms of interference in academic work, ended up arguing against much of what the Pope Center wants to do about "leftists" on campus. (I address the conceptualization of "leftists" and "free enterprise" in another post about the Pope Center.)  

 Former UNC Faculty Assembly Chair Stephen Leonard saw the contradiction and called out this bit of Popery. I am posting Leonard's response here, with permission from the author. 
Professor Stephen Leonard  3 months ago

It is always heartening to see that the Pope Center agrees with those of us who see the debasement of University governance as a critical concern. It is even more heartening to see that the Pope Center is willing to post materials that are powerful forms of auto-critique (that's the post-modernist way of saying self-criticism. The postmodern terms strike me as more telling than the "traditional" terms).
Lawson's analysis comports perfectly with circumstances in the UNC system. Making the switch of venues is straightforward. First, simply extend the second sentence of the first paragraph to note in matters of academic freedom "sometimes the attack comes from aggressive students who can’t stand having others say things they disagree with, and sometimes it comes from administrators who don’t like it when faculty members make impolitic statements, [and sometimes it comes from legislators and governing boards who are bothered by criticisms from faculty]." Replace all references to the UnKoch My Campus group with "Pope Center" or "Civitas Institute," all UnKoch descriptions of APEE activities with Pope Center descriptions of "liberal" professors at UNC, replace Johnson Center with "UNC Poverty Center" or "Civil Rights Center," and replace the disciplinary actions of the Troy U administration with the disciplinary actions that members of the legislature and Board of Governors would like to impose on UNC faculty.
The result speaks for itself: every dimension of Lawson's criticisms apply to the attacks on academic freedom and the excessive politicization of UNC that has been promoted by the General Assembly leadership, the handful of hyperpartisans on the UNC Board of Governors, and -- sadly -- the staff and leadership of Pope Center for Higher Education Policy. But I for one welcome this fecund moment of auto-critique, which suggests that perhaps the Pope Center is moving past selective application of principles of academic freedom, to a full and uncompromised defense of those principles.

Popular posts from this blog

-
  The Right Changes for UNC Steven Bachenheimer and Stephen Leonard The UNC Strategic Planning process has always been an occasion to recommit ourselves to the ideals for which public higher education in North Carolina was established. Today, it appears to have become the occasion for implementing radical changes favored by a handful of individuals in the state legislature, on the UNC Board of Governors, and in various Washington and Raleigh think tanks. Against all evidence to the contrary, and against the long and venerable tradition that has made public higher education in North Carolina a model for the nation and the world, the changes being promoted suggest that the widely available, broadly accessible, and readily affordable system of higher education we have is an extravagance North Carolina does not need. For example, Board of Governors member Fred Eshelman, described by pundits at the Pope Center for Higher Education Policy as “leading the charge” for radical change,
Read more

How Not to Cogitate on Disciplinary Identity

-
Image
  Alex Contarino once again demonstrates why history and facts are critically important things for talking about the academy -- and especially when cogitating about the state of the academic disciplines. There is something odd about contemporary (so-called) conservative attitudes toward history: they are all for understanding the past, but they always interpret the past in presentist terms.  Lamenting the absence of "balance" in UNC Chapel Hill Economics courses, Contarino makes the all-too-common student mistake of confusing their myopic experiences in college with an authoritative view of what universities -- and especially big, complicated research universities like Chapel Hill -- have to offer. Apparently blinkered by his aversion to courses in the other social disciplines, Contarino takes the Economic faculty to task for not teaching what he wants. What he should have been doing is looking for what he wants in other departments, and if he doesn't like the partic
Read more

The Silent Sam settlement snafu

-
Image
The conflicts over the Silent Sam settlement are all over the place, and this posting will have to be updated later on, but it is worth remembering a couple fundamental governance points about this issue. First: while the Legislature and the BoG have lawful authority here, in this case both the cause of these difficulties and their resolution entail unlawful (and arguably unconstitutional) acts of failure on the part of the BoG. I will be brief.         The initial failing is that the Board did not sue the legislature for remedy when the monuments legislation (NCGS 100) was enacted. The purpose of the enacting legislation for the University and the authority of the Board (NCGS 116) is to enable the realization of the  education provisions of the NC Constitution (NC Constitution Article IX) and by legal precedent the equal protection provisions of the US Constitution (14th Amendment). By failing to remove the confederate monument the BoG followed NCGS 100 and did not protect t
Read more