I share the concern about academic freedom and freedom of speech that higher education is under from politicians from both the left and the right here in the U.S. But posting Christopher Brown's speech here with an eye to inspire people to stand up for academic freedom makes me wonder about your judgment and whether or not your underlying political sympathies have clouded it. Yes, grandstanding politicians are on the march and college presidents seem spineless in the face of it. What specific failure or infringement of academic freedom did Minouche Shafik commit? She didn't tell Congress what fine people all the professors at Columbia are and that Congress should just keep their hands off higher education because it is none of their business? That's her failure here? It seems that may have been the noble gesture Dr. Brown wanted, but it would have been politically stupid and hurt the university, it's students and all the professors in the long run. The fraught politics of the moment requires cool heads, not noble gestures. With the growing media coverage of the "Death to America!" and "Death to Israel!" chants on campus and disruptions to classroom teaching across the country, the politics are likely to get worse and more difficult for academic freedom because the hearts and minds of most Americans are not with you at this moment. Academia is being projected as a bunch of crazy people living in their own echo chamber of illiberal thought. Dr. Brown claims Minouche Shafik's other sin was having the NYPD remove protesters encamped on campus that were supposedly peaceful. Unfortunately, not everyone saw these protestors as peaceful. One wonders if Dr. Brown's political sympathies cloud his judgment here. In addition, he fails to ignore the issue on the table that is prompting Congree to apparently meddle in Columbia's business: the apparent antisemitism on Columbia's campus. I would have found his complaint a bit more persuasive if he had at least acknowledged the issue.
What a load of shit. Anyone is free to protest as long as they don’t disrupt the normal functioning of the University. What these students are doing is a huge hecklers veto to all the other students that want to attend class and especially the Jewish students who rightfully are concerned for their safety. The police should have been called in sooner and all of the students who were arrested (remember they were warned repeatedly to disburse) should be suspended as should any faculty that participated in the disruption. This speaker is a moron
How is it Brown missed all the occasions on which students who didn't follow a woke line were silenced, cancelled, intimidated? If he thinks the threats to academic freedom started with the hearing, he's out to lunch.
The first word in "academic freedom" is "academic." That would seem to imply the application of some modicum of intelligent scrutiny to the matter at hand. Regarding your clip of that "professor," freedom of (hate) speech? Sure. Academic? Not so much.
Interesting to note what this "professor" thinks he should be ashamed of. How about, he should be ashamed by the fact that there are students and faculty at his institution who are demonstrating in support of a jihadist terrorist organization comprised of murderers, kidnappers, and rapists?
And, to use his words, what does that fact say about "the quality of the undergraduates and graduate students that we have here, the distinctive record of academic accomplishment and impact"? Please excuse me for being underwhelmed.
BTW, my definition of "peaceful protest" does not include harassment and assault of other students (some of whom were peacefully protesting against jihadists, and others who merely were "openly Jewish").
"Peaceful protest is generally protected, and colleges and universities must ensure students can engage in peaceful protest on campus. But we remind students that engaging in civil disobedience may result in punishment, including arrest. Civil disobedience derives its expressive power from the willingness of participants to accept the consequences of breaking the rules. That willingness illustrates their intensity of feeling. Students occupying campus spaces in violation of reasonable, content-neutral rules risk punishment. When that punishment is viewpoint-neutral, proportional, and in keeping with past practice, it does not violate expressive rights."
The FIRE article provides helpful quantitative information:
* * * * *
"4. Pro-Palestinian students have been responsible for an overwhelming amount of shoutdowns and violence since October 7.
In 2023, FIRE recorded 53 attempted event disruptions on campus — 22 of which failed, and 31 that resulted in substantial event disruptions, where a speaker was successfully shouted down or forced to relocate to finish their remarks. Thirteen of these disruptions involved a controversy over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and most of them occurred after October 7.
As of April 12, FIRE has already recorded 30 event disruptions in 2024 — 19 attempted, 11 successful. Twenty-seven of them involved controversies regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
That’s already more than double the total number of disruptions in all of 2023.
Moreover, pro-Palestinian protesters are responsible for every single attempted and successful disruption we have seen related to the Israel-Palestinian conflict in 2024.
The FIRE article does not inspire a sanguine outlook:
"This is all occurring amid a disturbing trend of intolerance of dissenting speech and tolerance for violence among college students. At Columbia, 30% of students believe violence is always, sometimes or in rare circumstances acceptable in response to disfavored speech. At Yale, it’s 29%. At NYU it’s 36%.
"FIRE’s recent survey at Stanford shows that three-quarters of Stanford students believe shouting down a speaker to prevent them from speaking on campus is acceptable, three-fifths believe blocking other students from attending a campus speech is acceptable, and more than a third believe using physical violence to stop a campus speech is acceptable to at least some degree."
Methinks J. K. Rowling would not find Stanford, or maybe any campus, very likely to respect her right to speak if invited to, say, participate in a panel discussion of the Cass Review.
University managers, almost without exception now, are not leaders. They're indifferent, overpaid corporate managers, and their ideal is a university in which faculty and students might as well not exist. They're happy to bend the knee to politicians, and their only anxiety in doing so is that they might say the wrong thing, and be pushed off the gravy train. By the way, it's worth looking up this particular President's track record in London.
The most famous graduate of Professor Khalid's college of employment provided an enduring description of American "Higher Learning"--
Here's a selection from the review in IHE of the new edition of Veblen's essay:
"The Professor's Literature of Protest
"Thorstein Veblen's The Higher Learning in America is back in a new edition. "
"Scott McLemee revisits a scathing classic.
By Scott McLemee
"Probably the best-known fact about 'The Higher Learning' in America by Thorstein Veblen (1857-1929) is that the author’s original subtitle for it was “A Study in Total Depravity.” By the time the book finally appeared in print in 1918, the wording had been changed to “A Memorandum on the Conduct of Universities by Business Men,” which gives the reader a clearer sense of the contents, albeit at a considerable loss in piquancy.
"The “memorandum” nonetheless displayed Veblen’s knack for turning a phrase that twisted the knife. He attacked the “bootless meddling” of governing boards and the “skilled malpractice and malversion” of the presidents they appointed. These “captains of erudition” (a play on the then-recent expression “captains of industry”) understood the value of a dollar and of publicity, but not much else. To their way of thinking, good public relations meant “tawdry, spectacular pageantry and a straining after showy magnitude.” And worse, they molded higher education in their own likeness.
“The school becomes primarily a bureaucratic organization,” writes Veblen, “and the first and unremitting duties of the staff are those of official management and accountancy. The further qualifications requisite to the members of the academic staff will be such as make for vendibility, volubility, tactical effrontery [and] conspicuous conformity to the popular taste in all matters of opinion, usage and conventions.”
"The cumulative, long-term effect on the life of the mind?
“A substitution of salesmanlike proficiency -- a balancing of bargains in staple credits -- in the place of scientific capacity and addiction to study.”
"Conspicuous conformity" might be the best description one is going to find on the current state of discourse in the Higher Learning.
A bit of reading on the history of Gaza...
https://www.fomitepress.com/gaza-punishing-the-innocent.html
Bravo, surely people in the Universities are informed and knowledgeable.
Marvellous to see them taking their appropriate roles.
Peace now!
Thank you, Amna, for inspiring the many comments taking you to task for this post!
I share the concern about academic freedom and freedom of speech that higher education is under from politicians from both the left and the right here in the U.S. But posting Christopher Brown's speech here with an eye to inspire people to stand up for academic freedom makes me wonder about your judgment and whether or not your underlying political sympathies have clouded it. Yes, grandstanding politicians are on the march and college presidents seem spineless in the face of it. What specific failure or infringement of academic freedom did Minouche Shafik commit? She didn't tell Congress what fine people all the professors at Columbia are and that Congress should just keep their hands off higher education because it is none of their business? That's her failure here? It seems that may have been the noble gesture Dr. Brown wanted, but it would have been politically stupid and hurt the university, it's students and all the professors in the long run. The fraught politics of the moment requires cool heads, not noble gestures. With the growing media coverage of the "Death to America!" and "Death to Israel!" chants on campus and disruptions to classroom teaching across the country, the politics are likely to get worse and more difficult for academic freedom because the hearts and minds of most Americans are not with you at this moment. Academia is being projected as a bunch of crazy people living in their own echo chamber of illiberal thought. Dr. Brown claims Minouche Shafik's other sin was having the NYPD remove protesters encamped on campus that were supposedly peaceful. Unfortunately, not everyone saw these protestors as peaceful. One wonders if Dr. Brown's political sympathies cloud his judgment here. In addition, he fails to ignore the issue on the table that is prompting Congree to apparently meddle in Columbia's business: the apparent antisemitism on Columbia's campus. I would have found his complaint a bit more persuasive if he had at least acknowledged the issue.
What a load of shit. Anyone is free to protest as long as they don’t disrupt the normal functioning of the University. What these students are doing is a huge hecklers veto to all the other students that want to attend class and especially the Jewish students who rightfully are concerned for their safety. The police should have been called in sooner and all of the students who were arrested (remember they were warned repeatedly to disburse) should be suspended as should any faculty that participated in the disruption. This speaker is a moron
How is it Brown missed all the occasions on which students who didn't follow a woke line were silenced, cancelled, intimidated? If he thinks the threats to academic freedom started with the hearing, he's out to lunch.
The first word in "academic freedom" is "academic." That would seem to imply the application of some modicum of intelligent scrutiny to the matter at hand. Regarding your clip of that "professor," freedom of (hate) speech? Sure. Academic? Not so much.
Interesting to note what this "professor" thinks he should be ashamed of. How about, he should be ashamed by the fact that there are students and faculty at his institution who are demonstrating in support of a jihadist terrorist organization comprised of murderers, kidnappers, and rapists?
And, to use his words, what does that fact say about "the quality of the undergraduates and graduate students that we have here, the distinctive record of academic accomplishment and impact"? Please excuse me for being underwhelmed.
BTW, my definition of "peaceful protest" does not include harassment and assault of other students (some of whom were peacefully protesting against jihadists, and others who merely were "openly Jewish").
Alternative view by FIRE:
https://www.thefire.org/news/fire-statement-campus-violence-and-arrests
"Peaceful protest is generally protected, and colleges and universities must ensure students can engage in peaceful protest on campus. But we remind students that engaging in civil disobedience may result in punishment, including arrest. Civil disobedience derives its expressive power from the willingness of participants to accept the consequences of breaking the rules. That willingness illustrates their intensity of feeling. Students occupying campus spaces in violation of reasonable, content-neutral rules risk punishment. When that punishment is viewpoint-neutral, proportional, and in keeping with past practice, it does not violate expressive rights."
This Substack is having trouble counting to two, and at a critical time. FIRE gets it.
The FIRE article provides helpful quantitative information:
* * * * *
"4. Pro-Palestinian students have been responsible for an overwhelming amount of shoutdowns and violence since October 7.
In 2023, FIRE recorded 53 attempted event disruptions on campus — 22 of which failed, and 31 that resulted in substantial event disruptions, where a speaker was successfully shouted down or forced to relocate to finish their remarks. Thirteen of these disruptions involved a controversy over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and most of them occurred after October 7.
As of April 12, FIRE has already recorded 30 event disruptions in 2024 — 19 attempted, 11 successful. Twenty-seven of them involved controversies regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
That’s already more than double the total number of disruptions in all of 2023.
Moreover, pro-Palestinian protesters are responsible for every single attempted and successful disruption we have seen related to the Israel-Palestinian conflict in 2024.
The FIRE article does not inspire a sanguine outlook:
"This is all occurring amid a disturbing trend of intolerance of dissenting speech and tolerance for violence among college students. At Columbia, 30% of students believe violence is always, sometimes or in rare circumstances acceptable in response to disfavored speech. At Yale, it’s 29%. At NYU it’s 36%.
"FIRE’s recent survey at Stanford shows that three-quarters of Stanford students believe shouting down a speaker to prevent them from speaking on campus is acceptable, three-fifths believe blocking other students from attending a campus speech is acceptable, and more than a third believe using physical violence to stop a campus speech is acceptable to at least some degree."
Methinks J. K. Rowling would not find Stanford, or maybe any campus, very likely to respect her right to speak if invited to, say, participate in a panel discussion of the Cass Review.
University managers, almost without exception now, are not leaders. They're indifferent, overpaid corporate managers, and their ideal is a university in which faculty and students might as well not exist. They're happy to bend the knee to politicians, and their only anxiety in doing so is that they might say the wrong thing, and be pushed off the gravy train. By the way, it's worth looking up this particular President's track record in London.
The most famous graduate of Professor Khalid's college of employment provided an enduring description of American "Higher Learning"--
Here's a selection from the review in IHE of the new edition of Veblen's essay:
"The Professor's Literature of Protest
"Thorstein Veblen's The Higher Learning in America is back in a new edition. "
"Scott McLemee revisits a scathing classic.
By Scott McLemee
"Probably the best-known fact about 'The Higher Learning' in America by Thorstein Veblen (1857-1929) is that the author’s original subtitle for it was “A Study in Total Depravity.” By the time the book finally appeared in print in 1918, the wording had been changed to “A Memorandum on the Conduct of Universities by Business Men,” which gives the reader a clearer sense of the contents, albeit at a considerable loss in piquancy.
"The “memorandum” nonetheless displayed Veblen’s knack for turning a phrase that twisted the knife. He attacked the “bootless meddling” of governing boards and the “skilled malpractice and malversion” of the presidents they appointed. These “captains of erudition” (a play on the then-recent expression “captains of industry”) understood the value of a dollar and of publicity, but not much else. To their way of thinking, good public relations meant “tawdry, spectacular pageantry and a straining after showy magnitude.” And worse, they molded higher education in their own likeness.
“The school becomes primarily a bureaucratic organization,” writes Veblen, “and the first and unremitting duties of the staff are those of official management and accountancy. The further qualifications requisite to the members of the academic staff will be such as make for vendibility, volubility, tactical effrontery [and] conspicuous conformity to the popular taste in all matters of opinion, usage and conventions.”
"The cumulative, long-term effect on the life of the mind?
“A substitution of salesmanlike proficiency -- a balancing of bargains in staple credits -- in the place of scientific capacity and addiction to study.”
"Conspicuous conformity" might be the best description one is going to find on the current state of discourse in the Higher Learning.