Students For Academic Freedom

9/11 For Dummies · 15 August 2005

By Professor Anonymous - FrontPageMag.com--08/13/05

"Why is it," wondered my faculty friend, "that after 9/11, and after the start of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, all of a sudden professors without professional experience or expertise in the subject became 'experts' on the Middle East, Radical Islam, terrorism, U.S. foreign policy and the like?" These instant experts were eager to teach students, colleagues -- and anyone they could get to listen -- about these subjects. They were especially anxious to ensure that everyone would adopt their politically correct viewpoints and have an arsenal of facts to support their views.

"We both know," I said, "that this is propagandizing, not educating, and it is an abuse of the true mission of universities, which is the pursuit of knowledge, not political ideology. We see how this undermines academic discipline and standards essential for the pursuit of knowledge. You know what I mean: thorough knowledge of the primary sources and the main scholarship for one's field; critical and rational analysis of many different approaches and complex explanations for the key questions and problems in one's field; a total commitment to accuracy and honesty, even if this means sacrificing one's pet theories; and above all, making sure that our students learn the importance of these standards. They have to embrace them fully. Without these, the pursuit of knowledge leads to the dead end of propaganda and distorted theories, not truth. We see how vulnerable students are to the seductive attractions that instant "experts" offer with their simplistic instant explanations and ideology. This makes insisting on upholding our professional academic standards all the m ore important, don't you think?"

"Sure," said the professor, "but there's been a problem here ever since 9/11 and even before that. Instant "experts" and their low standards are spreading everywhere nowadays."

I know that this is true, and this is my subject here. The information I am about to present comes from my own experience at the university where I teach, from my teaching assistants and students, from colleagues at other universities, from professional journals such as The Chronicle of Higher Education and Academe, the Journal of the American Association of University Professors, and from newspapers such as The New York Times and The Washington Post.

The 9/11 Emergency and Instant Experts

Thus radical professors sought to use their newly asserted expertise to indoctrinate and radicalize as many students and faculty as they could; especially students. [1] Students were "too conservative," said some; the tragic demise of the ideals of 60's radicalism was at hand, thought others. This crisis called for action.

In one department at a large public university a professor of American business history took it upon himself to organize a "teach-in" with some other professors--most of whom had no particular knowledge or expertise that made them logical choices for this. Meanwhile, faculty members who did have such knowledge, including specialists on foreign affairs, Islamic history, political theory, and military and diplomatic history, were not asked to participate; they were expected to attend and be indoctrinated like everyone else. This event was well- advertised throughout the university, thus insulting genuine experts who should have been in charge of the whole thing, given their qualifications and knowledge. The qualification for leadership here was leftist ideology, not substantive knowledge of the issues and relevant fields.

Another example: a professor of 17th c. British history organized a panel on American foreign policy and Afghanistan. He was no expert on the subject, but considered himself qualified to organize and choose a panel of speakers who all belonged to the "No Blood for Oil" antiwar school of thought. Their analysis of the crisis of radical Islamists, terrorism, Osama bin Laden, Afghanistan and the Middle East etc. revolved around one idea: that our involvement in these problems was entirely and exclusively aimed at gaining control of oil pipeline territories and oil. Not only was the political and cultural analysis beyond poor, even the economics were wrong! (there was and is now no oil pipeline in Afghanistan). Most of the audience, faculty and some graduate students from the history and government and politics department, sat quietly nodding in agreement. Only a few courageous souls dared to question this analysis and its purported factual basis, and in so doing risked getting the disapproval and contempt of the rest of the audience. Social pressure to accept the teachings of the pseudo-experts as much as real experts was evident. Challenging them was "not cool."

A third example: a U.S. History professor began offering an upper-division course on international terrorism. He had never taught this subject before, and had no professional training or experience with the material. What qualified him to teach such a course? He knew the correct political approach to the material. He had been an anti-Vietnam war protester in the 60's, and knew the importance of indoctrinating students, lest they become naively complacent in U.S. imperialism and capitalism, not to mention the exploitation of the underprivileged all over the world. The course reading list was one-sided (left) and predictably anti-American. With no other points of view included. He continued to give the course, which was very popular.

One of the most controversial cases involving an instant expert occurred at UC Berkeley. [2] A graduate student in English was assigned to teach a Freshman English course on reading and writing skills. He decided to turn it into a course on the Palestinian Resistance, from a strictly pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli perspective, as he announced in his course description. Conservatives were explicitly warned in writing in the description to stay away from the course. Was this really a Freshman English writing course? Was the grad student in English really well-prepared without knowledge of Arabic to teach Middle-Eastern political affairs, much less literature? Was he even qualified to teach "Basic Intifada for Dummies"? And what do you suppose would have happened if a grad student in English decided to turn Freshman Reading and Writing R1A into a course on the Israeli cause, strictly pro-Israeli and anti-Palestinian? What if the instructor warned leftist students who might disagree to stay away from the course? He'd probably be driven from the department by "diversity police" as some sort of Zionist bigot who was unfit to teach. This instructor would never, ever, have received the support of the Faculty Senate, and the Chair of the English Department, who all came to the defense of the pro-Palestinian course and the instructor's "academic freedom". Yes, they made him tone down the course description a bit, and arranged for extra supervision and for the prospective students to be assured that they were "free to dissent from the instructor's views without fear," but they did not require him to change the reading list or balance out the one-sided focus. And they never questioned his fitness to teach such a course.

To the question about why this sort of thing happened, what entitled professors without various qualifications to claim and act upon their "expertise," my answer was this. We saw the same thing happen in the 60's in connection with the crisis of anti-Vietnam war protests and strikes and disruption of many campuses. In such an atmosphere of chaos and emergency, with classes cancelled and universities on strike, many radicals and their supporters believed that it was absolutely crucial to provide guidance and information to students they presumed would be "lost" and confused, traumatized by the disruptions and conflicts, and unable to respond appropriately without the leadership of those who did know "the real truth." The need to mobilize opposition to the war and the military-industrial complex supporting it seemed urgent. Crisis and urgency made any radical with a bullhorn and a vague grasp of basic Marxist-Leninist principles an expert.

More recently the attacks of 9/11 presented a similar emergency. All across the country leftists on campuses became experts overnight, and began offering teach-ins, lectures, forums, panels, discussions, using any venue where they could enlighten the lost and confused to the truth and politically correct positions based on those truths. [3] Comparisons with the leftist activism of the 60's were natural, with some faculty radicals consciously trying to renew the spirit and antiwar movement of the 60's. Some of these professors had been student protesters and activists in the 60's; this experience was perhaps enough to support their claim of qualified expertise. This rush to educate and organize was widely regarded as a noble and humane pedagogical undertaking which would help the students to weather the frightening international crisis. How else would they be able to grasp what had happened, what it meant for them, and what they should do? There was a call for clear, simple explanations, mostly focused on "our" role and responsibility for what had happened. "Experts" issued straightforward and specific directives:

1. Promote Sensitivity to Others, Especially Muslims

Prevent any harassment or attacks on Muslims and people of Middle Eastern and South Asian background; promote "sensitivity to Others" and diversity. As the Association of American Colleges and Universities' official Statement on Higher Education's Role in the Wake of the National Tragedy of September 11 said:

"Valuing diversity and enabling constructive intergroup learning have become hallmarks of the contemporary academy. As we face the current crisis, we must redouble our efforts to build broad understanding of the diversity that is a wellspring both of our democracy and of our intellectual vitality."

At most universities administrators issued warnings such as the one at The University of Southern California:

"Our goal was to prevent harassment of students who shared a common heritage or religion with those responsible for these crimes." And to that end the president "communicate[d] to all faculty, staff, and students via e-mail that, while he condemned the attacks, he also condemned the harassment of Muslim students, faculty, and staff. At the same time, student affairs staff contacted Arab and Muslim student leaders to reassure them of the university's support;" and in meetings offered reassurance to Arab and Muslim students "that we did not want anyone unfairly attacked or questioned about their status in our educational community."[4]

2. Protest! Oppose War, Capitalism, Imperialism, Globalism

Oppose war, first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq; oppose President Bush and his war-mongering advisers and their policies; oppose U.S. imperialism and supporting of vile dictators and oppressors; oppose capitalism and globalism; and above all, express this opposition in public protests and demonstrations. [5] A classic statement came from Eric Foner, one of this country's most prominent historians, DeWitt Clinton Professor of History at Columbia University, and a past president of both the Organization of American Historians and the American Historical Association:

"I'm not sure which is more frightening: the horror that engulfed New York City or the apocalyptic rhetoric emanating daily from the White House. 'We will rid the world of evil-doers,' President Bush announces as he embarks on an open-ended 'crusade' (does he understand the historical freight this word carries?) against people who 'hate us because we are free'. "

Howard Zinn, professor emeritus of political science at Boston University and the author of one of the most widely assigned U.S. History textbooks, expressed similar reactions to the horrors of 9/11:

"Then our political leaders came on television, and I was horrified and sickened again. They spoke of retaliation, of vengeance, of punishment. We are at war, they said. And I thought: They have learned nothing...from the history of the 20^th Century, from a hundred years of retaliation, vengeance, war, a hundred years of terrorism and counterterrorism, of violence met with violence in an unending cycle of stupidity. [....] We need to think about the resentment all over the world felt by people who have been the victims of American military action."

At universities all over the country a new anti-war movement mobilized, inspired by these sentiments. Organizers argued that imperialism, capitalism ("its cause") and racism were to blame for what Catherine Lutz, an anthropologist of the American military at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, calls our "permanent state of war since the late 1930s." Noting that "this war has now come home to roost" [sound familiar, followers of Ward Churchill?] she attributes it to anticommunism and capitalism:

"it has been carried on in the name of stability for any regime that would don an anticommunist mantle and allow American business access, hiding a rotten core of systematic terrorism against its own people, often with our weapons....the long reign of nuclear terror by the Soviet Union and the United States-who together took aim at millions of people in skyscrapers and hovels-was called defense, or even peace."

Traditional leftist criticisms about the U.S. and its bullying imperialism became a litany repeated continually. The favored Leninist paradigms were invoked to explain everything in a vague way (Hello! Imperialism the Highest Stage of Capitalism!). Faculty and students were exhorted to organize and attend teach-ins and forums to criticize the American policies that "brought this just revenge upon us" and to blame America first. An early example was the teach-in at the City University of New York, described in a New York Post article as a stupid "peacefest." Academe reported that the Post writer:

"complained that the forum was dominated by speakers who looked to the history of capitalism, colonialism, religious conflict, and class divisions for answers about why the terrorists crashed planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, and that it included speakers who opposed U.S. military action in Afghanistan."

3. Protect Academic Freedom and Free Speech (Think "Critically")

Not surprisingly, many objected to these criticisms and the blaming of America for the attacks. These objections in turn alerted the protesters to understand that academic freedom was in danger, and this produced instructions to exercise academic freedom and freedom of speech to the utmost, and test their limits, while discouraging patriotic displays and flag-waving. The American Association of University Professors expressed intense concerns about perceived threats to academic freedom, especially after the CUNY "peacefest" was denounced by the school's chancellor and some of its trustees. "The teach-in was organized in order to give students an opportunity to learn about the crisis," lamented the professor who moderated the event. Right: an opportunity to "learn" by being indoctrinated with recycled propaganda from the 60's. But this raised grave concerns about an atmosphere seen as "chilling to academic freedom and free speech." [6] And this near-hysteria resulted in many universities echoing the AAUP's orders to assert and protect academic freedom. At USC a typical proclamation was issued by the administration "focused on ensuring that those who dissent from the prosecution of a war on terrorism in Afghanistan and elsewhere can share their views in a setting of academic freedom." [7] Many universities issued similar statements. On the whole, though, there was less concern about the academic freedom of conservatives (more below).

There were some universities where students, faculty, and staff were even forbidden to display the American flag for fear of offending "Others" and to avoid crude "jingoism."

The message given to students was that patriotism was offensive and that it was "best" to blame and criticize the U.S. for the tragedy and its underlying causes. [8] Small wonder that besides organizations for the defense of free speech, also the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) condemned academia's "blame America first" response and said that after 9/11 "College and university faculty have been the weak link in America's response to the attack," with "public messages [that] were short on patriotism and long on self-flagellation." [9] When it came to blaming America first, it was hard to beat the Arabic and Islamic studies professor who bitterly complained:

"Little, indeed, is said about the disastrous effects of an American foreign policy that has supported many twisted dictatorships in the Muslim world and helped thwart democratic reforms, or about the American-Saudi partnership that turned the country [Afghanistan] into a breeding ground for misery and monstrosity. [....]While the September 11 acts were criminal, the grievances that fed and inspired them were real... The list of grievances is long, but it invariably boils down to the obscene indifference to the loss of human lives that do not appear on American television screens..."

4. Organize Rituals, Promote Comfort and Community Spirit

Having encouraged students to avoid seeking comfort and collective solidarity with the American majority in support of what they portrayed as an unacceptable patriotic national response to the crisis of 9/11, there remained the problem of finding appropriate sources of comfort and emotional release. Universities and colleges demonstrated care for students' welfare and development (and heeded the importance of good university publicity) through organized rituals of mourning, candlelight peace vigils, prayer services, planting "peace gardens," and writing messages on huge sheets of paper for public display. They congratulated themselves on the moving spirit of community (and diversity!) these rituals displayed. At the University of Virginia a teach-in on September 13 ended with a religious studies professor's observation that with the deeply moving closeness of the university community at this event he had "never seen UVA as beautiful as it was...You and I have the opportunity to continue to turn negative energy and use it to produce more human awareness among our citizens." Thus:

"Students took this opportunity to educate themselves at a moment when the world seemed incomprehensible. Disillusioned by the media and disheartened by many reactions of their fellow Americans, the University of Virginia, in an evening, provided its students with the familial comfort for which they all so desperately longed. The lines between students and faculty were blurred as both shared honestly and sincerely. Despite their grief, they were left with the tangible sense that, as a group, they would be able to face the world as one." [10]

At the University of Maryland the vice-president of student affairs "urged administrators to press faculty members to lead teach-ins, pay special attention to the concerns of Muslim students, and recognize the desire for public grieving." This produced, in addition to many teach-ins, a ceremonial placing of roses in a fountain and later burying the flowers in a mound of soil that would be tended by students. As the vice president emphasized, "It's really important to the grieving process. ...This is, I think, the defining moment for this generation of college students." [11] Universities awarded themselves high scores for all kinds of "sensitivity" and took full advantage of all opportunities to get rid of negative energy and guide students towards proper self-actualization. It seemed as though many of the "instant experts" could also serve as "instant grief counselors."

So there you have it: if you could master these concepts, it was easy to become an "expert" faculty leader or a student activist leader. These instructions made things quick and simple for the followers, especially apolitical students with little knowledge of the relevant issues. The clever and empowering principle of blaming America was easy to grasp and placed control of the situation in our hands.

"Expert" Advice: Blame America First

Everyone assumed that amidst the chaos and mourning students would be unable to concentrate on the courses they were taking, and would prefer their professors and teaching assistants to devote class time to informing them on the political struggles of the moment. The main guideline presented was that in the face of a vicious terrorist attack which precipitated international crisis and war, the proper response was deep questions: what did WE do wrong? Why do they hate US? Why did WE deserve this? The narcissism of this is striking. It offers a simple explanation for what went wrong, points to "remedies" that lie mainly in our control, requires little or no understanding of other cultures and peoples except as victims of our exploitation and political oppression, and spares us from having to expect of the "Others" any sort of cooperation , comprehension, or toleration, much less self-criticism such as ours. This seems to provide for us reassurance and hope, although it infantilizes and disempowers our terrorist enemies ("our victims") by stripping them of responsibility for minimally civilized behavior and improvement through critical self-reflection and reform. It is, in a word, condescending.

In the days and weeks (and eventually semesters) after 9/11 many faculty members responded to the need for decisive measures to attend to shocked, frightened students. These students were of a post-Vietnam, post-draft, post-Cold War generation with no experience of fears of attacks on our soil, war, and international crisis. To be fair, much of the faculty's concern was well-intentioned. Moreover, it was encouraged by college and university administrators who cherished the image of the benevolent "caring" university nurturing its young and proclaiming its political and social awareness. One university public relations official couldn't contain his excitement in a meeting of deans and department chairs about "how we can use this to improve the university's image!". This explains why many university presidents and administrators not only allowed but encouraged "instant experts" to do their thing.

However not all university presidents were in a position to be as thrilled with this. As mentioned earlier, a teach-in at CUNY went over the edge of decency in the faculty's merciless bashing of the U.S., bringing shameful publicity and disgrace to the university. [12] And who can forget how poseur professor of ethnic studies Ward Churchill, with his "instant expert" rants against U.S. imperialism and tyranny, has polluted the reputation of the University of Colorado? But for some instructors this was also a golden opportunity to recruit and indoctrinate converts for the left, and to expand its influence and the effectiveness of its criticism and protest; an irresistible golden opportunity which could be presented attractively as the humane duty of concerned educators in a crisis.

Apart from the concerns of college administrators, for much of the faculty the traditions of the 60's antiwar movement were reborn, teach-ins and all. And as in the past, it was the perceived need to provide politically correct guidance and knowledge to help students comprehend the crisis and face the future that made "instant experts" out of faculty members and teaching assistants. This is what qualified them to begin teaching about Islam and radical Islamists, about U.S. foreign policy (a.k.a. imperialism and bigoted hatred of "Others") and about terrorism and how to respond to it. What students most need in an international crisis, they felt, is guidance towards the truly politically correct, moral, humanitarian, leftist doctrines, and if possible, organized activism. In a crisis, those who can provide this guidance are therefore suitable experts. Radicals with new-found "expertise" and "truth" about foreign and domestic affairs strove to minimize potentially confusing disagreement, dissent, contrary information and ideas, confident that they knew what was best for everyone. In addition, they used this authority to instill leftist ideology in their students in order to safeguard the survival of radicalism in future generations.

"Threats" to Academic Freedom?

Three great fears seemed to trouble academics: concern about heightened patriotism, which they saw as a potential moral threat to human rights and their own core beliefs such as multiculturalism and the evils of American capitalism; the problem of properly grasping terrorism, especially because of their claim that we brought this upon ourselves and were getting, in the attacks of 9/11, what we deserved; and grave worry about academic freedom and free speech, which they claimed were threatened. [13] No one, however, expressed concerns about protecting academic standards and the quality of teaching.

Instead, educators on both sides of the political divide complained about constraints on academic freedom, and violations were recorded and reported by defenders of free speech. But administrators and professors on the left usually significantly outnumbered conservatives, and thus the shrillest outcries about suppression of academic freedom came from professors on the left, even as their freedom to criticize and blame America was continually asserted. Rather, more often it was expressions of patriotism, even displaying the flag, and criticism of the left's anti-Americanism that were silenced, along with conservatives whose speeches were protested and disrupted. (No academic freedom for them!). Radicals interpreted any criticism of their views as suppression of their academic freedom, using this claim to fight back and silence their critics. Campus radicals had little respect for their opponents and critics, whom they mocked, attacked, and accused of trying to destroy academic freedom. [14] They portrayed themselves as victims of right-wing repression, a posture which strengthened their bonds to "Other victims" of American tyranny and increased their credibility as radical experts on oppression.

But the academic freedom of the highly qualified was largely neglected in the frenzy to snatch up young minds for enlightening to leftist doctrine. Instant experts were more numerous and vociferous, usually more stylish and hip-and appealingly rebellious against traditional authority. They proclaimed their complete freedom to teach almost anything (from rap music to comic books and erotica) and expect it to be accepted as legitimate college course material, and their teaching was relatively simple, with light workloads and easy grading. Against these advantages real experts and traditionalists with heavy reading lists and course requirements, and complex ideas and dissent didn't have much of a fighting chance.

What Are Professional Academic Standards?

Now you may wonder: why should a lack of academic experience and professional qualifications be so disturbing? There was a crisis and the response of the instant experts was intended to offer readily available guidance, right? Nevertheless, in the academic world there are professional qualifications to teach a subject at college-level. In most fields in the humanities and social sciences these are:

1. detailed knowledge of the main primary sources, records, documents, history and literature for one's field;

2. knowledge of secondary scholarship for the field-the work of important scholars, how other scholars responded to and expanded this work, knowledge of the main schools of thought, controversies, broad changes and developments in the field, a good sense of specific problems and questions which remain to be explored;

3. the guidance and criticism of an experienced scholar and of peers in the field, with exposure to disagreement and debate.

These are the basic kinds of knowledge one needs for college teaching.

There are also methodologies that qualified scholars rely on to understand, explain, and teach the large topics and many-sided questions-"problems"-within their field. These promise useful, cogent answers, and scholarship which expands and advances knowledge of the field.

They include standards such as:

1. logical argumentation based on reason and solid evidence-facts, sources, data etc.;

2. accuracy and honesty-a commitment NOT to sacrifice truth and factual accuracy for the sake of one's own theories and arguments;

3. honest critical evaluation of evidence, scholarship, and especially of one's own ideas;

4. careful interpretation and rational analysis with appreciation of complexity and nuance.

Standards of scholarship such as these guarantee reliable conclusions and new knowledge with authority. Any one-sided approach to complex problems and events is unacceptable: a violation of these standards; not educating, but indoctrinating, and not scholarship but propaganda. Accuracy, reliability, evidence, logic: these are strengths which make an expert's studied work on a subject more trustworthy and valuable than the ideas of the less-experienced and untutored novices.

My point is this: the qualifications for teaching a subject cannot be acquired overnight. The rush to develop new courses and adapt old ones in response to the emergency demands of the 9/11 crisis made some instructors aware of the time pressure and the problems this raised. At UCLA, where classes didn't start until October, instructors for the new courses had over three weeks to prepare. But even three weeks isn't really enough time to prepare a new course from scratch. Although the UCLA provost of the College of Letters and Science declared that faculty should "think of the event as a teachable moment and seize the day intellectually," he also admitted that scholarship is "deliberate, contemplative, and methodical," and professors might need to revise conclusions they reached now later on. [15] Did they? Achieving this level of knowledge and scholarship takes a lot of time and work, and it can't be done on the spur of the moment.

But: anyone who can master these standards of knowledge and scholarship is qualified to teach-to pass them on to students and to act as a guide and critic and supporter. In short, qualifications to teach are not a matter of academic degrees and formal titles and appointments. They are a matter of deep, detailed knowledge and scholarly discipline.

This leads us back to the question of why and how professors without this sort of expertise and discipline could designate themselves as qualified teachers more or less on the basis of their political beliefs rather than on traditional academic qualifications. As I've said, this occurred in response to the crisis and chaos of 9/11, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, continuing international conflict and terrorism. It was a response to the widespread call for explanations and guidance. It displayed academics' commitment to "relevance" and real-world problems, another legacy from the 60's.

But really this doesn't make sense. In a medical emergency would you take the advice of an untrained layman over an experienced medical professional's care? In the midst of war would you seek protection from anthropology and gender studies professors rather than trained, armed soldiers? By the same token, the knowledge of qualified, experienced specialists in relevant fields should be preferred to the ideology of inexperienced non-specialists and experts qualified in unrelated fields. All the more so in a crisis, and especially with such urgent need for reliable guidance.

It makes no sense for professors to abandon their greatest strengths-expertise and professional standards--in a climate of crisis and uncertainty. Yet this is what happens when professors of English, cultural studies, anthropology, women's studies, math, music and other such fields rush to take the podium without adequate preparation in times of political crisis and terrorism. (You can forget about "peace studies," that vague, ephemeral field currently for unabashed propagandists who have transcended academic discipline and standards. [16] If professors substitute politically correct leftist ideology for detailed knowledge, accuracy, and honest critical analysis, the result is unthinking conformity to PC dogma. The same applies to the political right, where the substitution of conservative ideology for thoughtful, high-quality teaching results in rigid conformity to the dogma of the right. But how many right-wing teach-ins on Afghanistan and Iraq have there been? The pressure on students to conform is great, both because they long for security and the fellowship of others, not to mention their approval, and because in their fear and confusion they are attracted to simple answers and forceful directives. The "blame America first" ideology is simpler and more compelling than studying the complex foreign relations and conditions that produce tyranny and terrorism and developing strategies to combat them. We have a better idea now of how 9/11 instant "experts" became so influential, how they have failed to uphold the standards of professional scholarship and the purpose of universities, and how they have succeeded in gaining acceptance and influence in academia.

On the other hand, insisting on the upholding of high academic standards, besides offering more reliable knowledge and analysis, promotes trust and respect among scholars and students who are committed to them, even if scholars disagree among themselves. In fact especially if they disagree, for they value balance and testing ideas through debate. Maintaining academic standards and ideals creates a strong sense of community for professors and students, where security and freedom to disagree can coexist. [17] In conditions of crisis and disruption these serious academic communities can generate useful knowledge and productive debate. They provide security, emotional comfort, constructive criticism, and intellectual insight. They offer the guidance of a variety of many different experts with varied ideas to evaluate and embrace or reject. These values and strengths were tested and proved in some universities before, during, and after the crisis of 9/11. [18] Members of successful academic communities voiced (and debated) many different political views. Neither agreement nor conformity was required; but logic, evidence, accuracy, critical analysis and rational debate were expected. Perhaps most important of all, ideally in successful academic communities freedom, individualism, creative and critical reflection, rational thought, the will to improve and change for the better, all great strengths of our Western civilization, must be valued and thrive. These are our most reliable guide and our best weapon against totalitarianism and terrorism.

Now it is four years later, and many of the teach-ins are regular courses, curricula, whole departments of "peace studies" and "ethnography". What began as emergency, stop-gap measures for conveying crisis care to needy students-which justified temporarily setting aside professional scholarly and pedagogical standards somewhat-is now institutionalized and widely accepted as pedagogically valid. And the setting aside of academic rigor continues, and the courses have multiplied (there are at least 250 "peace studies" programs in North America. [19]) University administrators are happy! They continue to bask in the glow of good PR and their glorious display of social responsibility. Instant experts and faculty are happy! They are cool and popular, they have real authority and freedom to rant and recruit for the left. And students are happy! Happy to be enrolling like mad in "relevant" courses with lightweight requirements and easy grading, for especially instructors with less-than-sterling expertise are apt to have lower expectations and greater inclination to give higher grades for political correctness (even if the students' writing is horrendous and grammatically incorrect). And they get high enrollments and great student course evaluations, which in turn endears them to the administrators.

Happy !Happy! Happy! Everyone is happy.

Everyone, that is, except for all of us who wish to continue the disciplined pursuit of real knowledge and rigorous professional standards, and who want our universities to be fully devoted to the pursuit of real scholarship. That is what will make us, and in the long run, everyone happy. And then our universities will be able to fulfill their true mission in society. Now--how do we get there?

"Professor Anonymous" teaches at a large state university,

Endnotes

[1.] "In institutions of all types and sizes, and in a wide variety of disciplines, instructors are struggling with how the events of September 11 have forced them to re-evaluate what they teach and how they teach it." Ana Marie Cox, "The Changed Classroom, Post September 11," Chronicle of Higher Education, 00095982, 10/26/2001, vol. 48, Issue 9. Cox reports on increased enrollments in relevant courses, modifications to make courses more relevant, and new courses at a variety of universities. Of particular interest is UCLA, where fifty new seminar courses were created. UCLA Provost Brian Copenhaver admitted that "some of the courses 'are on the fringes of what various people might regard as not relevant.' " These courses included "Understanding the Unthinkable and Incomprehensible," "Navigating Between Blithesome Optimism and Cultural Despair," "Beyond Tears: Evidence, Fact, and Crisis," "Silence, Slogans, and Flags," "Responses to National and Personal Tragedies in the Bible (Prophets and Psalms)," "Literature as Mourning: China and Greece," "What the U.S. Should Do to be Popular in the Third World," "Poetry and Loss."

On the UCLA courses also see Tom Kuntz, "Academe on War: Man (and Woman) The Psychobabble Detectors!" The New York Times (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Nov. 4, 2001. Section 4, pg. 5. Kuntz quotes Bryan Appleyard in The Sunday Times of London: "an unprecedented assault on mainland America is being turned into sentimental psychobabble, an occasion for nationwide counseling or politically correct pseudo-courses."

Also see Donna Foote, "Islam, Arabic and Afghanistan 101," Newsweek, 00289604,

11/12/2001, Vol. 138, Issue 20.

A few of the many other universities which added new courses are USC, Emory University, Brown University, The University of Denver, Seattle University, George Mason University (which offered among 27 new summer courses, a business school course on "Marketing Tragedy"). See: Karen W. Arenson, "Campuses Across America Are Adding 'Sept.11 101' to Curriculums," The New York Times (Late Edition (East Coast) ), New York, N.Y.: Feb. 12, 2002. pg. A11; Amy Argetsinger and Valerie Strauss, "Schools Translate Terror into Curriculum Changes," Final Edition,The Washington Post, Washington, D.C. Feb. 8, 2002. pg. A.01 c.; Leef Smith, "In Responses to Sept. 11, Many Points to Teach; George Mason Examines Meaning of Events in 27 Courses, from Marketing to Managing Crisis," Final Edition, The Washington Post, Washington D.C.: Jul.18, 2002. pg. T.04; Michael Berube, "Ignorance is a Luxury We Cannot Afford," The Chronicle of Higher Education, The Chronicle Review, October 5, 2001, Vol. 48, Issue 6, p. B5.

Among the examples of "instant experts" are Sunera Thobani, assistant professor of women's studies at The University of British Columbia, whose right to make rather extreme remarks about U.S. foreign policy in public was protested by politicians but defended by the university; Karla Jay, a professor of English at Pace University, who "realized that women's and gender-studies were in a unique position to help students better comprehend the events around them;" Thomas Keenan, a professor of Literature at Bard College who began teaching writings of Henry Kissinger on Foreign Policy; and Diane Ravitch, a professor of education history at NYU. See: Karen Birchard, "U. of British Columbia Stands Behind Professor Who Blasted U.S. Foreign Policy," The Chronicle of Higher Education, Thurs. Oct. 4, 2001; Karla Jay, "Point of View: Teaching as Healing, at Ground Zero," The Chronicle of Higher Education, Chronicle Review, issue of Oct. 12, 2001, Vol. 48, Issue 7; and Anemona Hartocollis, "Campus Culture Wars Flare Anew Over Tenor of Debate After the Attacks," The New York Times (Late Edition (East Coast) ). New York, N.Y.: Sep. 30, 2001. Sec. 1a, pg.32 .

[2.] Joan Scott Wallach, "Higher Education and Middle Eastern Studies Following September 11, " 2001, Academe, 0190-2946, Nov.1, 2002, Vol. 88, Issue 6, President Atkinson, Higher Education and Middle Eastern Studies Following September 11, 2001. HTML Full Text; Robert Post, "Academic Freedom and the 'Intifada Curriculum', " Academe, May/June 2003, Vol. 89, Issue 3, p. 16 (AN 9889835)Academic Freedom and the 'Intifada Curriculum'. HTML Full Text .

On the other hand, according to Professor Sven Birkerts, a writing teacher at Mount Holyoke College, "his classes on poetry and creative writing are just as crucial for those who are trying to make sense of the unthinkable." He believes that his writing courses are helpful to students struggling with "emotional turmoil" following the 9/11 attacks, "but he chides himself for not taking even greater advantage of the moment. 'I wish I had been given a chance to rise to my role, to go beyond the subject I already teach.' "Cox, "The Changed Classroom, Post September 11," The Chronicle of Higher Education, 10/26/01 (see above, n. 1).

[3.] "Responses to September 11, 2001," Academe Jan./Feb. 2002, Vol.88, Issue 1, p. 10f., "Teach-ins Help Campuses Deal With Terror Attacks"; Francis X. Clines, "At a Waiting College Campus, An Echo of the 60's;" The New York Times Sep. 28, 2001, pg. B7; Anemona Hartocollis, "Campus Culture Wars Flare Anew Over Tenor of Debate After the Attacks," The New York Times 9/31/01 (see above, n.1); Michael L. Jackson, "Mobilizing a University at a Time of Crisis," Liberal Education, Winter 2002, pp. 24-276, MOBILIZING A UNIVERSITY AT A TIME OF CRISIS.(AN 6467583) PDF Full Text ; Amy Argetsinger and Valerie Strauss, "Schools Translate Terror into Curriculum Changes," The Washington Post 2/8/02 (see above, n.1).

At UCLA the University's Emergency Management Team was summoned and declared a "policy crisis." This team of administrators seeking instructors for the 50 new courses to be offered sent out an "Urgent Call to Action," to faculty. And what were these seminars like? One of the students, a political science major, commented that "In most classes there is hardly any interaction; here [in the 9/11 seminar] you just go and let out what's inside you." [Sounds more like group therapy than a college course]. Donna Foote, "Islam, Arabic and Afghanistan 101," Newsweek, 00289604,11/12/2001, Vol. 138, Issue 20. Also see Cox, "The Changed Classroom, Post-September 11," Chronicle 10/26/01 (see above, n.1); and "September 11 and the Academic Profession: a Symposium," Academe, Jan/Feb2002, Vol. 88 Issue 1, p18, (AN 6206096), September 11 and the Academic Profession. HTML Full Text .

[4.] As the Association of American Colleges and Universities' official Statement on Higher Education's Role in the Wake of the National Tragedy of September 11 said, "Valuing diversity and enabling constructive intergroup learning have become hallmarks of the contemporary academy. As we face the current crisis, we must redouble our efforts to build broad understanding of the diversity that is a wellspring both of our democracy and of our intellectual vitality."

The Association of American Colleges and Universities Statement on Higher Education's Role in the Wake of the National Tragedy of September 11, Liberal Education, Fall 2001, Vol. 87 Issue 4, p. 5.

At most universities administrators issued warnings such as the one at The University of Southern California: "Our goal was to prevent harassment of students who shared a common heritage or religion with those responsible for these crimes." And to that end the president "communicate[d] to all faculty. staff, and students via e-mail that, while he condemned the attacks, he also condemned the harassment of Muslim students, faculty, and staff. At the same time, student affairs staff contacted Arab and Muslim student leaders to reassure them of the university's support;" and in meetings offered reassurance to Arab and Muslim students "that we did not want anyone unfairly attacked or questioned about their status in our educational community." Michael L. Jackson, MOBILIZING A UNIVERSITY AT A TIME OF CRISIS. PDF Full Text Liberal Education, Winter 2002, Vol. 88 Issue 1, p24, (AN 6467583).

"Sensitivity " was sometimes harshly enforced. At Orange Coast College in Costa Mesa an instructor was suspended because of allegations that he called Muslims "terrorists" and "murderers" in a class discussion. Four Muslim students filed a grievance against the instructor, who was placed on indefinite administrative leave pending an investigation. The instructor had taught at Orange Coast College since 1980. Even before college administrators received the students' complaints they had distributed a memo to faculty, staff, and students urging that they be "sensitive to various customs, cultural heritages , and opinions of students of diverse ethnic and religious backgrounds." Scott Smallwood, "Community-College Instructor is Suspended After Discussion on Terrorist Attacks," The Chronicle of Higher Education, Sept. 25, 2001. The instructor was later reinstated, but with a reprimand, even though the charges against him were never substantiated and other students in the class indicated that the complaints were unwarranted. See Los Angeles Times, Dec. 12, 2001. I wonder what sorts of experts took over his class while he was suspended.

An Arabic-speaking international student got into trouble at San Diego State University for challenging several other students who were cheering in delight at the 9/11 attacks, in Arabic. The student who confronted the others [how insensitive!] was reprimanded for his "abusive behavior," and warned that he would face serious disciplinary sanctions if this happened again. See Thor L. Halvorseen, "FIRE and the Aftermath of September 11," Jan. 2002.

[5.] Eric Foner , London Review of Books, 4 Oct. 2001, Vol. 23 n. 19; Howard Zinn, "Compassion, Not Vengeance," The Chronicle of Higher Education, The Chronicle Review, Sept. 28, 2001, Vol.48, Issue 5; Catherine Lutz, "Our Legacy of War," The Chronicle of Higher Education, The Chronicle Review, Sept. 28, 2001, p. B14; "Responses to September 11, 2001," Academe, Jan./ Feb. 2002, (see above, n. 3); Katherine S. Mangan, "Reacting to War:" "Students and professors organize protests, counterprotests, teach-ins, and discussions," The Chronicle of Higher Education, Special Report, March 28, 2003, Vol.49, Issue 29.

[6.] "Responses to September 11," Academe, Jan./Feb. 2002 (see above, n.3).

[7.] Michael Jackson, "Mobilizing a University in a Time of Crisis," (see above, n. 3).

[8.] At Central Michigan University "American Flags or pictures that were pro-American had to be taken down because they were offensive to people, " (Thor Halvorseen, Executive Director, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, "FIRE and the aftermath of September 11.")

Similar prohibitions were imposed at the College of the Holy Cross, Florida Gulf Coast University, the University of Massachusetts, Lehigh University ( see reports in above-mentioned article), and Wesleyan, Berkeley, and Harvard, (Dana Mulhauser, "Campuses Near World Trade Center Plan to Resume Classes; Elsewhere, Flag-Waving and Retaliation are Debated," The Chronicle of Higher Education, Sept. 18, 2001.

[9.] See ACTA's web site for the full report, with over a hundred examples of "the shocking divide between [sic] academe and the public at large."

Goldie Blumenstyk, "Group denounces 'Blame America First' Response to September 11 Attacks," Chronicle of Higher Education, The Faculty, 11/30/2001, Vol. 48, Issue 14, ; Ahmad Dallal, "September 11 and the Academic Profession," Academe, January 1, 2002, (see above, n.3). Also see Peter Euben, "Critical Patriotism," "Our responsibility to critical thought complicates simple-minded notions of loyalty and patriotism," Academe, September 1, 2002, Vol.88, Issue 5, Critical Patriotism. HTML Full Text .

[10.] Shereen Abdel-Nabi, "University of Virginia Teach-in," Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Nov. 2001, Vol.20, 8, p. 91, (Academic Search Premier, accession number 5429023.).

[11.] Andrew Brownstein, "College Board Conference Reflects a New Concern for Colleges and Students: Terrorism," The Chronicle of Higher Education, Today's News section, Monday, Oct. 29, 2001; Eric Hoover, "On One Campus: Shock, Anger...and Resilience," The Chronicle of Higher Education, Students section, September 21, 2001, Vol.48, Issue 4.

[12.] Robin Wilson, "CUNY Chancellor, Trustees Denounce Professors Who Criticized U.S. Policy After Attacks," The Chronicle of Higher Education, Today's News section, Friday Oct. 5, 2001;

"Responses to September 11, 2001," "City University Teach-In Draws Fire," Academe, Jan./Feb. 2002, Vol. 88 Issue 1, p. 10f, (see above, n.3).

[13.] When the editors of Academe gathered comments from professors for "September 11 and the Academic Profession: a Symposium," Academe, Jan. 2002 (see above, n.9), "we expected them to discuss how the heightened patriotism, fear of terrorism, and incursions against the First Amendment would affect the nation's universities." As expected, Joan Scott Wallach wrote that the government and U.S. Attorney General "promised that unwarranted interference with citizens' rights [such as had occurred in the past] would not happen again. But in the atmosphere of heightened patriotism that has accompanied the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and the launching of war in Afghanistan, it is almost inevitable that those promises will be broken." She seems to believe that patriotism is the enemy of citizens' rights.

Other academics also expressed worry about threats to academic freedom and freedom of speech, and some were criticized by students and administrations alike. See Robin Wilson and Ana Marie Cox, "Terrorist Attacks Put Academic Freedom to the Test," The Chronicle of Higher Education, October 5, 2001, Vol. 48, Issue 6. The authors make note of "stunning intolerance" exhibited at universities with constricted "boundaries for what constitutes acceptable speech on campus." It seems that these "constraints" were mostly complaints and protests aimed at professors who were critical of the government and its policies and who opposed the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In other words, while urging and displaying exquisite sensitivity and tact towards "Others," some professors were thoughtless or deliberately provocative when it came to their own students and university populations. But were objections and protests about this really a threat to freedom of speech? If conservatives, Republicans, the Attorney General etc. had a mind to limit the academic freedom of the left, they did an absolutely terrible job. Look at the sorts of criticism that poured forth from great "voices" of the left-Noam Chomskey, Ward Churchill, Susan Sontag, and institutions such as Columbia University, Brown University, Yale, and CUNY, and organizations such as the Committee on American-Islamic Relations, Move-On and many others. Were they prevented from speaking out? Are they now suffering restraints on their academic freedom and freedom of speech? In fact, despite the hysteria of some members of the AAUP, others commented that things were not bad at all as far as limitations on academic freedom. For example, Mary Burgan, the general secretary of the AAUP, noted in January of 2002: "We have heard of very few incidents wherein academic freedom may have been threatened," and many more where there was productive discussion and disagreement. "Responses to September 11, 2001," Academe, Jan/Feb 2002, (see above, n. 3).

The AAUP was nevertheless moved to extra vigilance, and formed The Special Committee on Academic Freedom and National Security in Times of Crisis. They were still particularly fearful of McCarthy-era repression, and wished to gather pertinent information on 6 topics: "adverse personnel actions against individual professors; government policies that might impair teaching, research, and scholarly communication, including international collaboration among scholars; government policies affecting the academic freedom of graduate students, visiting scholars, and others within the academic community; government policies that impair academic freedom by denying or curbing access to information vital to scholarship; government policies or statements that could chill the climate for free inquiry and scholarship; and institutional actions or policies (whether or not governmentally compelled) that threatened to inhibit or impair free inquiry and academic freedom at the campus level." Robert O'Neil, "Academic Freedom and National Security in Times of Crisis," Academe, May 1, 2003, Vol. 89, Issue 3, Academic Freedom and National Security in Times of Crisis.; "September 11 and the Academic Profession," Academe January 1, 2002 (see above, n.3). Now that is real vigilance! Yet there is not a single word about the academic freedoms of undergraduate students-the sorts of students who might disagree (or be afraid to disagree) with their professors, or object to a lack of balance in material they were to study.

And even more striking is the extent of academic freedom as depicted here; this would be unimaginable in almost any other country.

[14.] Leftists complained when their views were criticized, and implied that criticism of their views was an attack on academic freedom, although they were free to criticize conservatives and supporters of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. As one professor who thought that academic freedom was in good shape commented: "We expected the usual 'blame America first' professors to excitedly hold forums and teach-ins, and we were not disappointed. As they explained that these attacks were deserved and were really our own fault, most faculty and students understood that free speech and academic freedom gave these professors the right to express their views. ...They were mostly ignored. The university community understood that the academic freedom cherished by the professors critical of American policy also protects the rights of those who want to express support for their country and its leaders. Academic freedom guarantees the right to be critical. It does not protect the critic from being criticized in turn by those who disagree." Melvin T. Steely, State University of West Georgia, "September 11 and the Academic Profession," Academe, January 1, 2002, (see above, n. 3).

In fact there were no major problems of the sort that the AAUP feared. And yet there were and are persistent complaints about the "hostile climate" created by organizations such as Campus Watch and Noindoctrination.org which provide a forum for students' complaints about bias in the classroom. See Robert O'Neil, "Academic Freedom and National Security in Times of Crisis," Academe, May, 2003, (see above, n. 13); "September 11 and the Academic Profession," Academe (see above, n.3); and Robin Wilson and Ana Marie Cox, "Terrorist Attacks Put Academic Freedom to the Test, Professors who criticize the U.S. government or society find little tolerance of their views," The Chronicle of Higher Education, 10/5/01 (see above, n. 13).

[15.] See Arenson, "Campuses Across America are Adding 'Sept. 11 101' to Curriculums," New York Times, Feb. 12, 2002 (see above, n.1); and Cox, "The Changed Classroom, Post September 11," Chronicle of Higher Education 10/26/01 (see above, n.1).

[16.] Greg Yardley, "Peace Studies' War Against America," April 30, 2003 .

[17.] As opposed to the Berkeley English course on Palestinian resistance with a warning on the syllabus that conservatives should not bother to enroll. See n.2.

[18.] See comments of professors Steely and Katz in "September 11 and the Academic Profession," Academe, Jan. 2002 (see above, n3); Douglas L.Howard, "Teaching Through Tragedy," The Chronicle of Higher Education, Careers section, September 20, 2001;

Karla Jay, "Teaching as Healing, at Ground Zero," The Chronicle of Higher Education, The Chronicle Review, Point of View section, October 12, 2001, Vol. 48, Issue 7 ;

and Scott, "Higher Education and Middle Eastern Studies Following September 11, 2001," "Four Presidents Speak Out for Academic Freedom," Academe, Nov. 1, 2002 (see above, n.2).

[19.] See Yardley, "Peace Studies' War Against America," FrontpageMagazine.com (see above, n. 16).