The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Academic Freedom Alliance Letter to St. Olaf College
Religion and philosophy professor removed from directing a scholarly center for inviting Peter Singer to give a public lecture.
The Academic Freedom Alliance released a public letter to St. Olaf College calling on the college to reaffirm the academic freedom of religion and philosophy professor Edmund Santurri.
Santurri has long served as the director of the Institute for Freedom and Community at St. Olaf. The Institute encourages inquiry and debate into contemporary political and social issues and seeks to present "diverse ideas" to the campus community on controversial issues relating to politics, markets, and society. As part of its programming, the Institute sponsors public lectures, and in recent years it has hosted lectures by a range of speakers, including David Brooks, Glenn Loury, Alice Dreger, Michael Sandel, Bari Weiss, and Bryan Caplan. Unsurprisingly, such speakers discussing such topics sometimes generate controversy on college campuses, and controversies have sometimes swirled around the Institute.
In the spring of 2022, such a controversy took a troubling turn. The Institute invited Princeton philosopher Peter Singer to give a public lecture on his views regarding contemporary moral philosophy. Singer is a controversial figure, and some students launched a petition calling for a boycott of his talk at St. Olaf. Several offices on campus set out emails to students distancing themselves from Singer's views, but the talk took place without disruption or cancellation.
Nonetheless, in apparent response to the Singer invitation, the president of St. Olaf College suddenly removed Santurri from his position as director of the Institute. Santurri had just recently been reappointed as director, and was in the middle of a two-year term in the position. His appointment as director included salary support and a teaching reduction.
The president of St. Olaf College has sent a very clear message to its faculty that there are limits on free inquiry on that college's campus and that the College will not tolerate speakers whose ideas are offensive to influential campus stakeholders. Like other college presidents, the president at St. Olaf has recognized that he can avoid disinvitation controversies if he simply prevents invitations from being sent to heterodox speakers in the first place. Professors who do not toe the party line will not be allowed to be in a position to invite speakers to campus. When the leading moral philosophers of the world are not welcome on your campus, you have an intellectual freedom problem.
From the AFA letter:
I write on behalf of the Academic Freedom Alliance to protest his premature removal from the directorship of the Institute. No member of the faculty is entitled to hold such an administrative position, but it is a grievous assault on the intellectual climate of the college for the director of a scholarly center to be precipitously dismissed from his post because the intellectual activities of the center offend members of the campus community.
. . . . Far from advancing the mission of the Institute, this decision to rescind Professor Santurri's appointment instead turns its back on that mission and announces that the Institute will not be allowed to expose students and faculty to a diverse range of ideas about politics and society but will instead be sharply constrained so that it does not challenge campus orthodoxies.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Singer is a modern Alfred Rosenberg.
Compare. A nasty letter from lawyers vs. a mandamus of the Non-Profit Office of the IRS to end the tax exemption.
The AFA should consider a direct action arm. Find the home of the President and pay homeless people to shout, "No Justice. No Peace," for a week. Set up some tents on that street.
San Diego State University of St. Olaf?
Fascists are going to do fascism. How is this in any way a surprise?
The president of a private college removing a director of a "scholarly center" at the college counts as "fascist"? Not in my book.
What does San Diego State have to do with this case, so that they have some special obligation to address it? Could Prof. Whittington give us a little more background?
I suspect that was left over from an old post.
It seems to have been changed now.
Without acknowledgement of the revision?
Are you sure? That would be very unprofessional.
It was a pretty obvious mistake, seeing as it was a hyperlink that went direct to the St. Olaf homepage.
Of all the stealth edits I have seen this one ranks about 1.5 out of 10 in terms of my persona panty-knottage.
I agree there is no sense in getting worked up about it.
There also is no reason to pretend it is professional or admirable, however.
Sometimes it must seem a bit like the results one gets writing letters to mafia dons stressing the importance of strict nonviolence, or to brothel madams on the need to show greater commitment to chastity.
Man I remember when St. Olaf was known as one of the best music conservatories in the country. I applied and was accepted there to study piano & voice but decided I didn't want to take out those kinds of student loans.
Now? The most prominent thing on their website is how they have wind and solar power and organic farms. Sigh.
Cows: check.
Colleges: check.
Contentment: not so much, it would seem.
I think this is where Betty White's character went in The Golden Girls.
Public and private universities need to be taxed and treated like any other business. If they want to accept any government assistance which includes student loan support then they must be held to standards which preclude petty vindictiveness that their leadership has demonstrated. Free speech or no free ride
Harassment? MONEY CUT OFF!
Censorship? Carry on.
Seems like we're seeing more and more of these types of letters by the AFA ... either they are getting more effective in routing out academic freedom issues on campus, or the letters are not particularly effective in curtailing the abuse.
If these clingers didn't grant an undeserved pass to conservative-controlled campuses, they'd be sending a satchel of letters every day.
This is foolish from an ideological standpoint: Singer is willing to "say the quiet part out loud", he's VERY useful to have around in that regard.
He's the sort of left-wing extremist who backfires, repelling more people, awakening them to the threat, than he could ever convert.
I don't even know much about the guy, but it looks like he's a utilitarian. LOL if you think that's where the left is coming from these days.
Sometimes you can think someone is awful without working to tie it back to partisan politics, you know.
You really don't know who Peter Singer is? He's a nut, but he is a pretty famous nut, at least in political/philosophical circles. Kinda like Stanley Fish.
In any event, I am curious who made the stink in the first place. St. Olaf's does not seem like a hotbed of reactionary politics, so I am guessing it was someone on the Left, but I had not heard that Singer was on their sh!tlist.
He's a pro-infanticide utilitarian. Pro-beastiality, too, and as an extension, argues against the application of statutory rape laws to the mentally disabled.
Most utilitarians shrink from the implications, and import a bit of Kantianism into the theory, so as to avoid agreeing that you can reasonably kill Bob because he's so annoying that net utility would go up if somebody stuck a knife in him.
Not so, Singer. He's embraced the logical implications of utilitarianism most find some way to avoid admitting.
I "read the whole thing" and don't see anywhere any discussion of the College's stated reasons for its action, or even if there were any stated reasons. Does anyone have any actual information on that? And by "actual information," I mean actual information.
You must be new to the internet. We're supposed to form outraged mobs over unverified innuendo, not soberly deal in real facts.
This whole controversy is bovine excrement.
St. Olaf is a private liberal arts college in the Lutheran tradition of Christianity, with a mission that includes nourishing students' faith and values. Academic freedom must, of necessity, give way to existential concerns in such an institution. College leadership will not (and must not) tolerate middle management operating counter to the mission statement if they expect continued enrollment or endowment.
The Academic Freedom Alliance needs to stay in its lane, and police the state and Ivy League universities, where free inquiry as a core value does not implicate [threaten] existential concerns.
What I was asking for is actual information about what the college said about why it did what it did, or even whether the college said anything at all.
Is what you wrote something the college said, or your own view of the reasons the college might have had? There is a difference.