Academic Freedom Alliance Statement Regarding Maitland Jones

Organic chemistry professor fired because students at NYU thought the grades were too harsh

The Academic Freedom Alliance released a statement regarding the decision of New York University not to renew the contract of organic chemistry professor Maitland Jones.

Professor Jones retired from Princeton University after a celebrated career as both a scholar and a teacher. For the past few years he has continued to teach organic chemistry at New York University. Like many contingent faculty, he has worked on short-term contracts.

Organic chemistry has long been understood to be a gateway course for medical school and advanced study in chemistry. Those courses have long been regarded as among the most difficult courses offered at many universities and have traditionally been graded accordingly.

Professor Jones continued that tradition at NYU, but students responded not just by grousing or avoiding the course but by petitioning the university to make the course easier and to replace Professor Jones with someone else who might be compliant with those demands. NYU apparently responded by declaring that the customer is always right and that professors were expendable.

The academic freedom concerns raised by this case are complicated but real. Unfortunately, this is only the most high-profile case involving the most highly regarded institution of a phenomenon that has become all too common in American higher education. The AFA wrote in a similar dispute over grading standards at Truckee Meadows Community College involving a tenured professor who was threatened with dismissal for making his case to his colleagues over the objection of his dean.

There are important conversations to be had about grading and how students are challenged and assisted in difficult courses, but if university officials cave in to pressure campaigns mounted by students by terminating professors then the faculty will be unable to meet their responsibilities as their professional judgment dictates and the assigned grades will become even more meaningless. Unfortunately, American higher education increasingly relies on contingent faculty for a great deal of teaching, and the NYU case just highlights how vulnerable those professors are to the whims of administrators. The administration's action in this case sends a clear signal to other professors who do not enjoy tenure protections that they should take care not to rock the boat or to make the students unhappy.

From the statement:

Academic freedom is essential to higher education's core mission of pursuing truth and transmitting knowledge in accordance with the expertise and intellectual skills and virtues that are needed for this mission to succeed. Academic freedom must also protect the rights that teachers need to enable them to fulfill their responsibilities to their students, the institutions they serve, the academic enterprise writ large, and the nation that relies upon properly educated graduates. To meet these obligations, teachers must honestly and accurately assess the intellectual progress and performance of their students.

. . . .

Finally, NYU's decision, including the haste and summary manner in which it was reached, appears to be another example of the trend in higher education to devolve more academic authority from faculty into the hands of administrative entities whose backgrounds and expertise reside elsewhere than pedagogy, research, and the pursuit of truth. This clear trend of devolution has obvious and unfortunate implications for academic freedom and the public good.

Read the whole thing here.

Comments

[John F. Carr]

Looks like he went from teaching organic chemistry to people who wanted to learn organic chemistry to teaching organic chemistry to people who didn’t want to learn organic chemistry but had to take the course anyway.

I wonder how relevant the course is to people who want an MD without a PhD. I once asked a chemistry undergrad how a simple molecule was made. She instantly told me you start with this and you use a magnesium atom as a catalyst to move this to that and here you have it. She went on to get an MD-PhD. But does a family practice doctor really need to know?

[Krychek_2]

There’s a long list of undergraduate courses I took and data I learned that have zero relevance to being a practicing lawyer. I can’t think of a single time when I’ve needed to know that the life expectancy of a human red blood cell is 120 days, or the difference between a fermion and a boson, or how to derive the quadratic formula. I suppose it’s possible that some or all of those things might come up in a lawsuit, but so far they haven’t.

But that’s not the point. A well rounded education includes a lot of material that will not, strictly speaking, be useful in later life. And in the case of someone wanting to go to medical school, at least having been exposed to the concepts of organic chemistry gives them a better understanding of how basic biology works.

[Don Nico]

1) It may be that the majority of non-MD-PhD physicians never read a paper in a medical journal, but many do. And for those a residual knowledge of organic chemistry will be valuable. 2) But many non-PhDs also have illustrious medical research careers and for them the organic chemistry background is even more valuable. My daughter is an example of this group. 3) Many advanced courses in molecular and cell biology require a solid understanding of organic chemistry. These courses a especially important to medical specialists. 4) Finally A good grade in Organic chemistry means developing a sense of strong attenion to detail and recollection of many small “facts” , traits important even to a family doctor

[Flight-ER-Doc]

When I was an undergrad at UCLA (early ’70’s) there were three tracks for O-chem: One for chemistry and chemical engineering majors, one for future physicians and one for people that just wanted to take ochem (i.e. the criminally insane).

It was a toss-up as to which of the first two tracks was more difficult, but it was agreed that the purpose of ochem for physicians was to save lives by keeping people out of medicine.

Not that ochem is that difficult, conceptually: Count to four, carbon, got it. It just requires a huge amount of rote memorization, the same as medicine.

[Don Nico]

” the purpose of ochem for physicians was to save lives by keeping people out of medicine. ”

I love that reason!

[Rossami]

The statement above may be a reasonable short-term response but the market will impose a long-term solution regardless. In this particular example, NYU just ruled themselves and all their graduates out from consideration by any serious employer or institution of higher learning. They have essentially admitted that they are a diploma mill.

Unfortunately, the pain of that market response will not be felt solely by the whiney students and cowardly administrators who triggered this situation but it may be a lesson to those other students of the costs of staying on the sidelines.

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Edmund Burke

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Employers who shun NYU graduates will be able to hire candidates who studied at conservative-controlled campuses such as Ouachita Baptist, Franciscan, Liberty, Oral Roberts, Regent, King’s, and Bob Jones.

Good luck with that, clingers.

[PaulS]

Seems like a reasonable “market based” solution would be to make it known that grades will be awarded solely based on attendance. Assuming the course meets at a reasonable hour everyone would be guaranteed an A. The course would always be popular and full. Everyone happy/no complaints.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Did this group investigate the circumstances before attacking yet another strong, liberal-libertarian, mainstream institution? The letter inclines an inference it did not.

This letter might advance a worthwhile position but it is more predictable than persuasive. The situation seems more complex than this letter describes.

Is this an altruistic attempt to vindicate academic freedom and support a mistreated professor? Or is this a case of a group reflexively defending a professor (like a police union mindlessly defending a bigoted, uniformed murderer), and in a manner that flatters the preferences of its ideological allies (and partisan funding sources)?

The letter makes it roughly a coin flip. The AFA record (and in particular its role in the conservative cause) makes the judgment of a coin flip seem quite charitable.

I hope justice prevails and the better ideas win.

[David Nieporent]

If that comment contains a worthwhile point it conceals it deftly.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You may eagerly consume the cherry-picked, misleading ankle-nipping conducted by right-wing separatist groups such as FIRE and AFA; mainstream Americans, however, do not share the tastes of culture war casualties.

This group is far from an honest broker or reliable authority in this context. It seems to be whining (after reading a few news articles) to lather up the wingnuts who fund this type of clingerverse operation.

[David Nieporent]

You would be an expert on being a dishonest broker and unreliable authority. Which explains your continued anonymity here, coward.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Pseudonymous, not anonymous, clinger.

And a winner — at your expense — in the culture war, which seems to make you crabby.

[David Nieporent]

Um, you couldn’t win a game of tic-tac-toe.

[CJColucci]

My grand-niece had him for organic chemistry two years ago. No complaints.

[apedad]

To Morris, one of Jones’s former students, the firing raised a nuanced question about the pedagogy of organic chemistry.

“Perhaps this is not the man who should be teaching organic chemistry to people who don’t want to be chemists,” Morris said. “That doesn’t mean he should be fired though.” (The Daily Princetonian, 10/9/22)

We all understand there are different levels (100, 200, etc.), of classes.

Why can’t there be a lower level Org. Chem for those needing the basics vs. those needing a higher level?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Why can’t there be a lower level Org. Chem for those needing the basics vs. those needing a higher level?

Where would you draw the line between what constitutes the “basics” of organic chemistry and “higher level” components thereof?

[Don Nico]

See ER’s comment above.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

See ER’s comment above.

Seeing as how apedad’s question was posed after ER made his post my assumption was that he might have his own ideas about what was “basic”. If you don’t believe that to be the case then it’s odd that you directed your response to me rather than to apedad.

[Don Nico]

Don’t be so sensitive.
I do think that ER-doc addressed your question implicitly, although my comment was aimed at apedad.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Don’t be so sensitive.

Nobody is being sensitive. I just pointed out that it was odd that your comment was made in response to my post.

I do think that ER-doc addressed your question implicitly

As I already explained, my question was with regard to what apedad thought about it, not what ER-doc said.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

” Where would you draw the line between what constitutes the “basics” of organic chemistry and “higher level” components thereof? ”

I would not be competent to establish those distinctions but I am confident qualified people could — and likely do it regularly. If that question contains a worthwhile point it conceals it deftly.

[CJColucci]

I remember there being three different levels of Physics in my day: physics for Poets; a non-calculus-based physics for people who aren’t aiming at careers in physics or engineering; and big-time, calculus-based physics for budding physicists and engineers. (I have a vague recollection that chemistry majors may have had to take it, but I’m not sure.) So I’d guess that people who know what they’re doing could similarly handle organic chemistry.
Of course, in my day, we were eagerly awaiting the latest from Isaac Newton.

[the questing vole]

Maitland Jones held an endowed chair in organic chemsitry at Princeton, and retired in 2007 after 40 years of teaching the subject. I was not premed nor was I a natural science major of any sort, but every person that I knew who took Jones was impressed by not only his intelligence, but his willingness to hold the Princeton undergraduate populatin to the highest of academic standards. It might be the case that he is getting a bit old, but, from what I read, that doesn’t seem to be the case. Instead, the NYU students of today (unlike the Princeton students of the 1980s when I was there) are pitiful little imbeciles who expect to have bottoms whiped by their professors instead of being held to serious academic standards (Ms. Kirkland, of course, would be happy to wipe their bottoms for them, but she isn’t an organic chemistry professor). O tempora, o mores!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

NYU — an institution clingers disdain, because it is one of our strongest research and teaching institutions rather than a shambling, backwater religious backwater whose purpose is to teach nonsense and enforce silly dogma — reports that this professor received the worst student reviews on campus. That information was derived from all students, not just those who disliked or fared poorly with former Prof. Jones.

The right-wing culture warriors strenuously defending this guy neither know or much care about the circumstances underlying NYU’s decision to refrain from renewing an employment contract. They just like trying to own the libs when they get a chance, because getting stomped in the culture war by your betters is probably no fun.

Carry on, my bigoted, ready-for-replacement, clinger friends. So far as your betters permit, though, and not a step beyond.

[the questing vole]

From this response, it is apparent that the pederast who goes by the name ‘Kirkland’ in these posts qualifies, under his own designated categories, as this sort of student: “We had “survey” or “requirement” classes for the barely literate looking to punch a checklist box.” At Princeton, we didn’t have those, and the point of my post was to indicate that Jones taught at, and was enormously successful at doing so, an institution clearly superior to NYU (I would add that he taught at an institution which was superior to that same institution today). Ms. Kirkland can’t read, however, and, unless she is claiming that Princeton, as compared with NYU, is a “shambling, backwater religious backwater (sic) whose purpose is to teach nonsense and enforce silly dogma,” then her comment is completely non-sensical and irrelevant. I am increasingly convinced that places like Princeton and NYU are becoming ‘shambling, backwater religious’ institutions, but I doubt that this half-wit Kirkland meant that.

Please take some time off from diddling children and pay attention to what you read next time, Ms. Kirkland

[Davedave]

“retired in 2007 after 40 years of teaching the subject”

And, as the students said, he was still retired and didn’t teach them. The complaint was not about grading alone, or even primarily. It was that he didn’t bother doing the job _at all_.

[David Nieporent]

No, that wasn’t the complaint.

[Roger S]

According to Jones, most of the complaining students were not even attending class!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Writing classes were similar. We had “survey” or “requirement” classes for the barely literate looking to punch a checklist box; standard classes for literate, inquisitive, responsible students who did not intend to focus on writing; and specialized, more difficult classes for those focused on writing.

In my day, we were eagerly awaiting the latest from Hunter Thompson, Tom Wolfe, Seymour Hersh, John McPhee, and Woodward and Bernstein.

(responding to CJCollucci)

[the questing vole]

Wow, the little groomer boy likes journalists. It’s a rather pitiful list, but I assumed that she was reading NAMBLA pamphlets, so it’s marginally better.

[the questing vole]

And, if Kirkland has actually read Tom Wolfe, he/she/it didn’t get the message. He/she/it should re-read (or, more likely, read for the first time) Radical Chic and Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers. He/she/it might learn something about who the real dangers to liberal democracy are (but, since he/she/it is the kind of person to think that the child who noticed that they emperor had no clothes was the villain, I doubt it).

[CJColucci]

“If you read/understood what I’ve read, you’d agree with me!”

[KenveeB]

Sounds like a great way for NYU students to ensure they don’t get considered at any competitive grad schools, since their grades apparently mean nothing.

[Davedave]

This is utter drivel based on a cherrypicked quote. Maitland was not fired ‘because students complained about grades’. That simply isn’t true.

Maitland was fired because of student complaints about him phoning it in. The students (apparently correctly) complained that his ‘course’ consisted of taking money from students for his compulsory textbook, and a final exam, but no teaching of any kind.

[David Nieporent]

This is a complete fabrication. Did you bother to read the NYT article?

[Davedave]

Yes, it’s what the NYT article says: the complaints about grades were an irrelevant addition to the story, and he was sacked for refusing to do what he was paid to do. The petition was complaining about poor teaching, not harsh grading. The rest is the Trump-wing nutters engaging in outright lies again.

[Don Nico]

Dave…etc.
“The rest is the Trump-wing nutters ”
Nice didactic style that you have there.

But you are mighty slick at distorting the NYT article. In fact the extent is truly a lie. People should read the report themselves at
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/03/us/nyu-organic-chemistry-petition.html?searchResultPosition=3
instead of reading a leftist wingnut’s opinion.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Is this really how bigoted, superstitious clingers want to spend the time they have remaining before replacement by their betters?

Suit yourself, disaffected and doomed wingnuts.

[David Nieporent]

I mean, people can read it for themselves. You’re just lying. Why don’t you go back to claiming that arresting people for marijuana possession is unconstitutional (!) because Biden is pardoning people convicted of it in the past?

The complaint was about grades; there was no claim that he was “refusing to do” anything.

[ReaderY]

I think a university has a right to require that instructors of multisection common courses use reasonably consistent grading criteria, although it ought to be able to do this without firing professors.

A reasonable compromise here would have been to create a special honors organic chemistry course or similar advanced designation (e.g. organic chemistry for chemistry majors) in which the professor would impose full rigor on and “do his thing” with students who came in wanting a harder course, while conforming to the general rigor for the ordinary organic chemistry course for premed students not intending to go into organic chemistry as a field. Of course, there would need to be demand for such a course to offer it.

[ReaderY]

Also, if this was a community college rather than NYU, if would seem rather obvious that a former Princeton professor would need to make some adjustments to work with the student body. Simply teaching over people’s heads and then failing them doesn’t do anybody any good, You’ve got to work with what you’ve got. And I think that for common multi-section courses, the university and not the individual instructor gets to establish the curriculum and set the grading standards.

One thing this episode makes clear is that while NYU isn’t a community college, it isn’t Princeton wither. And while I think the university should have worked with the professor rather than firing him, he basically needs to understand this.

Of course, an obvious reason to fire the professor rather than work with him is to try to spin the situation as a bad professor rather than admit to having a student body that just isn’t as talented or motivated.

NYU may not be a commumity college