The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
The Decline and Fall of the AAUP as a Principled Defender of Academic Freedom
Matthew Finkin dissects how the American Association of University Professors has abandoned a principle defense of academic freedom.
Professor Matthew Finkin has published "The Unraveling of the AAUP," a pointed critique of the American Association of University Professors in the Chronicle of Higher Education. The essay, adapted form a longer paper, explains how the AAUP's change in its positions on academic boycotts and embrace of DEI statements in academic hiring betray its longstanding principles and undermine its purported commitment to academic freedom.
From the essay:
From its founding in 1915, the AAUP has gained the respect of the academic community and of the judiciary in explicating the meaning and application of academic freedom and tenure. Its work has had a significant impact on both. Its credibility has been earned by the consistent adherence to principle uninfluenced by exogenous policies or organizational ends, and by the sheer quality of its work. The latter was captured a half century ago by Judge J. Skelly Wright, who noted the "thoroughness and scrupulous care" in the AAUP documents placed before the court.
Recent actions have departed from these standards — and radically. The AAUP, acting through its Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure, has, first, abandoned its prior position that systematic participation in the boycott of Israeli universities could threaten academic freedom and, second, declared that adherence to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) dictates as a condition of faculty retention can be consistent with academic freedom. These actions reveal a body now driven by considerations other than fidelity to principle. As a result, the deep well of communal respect has been drained dry; the AAUP's credibility has been destroyed.
The balance of the essay explains, in some detail, how the AAUP has departed from its own prior positions, without meaningful explanation, and is allowing contemporary political considerations to trump principles of academic freedom.
In closing, Finkin notes that the AAUP will likely defend university policies consistent with its new position, without regard for what the AAUP used to stand for. In such an instance, Finkin notes, the proper response would be to say to the AAUP: "You are the successor in title, but no longer in principle, spirit, or scrupulous care."
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
Quoted the same paragraph twice...
Fixed, thanks!
And another institution has fallen to the long march through the institutions. Consciously so!
The AAUP in the Age of Trump
When the rules have changed, how should the AAUP react?
"If there ever was a Gramscian moment, this is it. We must summon our “pessimism of the intellect” and “optimism of the will” to undertake the “long march through the institutions” by reversing the trajectory Lewis Powell so presciently prescribed more than forty years ago."
Universities are completely controlled by a Leftist groupthink. At least Pres. Trump is trying to do something about two of the worst offenders, Harvard and Columbia.
There comes a point in the corruption of institutions where rehabilitating them becomes essentially impossible, and the best course of action is just creating replacements. Such is the case with the universities, I think. Far easier to found new ones than to redeem the old.
Give it a rest. Your Right has been raging against "pointy-head intellectuals" my entire life. This is just the old jihad against people who think dressed-up in new drag.
That said, as a cultist I don't doubt you'd destroy higher education in a heartbeat. After all, that's the very essence of MAGA : Mindless sabotage, pointless cruelty, and empty destruction. You guys eat that shit up. The more meaningless the chaos, the more you slap your knee with glee while you hoot & holler...
You are an idiot of the 1st order - a mindless knee jerk reactionary throwback, head in the ground ninny.
I wouldn't destroy higher education. Higher education is valuable to society, and even when it's just a luxury good, people are entitled to luxury goods if they can afford them.
I'd stop subsidizing any majors that don't lead to employment or useful research, of course. Those ARE luxury goods, and people should pay for their own luxuries.
Rather, what I want to do is restore an educational ecosystem that isn't an ideological monoculture, one the left no longer dominates. When I attended college, there were left-wingers on campus, but there were also right-wingers. Academia looked rather like larger society in terms of its ideological balance, it hadn't been captured by one side in our perennial debates.
Monocultures are not healthy, not in agriculture, and not in academia. But since the left DOES control most of the existing educational institutions, the way back to educational diversity lies in creating new institutions, not redeeming the old.
Insisting on an RoI for people's educational choices is collectivist and dystopian.
Plus, you support all these grants cancellations in STEM. grb is correct, you would destroy higher education.
You'd just say you had no choice. Like you do a lot these days.
When I attended college, there were left-wingers on campus, but there were also right-wingers.
This is, of course, still true. Lousy with libertarians, even.
You just haven't been to a campus in ages and rely on right wing media and generalization.
"Insisting on an RoI for people's educational choices is collectivist and dystopian."
Well, public education is collectivist and maybe dystopian. And if you're going to be collectivist, you may as well try to make your collectivism serve the collective.
Insisting that people who ask for your money do something valuable in return is "collectivist and dystopian"?
Do you even know what those words MEAN?
Being taxed to subsidize the luxuries of people who make more money than you do is what's dystopian.
Within a society artists and social scientists and historians have value, just not RoI.
But even just sticking to RoI, you keep wanting individuals to serve society, and not the reverse. That's collectivism.
Calling it a luxury just reveals your usual 'my way or you're doing it wrong' mindset.
If it doesn't have a payback greater than the cost of providing it, education is a luxury good. Luxury goods are all very well and good, life would be dismal without them, but forcing someone to pay for someone else's luxuries is EVIL.
You just don't take seriously the coercive nature of taxation, and the limits that implies for what you can morally justify using it to finance.
Again, you speak from the point of view of society to whom individuals owe their choices.
Hating taxes so much you become a collectivist is some incredible work.
You aren’t evil, just a collectivist fool.
You really do not know what word like 'collectivist' mean, do you? Only a lunatic thinks, "Pay for you own luxuries yourself!" is collectivist, and taxpayer funding of ANYTHING is individualist!
You're the one taking away people's choices to maximize their RoI *for the sake of society*
Society is the collective.
Cite taxes all you want, your reasoning is collectivist - it flips individualism on it's head where the goal is no longer individual freedom but individual optimization to serve society.
Yes, I am glad to take away people's choices to spend other people's money. Unapologetically so.
This is Orwellian: You literally claim that it's "collectivist" to place limits on the power to spend money taken by threats of violence from other people!
It would be one thing if you were proposing that there be no "money taken by threats of violence from other people". That's a libertarian position but a really extreme and stupid one; you're apparently unwilling to go full libertarian and subsidize nothing. So your limitation is that such money will exist but will only subsidize programs that are determined to have RoI. That seems collectivist; influencing the choices of individuals in favor of what has been determined to lead to employment or useful research.
I would LOVE it if there were no money taken by threats of violence from other people. But I'm not a teenage anarcho-capitalist anymore, I've reluctantly accepted that anarchism isn't actually practical under current conditions, and settled for baby steps in that direction, to see how little government is actually feasible in practice.
Taking a small step in that direction, though, by suggesting that we at least not subsidize educations that don't pay off, is scarcely advocating collectivism. It's actually advocating that we scale back the collectivism. I'd REALLY prefer that we totally disentangle education and government! But I don't see that as a politically viable goal at the moment.
But I guess I understand where Sarcastr0 is coming from: He's a government bureaucrat, any suggestion that people might be entitled to not fund as much government is an existential threat to his way of life. You can't expect him to respond rationally to suggestions that some triage of government expenditures might be in order.
"You're the one taking away people's choices"
Not wanting to pay for what other people want to spend their time doing is not "taking away people's choices"
Brett Bellmore wants government to make decisions as to what is valuable in higher education. It's been an ongoing desire of Republicans in service to corporate interests.
Picking and choosing is more collectivist than a general subsidy; a universal basic income would be more libertarian and less collectivist than a selective income based on who the government thinks is worthy.
Gaslighto, what about "truth in advertising"?
"Insisting on an RoI for people's educational choices is collectivist and dystopian." If I'm forced to pay for them, no it's not.
Then why are you supporting Trump's evisceration of scientific research? And yes, he is doing that. Both by cutting funding and by driving off foreign researchers, and some American ones.
We finally have a President who is willing to do something about it. Our tax money does not need to support the leftist hate. Likewise, there is a good attempt to cut off funding for PBS tv and NPR radio.
Leftist institutions gobbling up trillions in taxpayer dollars are harmful parasites overtaking the host, the lowly citizen. They advance a destructive agenda and steal and plunder to fund it.
"Your Right has been raging against "pointy-head intellectuals" my entire life."
Are the people ranting about "pointy-head intellectuals" in the room with you right now?
"There comes a point in the corruption of institutions where rehabilitating them becomes essentially impossible, and the best course of action is just creating replacements. "
Technology has us at a point where we can fundamentally change the way people educate themselves. The DoE and other instructions should use the resources we pump into universities to create online learning systems with the goal being that full-time workers of any age can get an advanced education without ever attending a University, or leaving the workforce.
Yes, I think the replacements should largely, if not exclusively, focus on online learning systems.
In theory AI could drive individualized mastery based instruction in a way that would be hopelessly work intensive if carried out by humans, and then just divert to a human teacher when there was a problem.
Oh, and the Outworlds can pay Earth for updated Tapes created at a House for the Feeble Minded!
But it doesn't address the unfortunate tendency of AIs to perpetuate any biases they are taught.
We learned from the "black kings of England" incident that a lot of AI bias isn't actually an organic product of training data, but instead artificially imposed.
I made no statement about how the AI was taught. It does appear that the artificially introduced biases are mostly obvious; it's the ones that are already pervasive and unremarked, that the AI gleans from its own voluminous training material, that would be more subtle and persistent.
More techno-fantasy.
You are letting your dislike of universities lead you into truly bizarre thinking.
You know, it actually is possible to make things that work better. Just because they have some problems doesn't mean you destroy them and replace them with AI-driven(!!!) nonsense.
You know, I had a problem with my car a few weeks ago. I didn't throw the car away. I went to a mechanic and got it fixed.
Bernard, a rather large part of what people learn in college, at least if they're studying paying professions, is the sort of objective rote that is best suited for computer teaching. Math, chemistry, physics, all have objective answers and are well suited to machine teaching, with access to human teachers as a backstop where the software doesn't cut it. You can still rely on human teachers for subjects outside that rote core.
I wouldn't destroy the universities. As I said, I'd just refuse to subsidize the parts that aren't cost effective. They can continue to offer basket weaving (Actually, if you've seen what they charge for hand woven baskets in Charleston, that's probably a bad example.) and fill-in-the-blank studies, students would just be required to pay the full cost without subsidized loans.
And why should the taxpayer be forced to subsidize majors that don't economically contribute to the ability to pay taxes in the future? "Because they're nice to have around!" isn't a good reason to separate other people from their money at the point of a gun.
Significant areas of study were pursued that had no practical value until later. The Turing machine was not a practical computation device; generally Turing machines are extremely slow even if one could have been built. The work on Hilbert's Entscheidungsproblem was not a practical engineering program intended to put mathematicians out of work.
Technology has us at a point where we can fundamentally change the way people educate themselves.
We've been hearing that for decades, centuries. I'll bet there was that kind of talk when Gutenberg invented the printing press.
I'm all for using technology to let people educate themselves. Great idea. But the notion that you can just abandon the university system and replace it with the internet is absurd beyond belief.
It's some kind of techo-fantasy.
We have NOT been hearing that for centuries, unless you mean the way the printing press would fundamentally change the way people educate themselves. And it did!
And, not abandon. Supplement, where possible. Universities are an incredibly expensive way to educate people. People come out of them burdened with absurd levels of debt.
Oh shut up.
You're living in some sort of paranoid, irrational world inside your head.
First of all, whatever flaws the schools have don't justify destroying them. That's ridiculous. Do you honestly believe you can set up a new Harvard in a matter of months.
Damn foolishness.
Utter horseshit.
What Trump is trying to do is destroy those schools out of personal animus and to cater to his intellectual-hating base.
If Professors want to be propogandists instead of scholars, that is consistent with academic freedom. But to the extent that they do this, we should view them as propagandists instead of scholars.
And they should not expect taxpayer support.
And of course a professor who says something you don't like is automatically a propagandist, according to you, and Trump, and MAGA.
Dare to criticize the US and you bring down the wrath of MAGA.
The OP takes issue with the idea that BDS and DEI may not interfere with intellectual freedom. Reasonable minds can differ on both. Nothing reasonable happening in these comments.
Anti-intellectualist populism among the well educated elites on here.
Can't think of other examples of this shittiness other than like Mao and other such populist authoritarians.
So the AAUP has gone the way of the ACLU....
Those of us in academe have seen this for almost 10 years now, most notably in the case of Prof Bruce Gilley, whose work on colonialism is beyond brilliant (and reaches the same conclusions that Paul Johnson reached in his "Modern TImes"). PJ could say this because he was not in academe. You have be on academic territory to be abused for excellent scholarship.
Outside academe or under the wing of groups like NAS (Natl Association of Scholars) is where scholarship flourishes.
"NAS member Bruce Gilley’s article, “The Case for Colonialism,” went through double-blind peer review and was published in Third World Quarterly in 2017. It provoked enormous controversy and generated two separate petitions signed by thousands of academics demanding that it be retracted, that TWQ apologize, and that the editor or editors responsible for its publication be dismissed. Fifteen members of the journal’s thirty-four-member editorial board also resigned in protest. Publisher Taylor and Francis issued a detailed explanation of the peer review process that the article had undergone, countering accusations of “poorly executed pseudo-‘scholarship,’” in the words of one of the petitions. But serious threats of violence against the editor led the journal to withdraw the article, both in print and online. Gilley was also personally and professionally attacked and received death threats."