Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.

  1. Fool's avatar
  2. Santa Monica's avatar
  3. Charles Bakker's avatar
  4. Matty Silverstein's avatar
  5. Jason's avatar
  6. Nathan Meyvis's avatar
  7. Stefan Sciaraffa's avatar

    The McMaster Department of Philosophy has now put together the following notice commemorating Barry: Barry Allen: A Philosophical Life Barry…

Another academic freedom disaster unfolding at Duke

Brian Leiter

Here.  In brief:  a Divinity School professor derides in an e-mail the utility of "diversity training" (which was voluntary in any case), and is accused by his Dean of sexism, racism etc. and threatened with discipline.  He has now resigned!  Anyone know more details?

ADDENDUM:  There's more documentation, including e-mails, here.  On the evidence here, the Dean of Duke's Divinity School should resign, since she misunderstands the core principles of academic freedom on which the scholarly vocation depends.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

13 responses to “Another academic freedom disaster unfolding at Duke”

  1. Stephen

    If you read between the lines in the dean's emails, it seems that there's a history of obnoxious conduct by this professor. She refers to "inappropriate conduct in faculty meetings over the last two years." That conduct, rather than his views, seems to be the main issue necessitating a meeting.

    There may still be academic freedom issues to be considered, but it's not just that he holds views that differ from those of the dean.

    Reply
  2. Steven Hales

    I, for one, look forward to the publication of the Malleus Mallificarum for diversity inquisitors. That will be of great help in keeping us all from falling into heresy.

    Reply
  3. Anon (for the usual reasons)

    How did we in academia get here, both with this case and the Hypatia affair? I originally thought that the blame rested solely with internet mobs and the cruelty people can display from behind anonymity. But, I now suspect that those factors are simply engines of some other driving cause. But what is that cause?

    I think that Dr. Leiter points to a helpful clue when he compares the Hypatia affair to earlier politicized in-fighting among Marxists: "Those familiar with the history of 20th-century Marxist movements will recognize what's going on here, and it isn't a happy sight." I'm also reminded of the essay, "Everything is Problematic" from the McGill Daily. (I think it was Leiterreports that pointed me to that piece, but I now forget.) However, I would add that it is not merely the far left that has undergone these kind of political purges; cp. the recent history of the right in the USA.

    So, I am wondering what drives this balkanization? Is it certain sorts of ideas? Is it an issue of character? Is it something sociological, some sort of pressure we are subject to? (I'm thinking here of Thucydides' prescient comment about war torn Athens, "Words had to change their ordinary meaning … Reckless audacity came to be considered the courage of a loyal ally; prudent hesitation [became] specious cowardice…")

    Thoughts anyone?

    Reply
  4. Daniel Kaufman

    Anon:

    I think there are many causes, but one of them lies in the inherent fragility of the liberal consensus. Maintaining that consensus requires a constant vigilance: keeping at the front of one's mind the endemic fallibility of human beings and thus, of human valuations and conceptions of duty, and being unwilling, therefore, to invest too much authority in the state and its institutions. The trouble is that people in the grip of a theory or even worse, on a moral crusade, are so convinced of their valuations and their rightness that they no longer feel the need to be cautious; to keep their own fallibility at the front of their minds.

    Nothing else can explain the phenomenon of such spectacularly and perennially regrettable philosophers as Sally Haslanger, Johnathan Jenkins Ichikawa, and others of their ilk. The problem is not that they are stupid — they demonstrably are not — or even that they are truly bad people — I see no real evidence of that either — but rather, that they have thrown liberal caution to the wind, in part because they are far too enamored with and insufficiently skeptical of their own normative commitments.

    Reply
  5. Derek Bowman

    Danielle Kaufman: Are we meant to take your contributions to these discussions as a model of epistemic modesty regarding one's normative commitments? Because your frequent tone of sanctimony and moral certainty aren't very effective modes for conveying a healthy self-skepticism.

    Reply
  6. Non-tenured, junior, obnoxious, and inappropriate faculty member

    Let's hope that "obnoxious" or "inappropriate" conduct at faculty meetings does not become a fireable offense, especially since the standards for what is "obnoxious" or "inappropriate" are often in the hands of people who, as Prof. Leiter notes, misunderstand "the core principles of academic freedom on which the scholarly vocation depends".

    Reply
  7. Daniel Kaufman

    Derek:

    I really could care less how you take them. As for moral certainty, I never indicated anything of the sort. I say what I think and that's it. The rest, I'm afraid, lies in your obviously active imagination.

    As for your tone-policing, at least I don't do what it seems the social justice crowd in philosophy wants to do, which is intimidate, silence, excommunicate, and destroy others professionally. I might gently suggest that this sort of activity is a better object of your concern than my "tone" in a comments thread on a blog.

    Finally, it's rather cute to be sanctimonious while accusing other people of sanctimony, but as there seems to be a surfeit of this sort of cuteness in our discipline today, it doesn't have quite the charm that it might otherwise have had. Nonetheless, I appreciate the effort.

    Reply
  8. Adam Shriver

    According to the emails, the Dean initiated disciplinary action because she claimed Griffiths refused to meet with her. Griffiths claims that he tried to negotiate the conditions for a meeting and that they failed to come to an agreement. But, depending on the details, it seems like the Dean could have a legitimate complaint here…for instance if Griffiths made completely unreasonable demands for the meeting. She might also have good reasons for wanting someone else to be in the room during their meeting.

    It seems like without further details it is premature to call for the resignation of the Dean. I would also be very cautious about jumping on a story being pushed out the the right wing blogosphere…they have a long history of distorting the facts around these types of cases.

    BL COMMENT: I certainly agree with your last point! But the original story was in CHE, but perhaps it all derives from the odd Rod Dreher character.

    Reply
  9. Anonymous

    The scholar in question, Paul Griffiths, is someone whose status both within religious studies and theology is very high. In terms of importance and recognition in these disciplines, he's roughly analogous to someone like Scanlon or McDowell more than, e.g., Ludlow. (Within philosophy, he has contributed to philosophy of religion particularly as related to religious diversity and to Buddhist philosophy, in which he is expert.)

    Without commenting on any of the particulars of this case, I would say that the whole thing and the dean's response especially offers a very accurate window into the current atmosphere of university divinity schools and seminaries more broadly (with University of Chicago being a major exception on the divinity school side). Don't let either the the acerbic tone of Griffiths's comments or the attempt by conservatives like Dreher to make this serve their own narrative distract from what's going on here.

    Specifically, if you imagined that those who condemned Tuvel were in the majority, lacked any vocal opposition, and ran some of the most the highly regarded philosophy departments, serving as gatekeepers in all sorts of vital ways, then you would have an accurate picture of the current dynamics in most of these places. What is particularly noteworthy is that Duke Divinity School has previously been seen as somewhere where this was not the case – that is, somewhere that did welcome and realize a high degree of academic freedom as reflected in diversity of viewpoints, etc.

    Departments of religious studies tend to be less like this but even they veer far, far more in this direction than the average philosophy department.

    If those in philosophy want to get a sense of what it looks like when the attackers of Tuvel rule the roost, they should do some digging into what things look like in these places. There are stories that need to be told.

    Reply
  10. Anonymous PHD

    Then please start telling the stories that need to be told. I'm a recent PhD, and I have been shocked at discovering over the last couple years that illiberal social norms apparently govern substantial swathes of academia. They are evidently causing harm to the professional well-being of those who question those norms. It is not right that this continue, and that people only surreptitiously discuss objections to it.

    Reply
  11. Stephen

    No one is arguing that it is or should be a fireable offense, only that it might call for a meeting and some disciplinary measures if it borders on harm to one's colleagues. Surely you would agree that there are some basic standards of professional conduct (to be distinguished from opinions, of course) that a dean should be able to maintain for the sake of an obnoxious faculty member's colleagues? I have no idea what the particulars of this case are, obviously, but in principle it could fit that scenario.

    BL COMMENT: Certainly a Dean can take steps to discipline a faculty member who threatens colleagues, or who screams and otherwise disrupts departmental business. But there's no evidence of any of that here.

    Reply
  12. anonymous

    Stephen: Don't you find it a bit suspicious that the meeting and disciplinary action are supposedly about years worth of misconduct, but were in fact only called and enforced the moment he expressed a view that diverges from administrative orthodoxy?

    Reply
  13. Eric Rasmusen

    The obvious implication is that by "inappropriate conduct in faculty meetings over the last two years" the dean means that the professor dared to disagree with her in front of other people. Why should we think it is anything more than that, based on her firing of him for emailing disagreement to his colleagues?

    —–
    KEYWORDS:
    Primary Blog

    Reply

Designed with WordPress