Academic Arrogance

The recent flap over the appointment of a new provost at Kennesaw State University has brought numerous members of the KSU community to the barricades. They fear that the investigative reporting of the Marietta Daily Journal that ultimately resulted in Dr. Timothy Chandler removing his name from consideration was an attack on academic freedom.

The argument presented is that a university must make its own personnel decisions; that when external forces determine these, the very freedom of thought that enables universities to be beacons of independent knowledge is endangered. It is therefore necessary for academics to speak up and to educate the public about what is involved.

Let me begin by acknowledging that academic freedom is of vital importance. We have seen what happens in places like the Soviet Union where the government dictated what professors could teach. There, genetics and honest political science were ruled out of bounds. Meanwhile, here in the United States some religious groups have sought to dictate how evolution should be taught.

This said, politics and the whims of public opinion are not the best sources academic decision making. They can be biased, ignorant, and heavy-handed. In other words, they not the most fertile ground for clear-headed, objective or responsible curricula choices.

Nor, however, are the whims of academic opinion much better. These too can be grounded in ideological enthusiasms and crowd mentalities. An example of this phenomenon is occurring right now on the campus of Kennesaw State. As this is written, a band of academic activists is seeking to foist an unnecessary and illegitimate program on the university.

What is currently being proposed, and indeed fast-tracked toward implementation, is a grab-bag department of political correctness. Variously designated the Department of Cultural and Regional Studies or the Department of Social and Cultural Studies, it is the brainchild of left-wing activists who are seeking a home base in which to ground their hopes for indoctrinating students in their pet projects.

Included in this capacious tent are women’s studies, peace studies, environmental studies, and a number or ethnic and racial programs. What these have in common is that there is little student demand for any of them. Most students realize that majoring in these is a ticket to unemployment.

But that is not a consideration for the activists. Despite the fact that few have degrees in the subjects they intend to teach, they are sure that their moral—as opposed to academic—credentials qualify them to decide what students should know. Readers will not be surprised that this is largely hodge-podge of neo-Marxist ideas.

As if this were not irresponsible enough, this coup is being perpetrated during a period of financial constraints. While the university as a whole is required to engage in belt-tightening because of the state’s current budgetary crisis, scare resources are being diverted to this ill-begotten endeavor.

And where are these monies coming from? Well, other established departments (such as mine of sociology) are being cannibalized. We are losing faculty lines at the same time that the demand for our courses continues to rise. The upshot is that the university will be offering classes students don’t want at the same time that it is denying them classes they do.

So where does this fit into the larger picture? First, universities do have a right to make decisions about their own curricula. But second, this needs to be done responsibly and honestly. Consequently, third, the public does have an interest is overseeing how this is achieved. Since it is the sons and daughters of Mary and John Q. Public that we are educating, ordinary people have a right to know what is going on and to express their opinions about it.

What is, therefore, necessary is to balance academic freedom with the over-all public interest. Neither should be absolute; but nor should either be arrogant.

Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University