tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/academic-tweets-17406/articlesAcademic tweets – The Conversation2015-12-03T18:52:25Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/515802015-12-03T18:52:25Z2015-12-03T18:52:25ZShift away from ‘publish or perish’ puts the public back into publication<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/103839/original/image-20151201-26546-1ygiihy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Too many academic careers are shaped around writing journal articles nobody reads and planning twice-weekly lectures to a diminishing class of students.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/sixthlie/4463280095/in/photolist-7NptF6-6exZWd-853ie9-6j1nCw-5uHok4-5uHo6M-5uHq7R-5uHq2a-oKtd57-532VZB-gCYnE-5uHpVi-5uHoVa-5uMNfw-5uHpxZ-5uHpHP-5uMKwQ-5uMMxd-5uMMMW-5uHopR-5uMKVd-5uHoQv-5uMLYd-5uMLmf-5uMM9y-5uHqoZ-5uMMC7-5uMLAL-iLW5F-5uHoMn-3KjAhq-4QX6U6-bmxRwg-cY9gH-igeuAm-3cqpFK-5BjEq5-EZenw-6eHX3K-6eHNe2-6eHZmn-6eJ3nR-9MuMhR-6eEoE7-6eAdfD-6eHXUr-64ysXy-nnHih-7GivPP-zLRm1">flickr/Sixth Lie</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Earlier this year, I visited the library at the Australian National University with my son so he could borrow some books for an essay on Chinese history. Wandering past shelf after shelf, he asked me, “How does it feel to be writing another book that no-one will read?”</p>
<p>It was just another teenage jibe, but in policy terms it was a prescient analysis.</p>
<p>In recent weeks there have been <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/academic-publications-to-become-less-important-when-funding-university-research-20151112-gkxkgl.html">reports</a> that the government is considering making publication output much less important in the formulae that allocate research funding to universities. </p>
<p>Prime Minister Turnbull has signalled a desire to move away from a “publish or perish” culture to a new set of academic incentives that prioritises engagement and impact.</p>
<p>With more than A$1 billion per year in research grants on the table, even a marginal change in allocation methods could see big changes in the dollars flowing to some fields of study. </p>
<p>There is real concern among some academics that the changes will be unfair: scientists will be able to demonstrate impact in the form of patents, commercial spin-offs and industry engagement much more readily than their colleagues in the social sciences or humanities. </p>
<p>When the new Chief Scientist, Alan Finkel, <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/academic-publications-to-become-less-important-when-funding-university-research-20151112-gkxkgl.html">talks about</a> the importance of demonstrating “a measurable return on investment,” historians, anthropologists, philosophers and linguists are understandably anxious.</p>
<p>But is a defensive reaction necessary?</p>
<h2>Change on the way</h2>
<p>Those of us who work in the social sciences and humanities place a great value on the persuasiveness of our words. We can write; not perfectly, but better than most. New and genuinely public forms of publication, rather than the semi-private domain of journals and monographs, provide us with powerful platforms for our academic passions. </p>
<p>We don’t need to be afraid of funding formulae that focus on the quality of societal engagement rather than the quantity of journal articles or monographs.</p>
<p>But it will take a change of attitude and of academic practice. </p>
<p>If we continue to shape our careers around the twice-weekly lecture (to a diminishing class of students) and two journal articles per year (in good quality journals, so our peers can praise them without reading them) our future will be much narrower than it could be.</p>
<p>Academic websites would be a good place for reform to start. Most departmental webpages are online ghost towns, attracting negligible traffic despite the effort and angst put into producing and, intermittently, maintaining them. They do very little to generate broader societal impact via outreach or engagement. </p>
<p>Rather, they exist primarily to reassure academic units of their own existence. They are like sacred totemic objects that symbolise the unity of the academic clan – they are brought out from seclusion in times of social crisis (such as a managerial attempt to rationalise unread online content), briefly venerated, and then forgotten. And one of the ironies of university life is that the managers of websites regularly complain that they struggle to receive content.</p>
<p>Effective engagement and outreach will require a much more nimble academic posture. We need to diversify the way we write. It’s time to stop looking down our nose at public commentary as a second rate form of academic communication. We can rediscover the power of images and sounds. </p>
<p>An ability to operate effectively in the online world should gradually become a baseline academic selection criteria; just as important as the ability to give a lecture or write a chapter. </p>
<h2>Rising to the challenge</h2>
<p>In no way should this diminish the importance of basic, speculative and even eccentric research. I am an anthropologist and, as my son kindly pointed out, I know what it’s like to write books and articles that don’t exactly fly off the shelves. But I have spent the past decade combining formal promotion-friendly publication with blogging, opinion pieces and media interviews. </p>
<p>The ideas, inspiration and energy flow two ways: from formal research to public outreach and back again. Some of my research has been rather esoteric (<a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1835-9310.2006.tb00057.x/abstract">spirit beliefs in northern Thailand</a>, anyone?) but I have always enjoyed using insights from that work in public discussions about power, politics and democracy.</p>
<p>Have I been able to demonstrate, or even measure, the impact of my public outreach? To some extent, but certainly not perfectly. Working on this will be challenging and, at times, frustrating.</p>
<p>But engaging in the debate will be more productive than retreating behind a “nobody understands our worth” barricade. There are many qualitative and quantitative tools that we can use to demonstrate our engagement and impact. It will seem like sacrilege to many, but perhaps re-tweets could become an academic metric that sits alongside citation rates? </p>
<p>The challenge laid down by the government is not to abandon pure research or scholarly writing, but to put the public back into publication. </p>
<p>It’s a challenge we should embrace.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/51580/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Walker co-founded the website New Mandala.</span></em></p>Prime Minister Turnbull has signalled a desire to move away from a ‘publish or perish’ academic culture toward one that prioritises public impact and engagement. It’s a challenge scholars should embrace.Andrew Walker, Professor of Southeast Asian Studies, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/446972015-07-24T04:33:32Z2015-07-24T04:33:32ZWhat the Tim Hunt brouhaha shows about how junior and senior academic voices are heard<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/89394/original/image-20150722-1418-pgwsz7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Pronouncements even from Nobel laureates should not be accepted as if from on high.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/stasiland/674310677">Sara Stasi</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Sexist comments recently made by Nobel laureate Sir Tim Hunt have been the subject of a <a href="https://theconversation.com/distractinglysexy-sir-tim-hunts-gift-to-feminism-in-science-43247">heated and lengthy debate</a>, including whether the quotes have been <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11726907/Sir-Tim-Hunt-will-not-be-reinstated-as-UCL-professor-after-trouble-with-girls-speech.html">taken out of context</a>. Of course, it’s the content of what he said that’s fueled much of the controversy. All the hoopla is representative of concerns that scientists have generally about the structure of science.</p>
<p>But questions have also arisen about how the debate has played out, with senior scientists expressing their views in mainstream media and junior scientists taking to social media. The two camps have essentially talked past each other. </p>
<p>As a researcher in the early stages of my career, I have seen this unconstructive dynamic play out repeatedly in discussions over how we should carry out and communicate our science now and in the future. When <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1509901112">discussions are inclusive</a>, all parties feel able to reach constructive conclusions. When we aren’t communicating directly, we have little chance of addressing important issues that need to be resolved. </p>
<h2>Science has a respect problem</h2>
<p>The outrage against Tim Hunt’s words has not arisen just because of one isolated incident. Rather, it’s part of wider frustration with the culture of science and the explicit bias that <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/18/opinion/what-its-like-as-a-girl-in-the-lab.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0">female</a> and <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/12/AR2006071201883.html">transgender</a> scientists face.</p>
<p>Over the course of the last year, references to younger scientists as “riff-raff” by the <a href="http://www.asbmb.org/asbmbtoday/201409/PresidentsMessage/">president of a scientific society</a>; peer review requests to <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/01/sexist-peer-review_n_7190656.html">add male authors</a>; advice to younger female scientists to take inappropriate behavior from male superiors <a href="http://retractionwatch.com/2015/06/01/science-pulls-advice-post-suggests-student-put-up-with-advisor-looking-down-her-shirt/">“with good humor”</a>; and further perspectives on working <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6244/206">long hours while leaving parenting to wives</a> have reinforced a culture in science in which <a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/carolineodonovan/the-21st-century-has-really-not-been-great-for-women-and-min">young female scientists still face much adversity</a>. The academic journal <a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/catferguson/science-journal-reinforces-dangerous-stereotypes">Science has also come under fire</a> for <a href="http://retractionwatch.com/2015/07/16/hundreds-sign-letter-criticizing-science-for-reinforcing-harmful-stereotypes/">reinforcing harmful sexist stereotypes</a>.</p>
<p>The firestorm around Hunt’s comments is therefore not simply a reaction to what was said, but to a perception that his comments reflect the general attitudes of established researchers toward women in science. Implicit bias against women in science is <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/495033a">an acknowledged problem</a>, and any apparent reinforcement of explicit bias adds to frustration within the community.</p>
<h2>Power imbalance and unproductive conversation</h2>
<p>There has been very little actual constructive discussion among the academic community about the issues that have been raised.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"609146851368022016"}"></div></p>
<p>The original backlash arose via social media, predominantly from younger scientists and junior faculty throughout the scientific community. The mainstream media prominently picked up subsequent calls by <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/11688134/Nobel-prizewinners-defend-Sir-Tim-Hunt-amid-sexism-row.html">eight other male Nobel laureates</a> to protect Tim Hunt’s academic freedom. These stories tended to be particularly dismissive of the social media discussion, for instance, using the term <a href="http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/science/article4475398.ece">“lynch mob”</a>.</p>
<p>Jon Ronson’s recent book, <a href="http://www.penguin.com/book/so-youve-been-publicly-shamed-by-jon-ronson/9781594487132">So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed</a>, discusses the role of social media in such cases of public shaming. It makes the argument that in these instances, the outrage stems from an imbalance of power.</p>
<p>The power of junior scientists to have a voice in discussions about the structure of science is limited compared to that of senior influential academics. Senior scientists have greater representation in discussions about concerns regarding the structure and efficiency of science. This disparity has increasingly driven the junior scientific community to <a href="http://f1000research.com/articles/3-291/v2">raise its voice to be heard</a> via institutional associations such as graduate student societies and postdoctoral associations, and national groups such as the <a href="http://www.nationalpostdoc.org/">National Postdoctoral Association</a> and <a href="http://futureofresearch.org/regional-meetings/">Future of Research meetings</a>.</p>
<p>It is unproductive for the discussion to be played out publicly in isolated venues. And when language such as “lynch mob” or <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/19/tim-hunt-the-victim-of-self-righteous-feeding-frenzy-says-richard-dawkins">“a feeding frenzy of mob-rule self-righteousness”</a> is used, it publicly dismisses real concerns by reinforcing the imbalances in the debate’s power dynamic. </p>
<p>The lack of a venue for an open and free debate on the issues has resulted in a long and protracted discussion across many avenues, with a dearth of actual discussion and instead the expression of opinion. What has suffered is the public’s perception of science and how it relates to women.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/89396/original/image-20150722-1418-1bw3lm2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/89396/original/image-20150722-1418-1bw3lm2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/89396/original/image-20150722-1418-1bw3lm2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/89396/original/image-20150722-1418-1bw3lm2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/89396/original/image-20150722-1418-1bw3lm2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/89396/original/image-20150722-1418-1bw3lm2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/89396/original/image-20150722-1418-1bw3lm2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/89396/original/image-20150722-1418-1bw3lm2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Nobel laureate Tim Hunt got into hot water for his public comments precisely because his position imbued them with authority.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/palomabaytelman/2209864530">Paloma Baytelman</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>For good or ill, esteemed scientists speak with authority</h2>
<p>Irrespective of the debate over what Tim Hunt said and meant or didn’t mean, his words have been taken quite literally as scientific observation because of the status that he is granted as a Nobel laureate. Boris Johnson, UK member of Parliament and mayor of London, wrote that <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/jun/15/scientist-tim-hunt-should-be-reinstated-after-girls-row-says-boris-johnson">Tim Hunt was merely making an observation as a scientist</a>. However, these observations, extended to science as a whole, were from a subjective opinion and were not scientific. It is for this reason that the pulpit senior academics and Nobel laureates can be given must be used with great care.</p>
<p>So where do we go from here?</p>
<p>One hope, of course, is that this discussion leads to <a href="http://occamstypewriter.org/athenedonald/2015/06/15/what-next-after-tim-hunt-just1action4wis/">practical ways</a> to <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/practical-policies-can-combat-gender-inequality-1.17856">advocate for women in science</a>.</p>
<p>But we should also use this moment to take stock of the dangers of scientists at different career stages not communicating with each other, instead railing against each other without engaging.</p>
<p>In discussing the freedom that Tim Hunt should have to speak, the ability of younger faculty to speak freely also needs attention. Early career researchers are currently watching to see just <a href="http://www.wbur.org/2015/04/06/harvard-tenure-lawsuit-sexual-assault">how political</a> scientists can be before reaching tenured positions; there’s a lot of nervousness about speaking your mind but paying the price by not advancing in your field.</p>
<p>Today’s media landscape feels like it is designed to have people yelling past each other. We need to encourage academics to talk to each other across all levels. Hopefully science as a whole can advance toward this goal via steps such as the <a href="http://rescuingbiomedicalresearch.org/">Rescuing Biomedical Research</a> initiative, which aims to bring all voices to the table for a productive conversation about the future of science.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/44697/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gary McDowell is affiliated with the Future of Research organization (futureofresearch.org).</span></em></p>Shouting past each other via different kinds of media isn’t going to help researchers – from éminences grises to new postdocs – effectively work together on issues in the field of science.Gary McDowell, Postdoctoral Fellow in Regenerative and Developmental Biology, Tufts UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/422382015-05-29T10:09:56Z2015-05-29T10:09:56ZIs academic freedom a license to provoke without consequences?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83253/original/image-20150528-31293-ey07xd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">What are the limits to academic freedom?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/dumbledad/4988915427/in/photolist-8ARuKe-4PNJ2q-dM4vpz-bvYXmF-8p3KW1-doyTKd-owKvY9-owFvSc-7gRGSM-5S4Yk2-3d1nE8-7wdBHT-aazmSm-huDux5-9aeV4R-dM4uSV-9aijRw-dMa4Fs-dMa54o-dM4uYp-dM4vmD-dM4vd8-dM4v6X-dMa4yG-9aeV4M-dMa4NC-5awyEc-9aeV4P-9aeV4H-8NSYs-d85KMU-9aeV4B-9aeV4z-4cjRiG-dLB8qW-6pZszw-oeSFH9-2dnSh-2dnSg-owXAaH-ofsEcj-oft27J-d85M4o-ghZH8r-4uo2Hn-izfkd3-fUPKBB-bWaHrd-jeyx6B-bTatJc">Tim Regan</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Does academic freedom entitle university professors to be as provocative as they wish when expressing their views on issues of the day?</p>
<p>This question has come alive with three recent cases involving professors making politically charged – some would say incendiary – statements on controversial issues.</p>
<h2>Are professors just people with jobs?</h2>
<p>The first case involves Steven Salaita, whose offer of a tenured appointment at the University of Illinois <a href="https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/09/12/u-illinois-board-votes-no-salaita-appointment">was rescinded</a> because of charged comments he made on Twitter last year about Israel and its actions in Gaza.</p>
<p>Second is the case of Saida Grundy, a new professor of sociology and African-American studies at Boston University, who has been <a href="https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/05/12/boston-u-distances-itself-new-professors-comments-about-white-male-students">called out</a> for contentious tweets about race. </p>
<p>Third is the matter of Jerry Hough, a chaired political science professor at Duke who <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/05/17/duke_university_professor_on_leave_after_racist_online_comments_spark_outrage.html">penned</a> what many saw as a racist diatribe in the comments section of a New York Times <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/10/opinion/sunday/how-racism-doomed-baltimore.html">editorial</a> about happenings in Baltimore.</p>
<p>The details of these situations differ, but there are common threads. </p>
<p>Each features a professor in hot water for speech delivered outside the confines of academic employment. Each involves expression that, while being objectionable to some, is constitutionally protected speech. Each has aroused the ire of stakeholders, such as students, colleagues, alumni and other interest groups.</p>
<p>And as a result, each has forced university leaders to wrestle with a three-way collision involving academic freedom, free expression and institutional reputation.</p>
<p>These professors – like all of us in tenure-track academic appointments – are employees with jobs at universities that pay their salaries. </p>
<p>So, one way to view these cases is through the lens of employment. </p>
<h2>Free speech is a complex issue</h2>
<p>Within the larger landscape of worker rights in a free society, the tension between our right to speak as citizens and obligation to our employers as job holders is contested terrain – an issue I explore at length in <a href="http://www.bkconnection.com/books/title/speechless?">my book</a> on the legal, ethical and managerial dimensions of free speech in and around the American workplace.</p>
<p>The legal aspects of this subject are complex: </p>
<p>The <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444367072.wbiee504/abstract">employment-at-will system</a> of labor law in the US, which in the absence of a contract lets employers and workers terminate the arrangement at any time for any reason, means that private sector workers have virtually no free speech protections against employer wrath. </p>
<p>If your boss doesn’t like your off-work speech, even if it has nothing to do with your job or your employer’s business, you can be fired for it. For instance, consider the Alabama woman who <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20040915002031/http:/www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/040912/sticker.shtml">lost her job</a> in 2004 for having a John Kerry bumper sticker on her car in the factory parking lot.</p>
<p>Workers in public sector jobs have greater protections. In situations involving government rather than a private entity as the employer, Supreme Court <a href="http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/illlr99&div=38&id=&page=">rulings</a> over several decades have upheld workers’ rights to speak on matters of public concern without risking their jobs.</p>
<p>A handful of states give workers in the private sector some of the free speech protection that government workers have through what are known as “<a href="http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/berkjemp24&div=22&id=&page=">lifestyle discrimination</a>” statutes. These are laws that bar employers from punishing workers for off-work activity, including speech, that is legal and poses no significant threat to an employer’s business.</p>
<p>But these protections for government workers (and private sector workers in a few states) are enforced only up to a point.</p>
<p>When someone fired for his or her speech files a lawsuit, the court <a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/27673175">weighs</a> the worker’s right to speak against the employer’s right to a functional and efficient workplace. <a href="http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/geolr35&div=34&id=&page=">Analyses</a> of case law indicate that courts are inclined to tilt the balance in favor of employers. </p>
<h2>Returning to our three ‘provocateurs’</h2>
<p>The public-private distinction is relevant to our three recent cases of “professorial provocation.” This is because one of the three – Salaita at Illinois – involves a public university. </p>
<p>After having his job offer rescinded, Salaita filed a <a href="http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2015-01-29/updated-salaita-files-federal-lawsuit-against-ui.html">federal lawsuit</a> claiming that his rights to free speech and due process had been violated; a judge’s ruling on whether Salaita’s lawsuit can go forward is <a href="http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2015-05-21/salaita-hearing-canceled-judge-will-issue-opinion-mail.html">expected any day</a>. </p>
<p>That kind of constitutionally based lawsuit isn’t available to Grundy at Boston University or to Hough at Duke since their appointments are at private institutions.</p>
<p>Although Grundy and Hough cannot claim a constitutional infringement on their rights, they can appeal to the principle of <a href="https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2010/12/21/nelson_on_academic_freedom">academic freedom</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83251/original/image-20150528-31293-ktbp6y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83251/original/image-20150528-31293-ktbp6y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83251/original/image-20150528-31293-ktbp6y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83251/original/image-20150528-31293-ktbp6y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83251/original/image-20150528-31293-ktbp6y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83251/original/image-20150528-31293-ktbp6y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83251/original/image-20150528-31293-ktbp6y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">While universities are places for ideas and free speech, they do have cautionary caveats.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/60588258@N00/465835694/in/photolist-HawHU-C3dvJ-7djSJy-C3dv2-puVmUo-bwdr1d-6cpQ5s-bK86QV-bwdmzJ-7FpLkh-buaGd5-7N6xxM-Hkfzs-Hkjy6-HaAXr-buaGVJ-bK6JE6-bwdj3y-bwdjhA-6ckV4X-6ckV4P-HafcC-HamqT-Hakm1-HaT59-bwdnib-bK85dp-bwdnBL-bwdkTq-bwdnYS-bwdmVu-bwdf6Q-bK7ZpF-bwdonb-bwdet7-bwdfqA-bK7YFr-bwddi7-bwddKJ-bJyrAa-bwdd1u-bwdqyo-7X4eaC-bwc3AE-HayLi-Haz2T-HaBdi-bvDEmb-bvDDK7-pcNYp1">Brian Turner</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This is what distinguishes the occupation of professor from other kinds of employment: universities pledge (in the form of an <a href="http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/month124&div=6&id=&page=">implied contract</a>) to respect professors’ free speech rights beyond what typical private sector job holders can expect, when they make academic freedom a foundational principle. </p>
<h2>How free is freedom?</h2>
<p>Universities are happy to ordain and celebrate the lofty ideals of academic freedom, but they are also quick to couple them with cautionary caveats.</p>
<p>At Duke (where Hough is), the <a href="http://provost.duke.edu/wp-content/uploads/FHB_App_C.pdf">faculty handbook</a> cedes to professors the right “to speak in his or her capacity as a citizen without institutional censorship or discipline.” Duke warns, however, that the right to “espouse an unpopular cause” carries with it “a responsibility not to involve the university.”</p>
<p>Making a similar pledge, the <a href="http://www.bu.edu/handbook/ethics/academic-freedom/">handbook</a> at Boston University (where Grundy is) adds that a professor’s right to speak as a citizen carries “special obligations” to be accurate, exercise restraint and respect others’ opinions.</p>
<p>With reasonable-sounding but rather vague conditions like these, universities (both public and private) have reserved the ability to impose boundaries on “outrageous expression” that the professor might assume is protected by academic freedom. </p>
<h2>Balancing freedom and outrage</h2>
<p>Having crafted faculty employment policies as manifestos of mutual obligation, universities coping with professors who speak scandalously find themselves in the role of an arbiter of the boundary between freedom and responsibility.<br>
And so it was that in blocking Salaita’s appointment, the University of Illinois Board of Trustees <a href="https://illinois.edu/emailer/newsletter/66664.html">decided</a> that he lacks the requisite “professional fitness to serve on the faculty.” </p>
<p>The trustees probably figure they can fend off Salaita’s lawsuit – a not unreasonable expectation, to judge by a new <a href="http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr_online/vol90/iss3/4/#.VU0unS3ToVI.facebook">legal analysis</a> showing that courts tend to side with university claims that a professor’s speech disrupts its academic mission.</p>
<p>Weighing the balance differently, Duke <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/05/17/duke_university_professor_on_leave_after_racist_online_comments_spark_outrage.html">asserted</a> that Hough’s comments are “noxious, offensive and have no place in civil discourse” but saw the remedy as encouraging others in the community to speak out when the university’s “ideals are challenged or undermined.”</p>
<p>Boston University acted similarly, <a href="https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/05/1%202/boston-u-distances-itself-new-professors-comments-about-white-male-students">respecting</a> the professor’s “right to hold and express personal opinions” while adding “we’re offended by such statements.”</p>
<p>The question of when a professor’s provocation becomes actionable cause for termination is a hornet’s nest of subjectivity around the meaning of words like “offensive” or “bigoted” or “harmful” or “restraint.” A university that chooses to act against the professor – as Illinois did against Salaita – puts itself in the uncomfortable position of having to explain what these terms mean and where lines are drawn.</p>
<p>Instead of appeasing offended stakeholders by drawing lines in shifting sand, a more enlightened approach prioritizes a free exchange of ideas over the “dubious judgment” of a free-speaking professor.</p>
<p>That’s the path Duke and Boston University are following: condemn the objectionable remarks while preserving the professor’s freedom to make them, leaving a verdict to the court of public opinion.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/42238/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bruce Barry serves on the board of directors of the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee.</span></em></p>Recent cases of tweets by a Boston University professor about racism and others have raised questions about what might be the limits to academic freedom.Bruce Barry, Professor of Management and Sociology, Vanderbilt UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.