I dissent again (in part)

Blog readers will know that yours truly has recently dissented from statements that appear (if you use a PC to read this blog) up in the right hand corner. Today's personal commentary deals with two statements. One objects to the the Regents' attempt to limit departmental political statements. Another wants charges to be dropped against demonstrators at the recent Regents meeting who disrupted the proceedings.* The language accompanying the latter is unhelpful and inflammatory. But if folks think protests at the Regents that become intemporate are helpful to their cause, my sense is that wide latitude should be given. In my view, however, such behavior tends to be performative and often turns off many more people than it attracts. It tends, in short, to be counter-productive to whatever cause is being fostered. But, if folks want to do it, wide latitude should be given.

Barnard recently banned departmental statements. The Barnard ban had nothing to do with defining "landing pages" of departmental websites, an issue that - among others - bogged down the Regents. It just says departments don't make political statements in any forum, whether websites or others.**

Here's the problem. Departments are groups of people carrying out some common function. They have views only in the sense that corporations sometimes claim to have views. But really it is individuals that have views. When departments - particularly at public universities - issue political statements, such views are potentially coercive to students, non-ladder faculty, junior ladder faculty, staff, and applicants for positions at such departments (staff or faculty) who may disagree. The Academic Senate came up with guidelines that attempted to deal with such issues - but those guidelines (presenting dissenting views, etc.) have been ignored. That ignoring of the guidelines is what invited the Regents into the debate. Normally, the Regents prefer to leave such matters to the Senate.

In the view of yours truly, individuals should be the beneficiary of the notion of academic freedom. Individuals can express views on political matters in various forums and formats. They can write op eds, they can tweet, they can talk at events, etc. As individuals, they can co-express such opinions. Departments, as departments, and particularly at public universities, should not. 

===

*https://cucfa.org/2024/02/drop-the-charges-against-january-regents-meeting-protestors/; https://cucfa.org/2024/02/objection-to-proposed-new-website-policy/.

**...Barnard has added a policy that was shared with faculty via email on Nov. 6 that requires departments to run by administrators any changes they want to post to their websites. In a statement emailed to Inside Higher Ed, a Barnard spokesperson explained that under the new approval process, “the provost reviews proposed departmental website edits for editorial integrity and academic relevance.”

The college also expanded its definition of political statements—which are barred from both barnard.edu websites and signs on campus—to include “all written communications that comment on specific actions, statements, or positions taken by public officials or governmental bodies at local, state, federal, and international levels; attempt to influence legislation; or otherwise advocate for an outcome related to actions by legislative, executive, judicial, or administrative bodies at local, state, federal, and international levels.” ...

Source: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty-issues/academic-freedom/2024/01/26/uc-system-barnard-debate-departmental-political. Note that Barnard is a private institution so its potential latitude for political speech is wider than that of public institutions.