The response to two controversial comments within the academic community have some UA professors scared for their jobs. History and political science professor David Gibbs used to share his viewpoints freely in class, but these days he's learning to keep his mouth shut. With the state of academia these days, it's hard to blame him.
The recent uproar over academic speech has two superstars: Harvard University President Lawrence Summers and University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill. Summers suggested at a January conference that between men and women, "in the special case of science and engineering, there are issues of intrinsic aptitude, and particularly of the variability of aptitude."
For anyone who doesn't speak Ivy League, he was toying with the idea that men might be naturally better at science and engineering than women. This hasn't gone over well with a lot of people, particularly women in the fields of science and engineering. In fact, many Harvard professors have banded together in an attempt to oust Summers from his perch atop the Mount Everest of American education.
Professor Churchill's popularity isn't doing much better. Shortly after Sept. 11, he wrote an essay calling the American victims of the terrorist attacks "little Eichmanns." His comment refers to Adolf Eichmann, a Nazi official who helped mastermind the Holocaust. Public outcry has already led Churchill to resign his position as department chair, but he remains a university professor. The governor of Colorado and many members of the legislature aren't satisfied, and have been continuously calling for the university to fire him.
The most interesting part of the whole situation is the intellectual gut-check it is providing for American academics. The question that has yet to be answered is whether this nation's professors can apply the same standard for academic free speech to both men.
First off, it is hard to defend the statements made by either Summers or Churchill. If the president of one of America's great universities is going to suggest that an old stereotype about women might actually be true, he ought to be a lot more sensitive and have a lot more facts to support his claim.
On the other hand, if a college professor believes that going to work in a tall building is tantamount to orchestrating genocide, he should just keep his mouth shut and hope no one realizes he's gone insane. For many, the first reaction to hearing both comments was to think that both should be fired for being stupid. However, this is America and, for whatever reason, we stick to the old idea that sometimes "free speech" gives you the right to not only be stupid, but to share your stupid thoughts with others.
With that in mind, is there any reason that either of these gentlemen should face harsher consequences than the other? While there aren't any scientific polls out on the subject, there appears to be a large portion of the academic community that is willing to fight to the death to protect Churchill's academic freedom while leaving Summers to be devoured by the intellectual lions. Without getting into the whole controversy, let's assume for the moment that there are at least a few more liberal professors than conservative professors. This free-speech double standard seems to follow that trend by protecting Churchill's liberal comments (albeit off-the-charts, crazy liberal) and attacking Summers' conservative remarks (although not really: Summers used to work for President Clinton, but his theory happened to align with views held by some conservatives).
Rights that we only protect for our friends are no rights at all. The true lover of free speech will stand right next to his sworn enemy to make sure no one censors his viewpoint. Early last year, it probably made some employees of the American Civil Liberties Union sick to defend Rush Limbaugh's right to due process of law. The ACLU is considered one of the most liberal lobbies in the country, and Limbaugh is considered one the most conservative talk-show hosts. But the ACLU stood up for Limbaugh just as quickly as it would have for Al Franken, because as Americans our rights should always be broader than our political beliefs.
In the end, most professors probably don't want to see massive rollbacks in academic freedom. If that's the case, they need to bite the bullet and defend Summers' job as much as Churchill's.
Matt Gray is a second-year law student. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.