Insights on Academic Freedom
Summary
Stanley Fish makes a decisive case for academic freedom in his essay entitled Conspiracy Theories 101. The essay is centered on a debate that arose after concerns were raised about Kevin Barrett’s teachings. Barrett is a University of Wisconsin lecturer located at Madison who confessed to intentionally using his own opinions in his teachings in a bid to influence his student’s views on Islam (Fish 13). While critics argue that lies should not be justified by the use of the term academic freedom, supporters say that all viewpoints should be embraced. Fish supports neither side by stating that academic freedom should not be based on content. Rather, it should be the choice to interrogate any available material in order to make a personal conclusion. Effectively, he is advocating for professors to teach whichever topic they want without necessarily striving for its partisan adoption by students. Similarly, he recommends that any subject matter be carefully analyzed in a free and fair environment.
Analysis
Definition
According to Fish, academic freedom should be defined as the chance to make an independent assessment of any subject. Thus, this signifies that no external interference should be included in the thought process. Consequently, if a person has a certain political affiliation, he/she should not apply that in his/her teachings as that would be prejudicial to students with opposing viewpoints. As a result, Fish recommends that lecturers should shelve their personal opinions or ambitions and instead teach any material with the aim of allowing students the liberty to make their own informed opinions.
Explanation
When Fish says, “The distinction I am making—between studying astrology and proselytizing for it—is crucial and can be generalized” (Fish 13) he means that he has no problem with learning about the history of astrology and its influence in the society thus far. Equally, his statement asserts that he finds it unethical for a teacher to teach astrology with a particular hidden agenda in mind. The lecturer cannot, for example, use his/her Christian background to predict the exact date of a future event say the apocalypse and proceed to coerce students to accept that opinion. However, Fish believes that such a teacher ought to introduce any topic in astrology and leave the students to figure out different aspects of it after which they can make their own judgments based on their own beliefs and values.
Likewise, Fish reiterates that Kevin Barrett should undergo further vetting in order to determine the true intentions of his teachings (Fish 13). In fact, he proposes that specific questions should be asked to ascertain Barrett’s objectives. Whereas Barrett propagated that the 9/11 terrorist attack was an inside job committed by the American government, he acknowledged that indeed he taught the same to his students. Hence, the students were bound to accept his idea as the truth. Nevertheless, Fish would have preferred that Barrett raise the topic of The World Trade Center bombing and let the discussion take its natural course by allowing students to give their views. Only then, would that be considered academic freedom.
In addition, it would be a bad precedence for example, if a white history teacher with hatred to the black community teaches that whites are superior to blacks. Furthermore, it would be catastrophic if the same teacher’s goal were to incite white students to violence against their black colleagues under the false pretense of showing domination. The teacher’s right to freedom of speech does not warrant him/her to compel students to pay allegiance to his/her private ideas since that could result in unimaginable chaos (Fish 13). Therefore, the teacher should practice academic freedom by teaching the history of racism within the context of the curriculum.
Personal Opinion
I fully agree with Fish’s assertion of academic freedom because institutions of learning should not be exempted from the high professional codes of conduct administered on other occupations. Every career choice comes with a distinct demand for absolute integrity and intellect. However, it is universally accepted that since the nature of various jobs require the use of the brain, there is always a temptation for an individual to make choices based on their personal beliefs. Yet it has been frequently proven that people are able to put aside their own opinions and make decisions purely based on logic.
Normally for instance, judges do make verdicts about cases by weighing the merits and demerits of a case. Suppose a staunch Christian judge in California, which has permitted gay unions, is faced with a case about the legality of a same-sex marriage. Despite his/her inclination to the Bible teaching on marriage as a union between a man and a woman, that judge has to offer a verdict that is anchored in law. Judges face this same scenario before they make rulings. Often, they are led by the guidance provided for in the constitution. Thus, they rarely render judgments claiming to stem from their personal notions. Likewise, academics need to distance their thoughts from the subjects in their teachings for them to offer an effective and objective-oriented learning environment. By so doing, they free the students to interrogate the topics under discussion in a productive manner that helps them make independent conclusions of different events in the society.
Conclusion
It is therefore the responsibility of each academician to exercise restraint in his/her teachings. Personal opinions should not be left to override the course material because that will be a disservice to the intellectual well being of the students. Consequently, professors need to offer a balanced worldview of events that unfold and allow students to make their own analysis using the available evidence. Even if they offer opposing opinions, such debates create a healthy learning environment and contribute towards achieving academic freedom in educational institutions nationwide.
Work Cited
Fish, Stanley. “Conspiracy Theories 101.” The New York Times 23 July 2006. Print
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.
[order_calculator]