Academic Freedom: The "Danger" of Critical Thinking

Abstract

Something is wrong when campaigns are launched against academics and their right to freedom of thought and expression. Something is at stake when a hew and cry is raised about educators’ political persuasions. When we hear of this kind of academic harassment in places like Syria, Iraq, or North Korea we Americans shake our heads self-righteously. Look at that tyrannical regime, pity the fools who stay and endure it. We know we have our freedoms when we see those who do not. We laugh to scorn the notion that a state of war can be invoked to justify abduction of civil liberties. Then, in 2003, we Americans found ourselves at war (the War against Terror or the War for Democracy in Iraq, take your pick) and among the first casualties was academic freedom. For the duration, a state-defined notion of patriotism prevails. It entails subjection to the will of the leader that is often cloaked in “support of the troops” language, defense of Israel right or wrong and speaking and acting in specific ways. If we resist these conditions of patriotic behavior, we are labeled “unpatriotic” and become fair game for the zealots. One such zealot is David Horowitz, an ex-liberal turned-neocon think tanker. In 2003, he founded Students for Academic Freedom (SAF), that now has 150 chapters in the United States. The SAF website is a mine of information about those stigmatized as bad professors. It projects Horowitz's tireless campaigning to muzzle “liberal” ideas, to adopt quotas for conservative academics1 and to lobby for his Academic Bill of Rights (ABOR). This bill empowers students to condemn speech that offends them, allows them to opt out of any part of a course they consider “personally offensive” and authorizes their monitoring and reporting of such offense. Using progressive language from …