Category Archives: Neutrality and Complicity
Does Heterodox Academy Practice Institutional Neutrality?
The doctrine of institutional neutrality asserts that an institution ought not to make public pronouncements on matters of public controversy. It’s promoted most vigorously nowadays by organizations like Heterodox Academy, and by the 150 or so universities that have signed on to Heterodox Academy’s campaign. This gives rise to an oddly neglected question: does institutional neutrality apply to Heterodox Academy itself? Is Heterodox Academy itself bound by the doctrine of institutional neutrality? It’s not clear how to answer this question, or whether it can coherently be answered at all. Continue reading
MAP Public-Facing Philosophy
A reprise of an earlier announcement: I’ll be presenting “Academia’s Complicit Executioners: A Critique of the Kalven Committee Report” at the MAP Public Facing Philosophy conference on Saturday, September 6th. The first link above goes to a video of my talk at the Heterodox Academy conference this past June in Brooklyn. I’m hoping to have a much-expanded hard copy version of that presentation written up soon, which I’ll post here and on the MAP page. Anyone can attend the MAP conference (it’s free), but you have to RSVP. Info below, and RSVP here.
The panel goes from 12-1 pm EDT, and the Works in Progress Presentations begin at 1. Updated correction: The presentations are ten minutes each, and will be given sequentially, followed by a joint 30 minute discussion until about 2. The keynote follows that.
The contrast with Heterodox Academy is sort of amusing. For my most recent attack on institutional neutrality, go here. Continue reading
Dreams of Death
I dreamt last night of my late wife, Alison. I didn’t see or hear her, and I was in a mostly unfamiliar place, but her presence was unmistakable. I knew that we were somewhere in Washington Heights near the George Washington Bridge, where we used to live. We were dating in the dream, not yet married, and it was late, so I’d decided to go back home. For some reason, I had to go across the street to a pay phone to call an Uber. It was midnight, but paradoxically enough both bright as noon and dark enough to obscure the way. I called the Uber guy, who was hard to hear, but he said he was coming, and there the dream ended. Continue reading
Institutional Neutrality as Willed Collective Stupidity
The doctrine of institutional neutrality asserts that universities ought not to make public statements on matters of public controversy, or in its newer iterations, matters of public controversy not “directly” related to “their core mission of teaching and research.” One exception, present from the start, is what I call the self-defense exception. In the words of the Kalven Committee Report:
From time to time instances will arise in which the society, or segments of it, threaten the very mission of the university and its values of free inquiry. In such a crisis, it becomes the obligation of the university as an institution to oppose such measures and actively to defend its interests and its values.
More crisply: if a threat arises to the “core mission” of the university, every threatened university is morally obligated to respond in a non-neutral fashion. Continue reading
The Final Solution Is Here
I am, as I write this, sitting in a quiet air-conditioned room in a comfortable, modern library. The window to my right looks out on a bright, sunlit plaza. The plaza hosts a series of high end restaurants, each of which is set up for outdoor dining, with umbrellas to ward off the sun and heaters to keep out the chill. There are maybe a couple of dozen people out there enjoying the warmth of the evening. In observing this scene, a non sequitur of a thought occurs to me. Five thousand seven hundred miles away, a genocide is taking place. People are being starved, shot, and bombed to death with obscene abandon. The contrast is so stark as to be surreal. And yet it’s real. Continue reading
Loyalty and Academic Freedom
The case of Jonathan A. C. Brown
A friend is circulating an Open Letter to Interim President Robert Groves of Georgetown University in defense of Professor Jonathan A.C. Brown, the Alwaleed bin Talal chair of Islamic Civilisation in the School of Foreign Service. Apparently, during the recent US-Israel-Iran war, Brown made this comment on X:
“I’m not an expert, but I assume Iran could still get a bomb easily. I hope Iran does some symbolic strike on a base, then everyone stops,” Brown wrote on X.
Brown has tenure and a chaired professorship at Georgetown, but apparently the comment was regarded as frightening enough to call for his suspension. The President forced Brown to delete the tweet, and he’s now been suspended. He’s also been removed as chair of his department, which I believe was intended as punishment. Continue reading
“Kalven’s Complicit Executioners”
Stirring the POT (3)
Genocide and the Academic Chairs of Virtue
I had meant “Stirring the POT” to be a monthly series, but my last one was back in March and it’s now July, so I guess the “monthly” promise was destined to be broken.
I wrote my last installment just after the talk I gave on institutional neutrality at APPE, and a couple of months before the one I was then scheduled to give at the Heterodox Academy conference in June. The Heterodox Academy talk ended up being significantly different from the APPE version or the version I put on the blog back in March. At any rate, the third version was the charm. The talk was well attended and went very well. There were a few skeptical or critical questions during the Q&A which I expected, but there was also some significant agreement, which came as a surprise. I’ll save all the squabbling for a separate post. Continue reading
Activism, Trespass, Violence
A little over a month ago, I wrote a post here called “Against Trespass,” intended mostly for campus activists for Palestine. It’s tempting, I argued, to want to engage in forms of direct action that involve trespass, and morally speaking–abstracting entirely from considerations of cost or consequence–it can be justified to do so. But once we re-introduce matters of cost and consequence into the equation, as we have to, trespass strikes me now as mostly pointless and self-defeating. For one thing, more often than not, it puts the activists who engage in it out of commission. For another, it doesn’t effectively do what most needs doing: generate widespread public support for Palestine. So on the whole, it can’t accomplish the good that activists want or need. It’s more likely to subvert it. Continue reading
Policy of Truth 