Dear Commons Community,

Matthew W. Finkin, emeritus professor of law at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and the author of For the Common Good: Principles of American Academic Freedom, had an essay in yesterday’s Chronicle of Higher Education entitled, “The Unraveling of the AAUP:  This organization no longer knows what it stands for.”  See:  Opinion | The Unraveling of the AAUP

Here is an excerpt.

“An article on threats to academic freedom on college campuses in last week’s New York Times Magazine touched on a running debate between the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). The former has long been the expositor of the meaning of academic freedom; the latter is active in litigating free-speech cases. The quarrel between the two organizations raises some hard questions about the AAUP’s current role.

From its founding in 1915, the AAUP has gained the respect of the academic community and of the judiciary in explicating the meaning and application of academic freedom and tenure. Its work has had a significant impact on both. Its credibility has been earned by the consistent adherence to principle uninfluenced by exogenous policies or organizational ends, and by the sheer quality of its work. The latter was captured a half century ago by Judge J. Skelly Wright, who noted the “thoroughness and scrupulous care” in the AAUP documents placed before the court.

Recent actions have departed from these standards — and radically. The AAUP, acting through its Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure, has, first, abandoned its prior position that systematic participation in the boycott of Israeli universities could threaten academic freedom and, second, declared that adherence to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) dictates as a condition of faculty retention can be consistent with academic freedom. These actions reveal a body now driven by considerations other than fidelity to principle. As a result, the deep well of communal respect has been drained dry; the AAUP’s credibility has been destroyed.”

Finkin’s conclusion:

“It seems inevitable that sometime, somewhere, one or more instructors will not be reappointed for no reason other than the failure to satisfy a DEI requirement. It seems equally inevitable that at least one housed in a public university will contest the decision on constitutional grounds; and, in that event, that the AAUP will appear before the court as amicus curiae. In that case, it would be expected that the AAUP will address the court much along this line:

‘We appear before this court as the repository of a century’s thoughtful engagement with the meaning and significance of academic freedom, to bring our considered judgment, expressed in the Statement on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Criteria for Faculty Evaluation, to the court’s attention and to argue in support of it.’

To which the only frank response a court could make is: “You are the successor in title, but no longer in principle, spirit, or scrupulous care.”

Finkin’s essay was adapted from an article originally published in Telos Insights.

Tony

This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.