Peter Wood: Shared Governance and Academic Freedom at UVa

The Deep Academy not only went along with the Woketarian decimation of universities over the last half-century and especially over the last decade, it was at the forefront of that initiative. It was the origin of the ideas and the tip of the Lysenkoist/politically-correct spear. Then when Trump pushed back, the DA immediately began fighting back with all its might and wiles.

   I'm an enthusiastic defender of academic freedom...but...

   Ryan has no legitimate academic freedom defense I can see. That's just a misapplication of the concept.

   And, more importantly: we face a situation now in which the academy has gone off the rails. Appeals to academic freedom are being used to promote the ideological capture of academia. We face a conflict between (a) the survival of the institution as a mechanism for the pursuit and dissemination of knowledge, and (b) the re-engineering of universities into re-education camps.

   Because of the unhinging and ideological capture of the professoriate, a pure and unmitigated commitment to academic freedom would be tantamount to acquiescing to further degradation of the institution. We recognize academic freedom, at least in large part, as a mechanism for preventing ideological capture and control of the institution by, e.g., the government. But we now face a case in which the call is coming from inside the house...

   The Deep Academy is basically saying: We have academic freedom, and that means we are free to abandon the telos of the university and replace it with the aims of our totalitarian politics.

   Among other things, here we have an instance of the Paradox of Tolerance. We've established a liberal mechanism for defending the autonomous mission of academia, but an illiberal faction has seized control of the institution, and is using our liberal safeguards against us.

   But classic defenses of academic freedom include limits--professors are not free to say absolutely anything in their classes. They're not free to engage in irrelevant religious or political proselytizing, any more than they're free to turn their classes into infomercials for their business interests.

   Although the government can't ban such activities, it can--if its goal is to restore objectivity/balance to the institution--elect not to fund institutions that engage overmuch in them. And states can act even more directly. This power has to be used judiciously. If it's used to further the ideas and ideals of conservatives, rather than to save the institutions by restoring objectivity, then we'll just face two problems instead of one.

   Well, lots of objections arise here. But that seems to me to be the basics of our situation...