yelvington.com

Now that Vin Crosbie's year of teaching at Syracuse is drawing to a close, he's talking about what he found in about a quarter of the faculty:

"They're obstructionists because they either deny things are changing (for example, one still thinks the Internet is a fad that will disappear) or they've grown too comfortable teaching the same curricula year after year for 20 or more years. They are tenured and so can't be fired, and the doctrine of academic freedom allows them to teach whatever they see fit."

I always thought the point of academic freedom had to do with research and ultimately the growth of human knowledge, not simply to teach whatever the hell you want.

So I looked it up in Wikipedia to see the current consensus definition from people with a surplus of time on their hands. Interestingly, the article is flagged that it "may not represent a worldwide view of the subject," but it does use these words:

"Academic Freedom is the belief that the freedom of inquiry by students and faculty members is essential to the mission of the academy. ... Academic tenure protects academic freedom by ensuring that teachers can be fired only for causes such as gross professional incompetence or behavior that evokes condemnation from the academic community itself."

So: Are academic luddites practicing academic freedom? I don't mean to be unkind, but are they perhaps merely professionally incompetent?

An academic position isn't a place to go hide from the storm. It's a great place to be a storm-chaser. It's sad to hear of people who've passed up that opportunity in favor of retiring on the job.