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.
Comments
The times they're never a-changin'
When I was in J-school some (gulp) 23 years ago, our faculty was filled with professors who had worked as reporters and editors in the '50s, '60s and '70s. They had great stories to tell about covering Congress, Vietnam, the Mideast, etc.
Some of them also thought electric typewriters would be passing fads. Computers? Forget about it. Shoe leather was the only tool a good reporter needed.
A balance must be struck between reality and living in the past.
Fortunately, that same school now has grabbed its place in our business by holding digital technology conferences and bringing in top performers in our field. Sadly, that's a rarity in the academic world, it would seem.
Academic freedom is more than that
One reason "academic freedom" is so highly prized in the West is that it protects my rights to talk about, say, human evolution in my classroom without adding any side notes about "creationism." It prevents my dean from firing me because I said in class that I think George W. Bush is a poor president. It protects a responsible professor from politics and favoritism that (in a public university in particular) might come down from the state legislature.
Unfortunately, it might also allow one professor to refuse to teach Excel in a reporting class, while three other professors do teach it in the same class, and so one-quarter of the students get short-changed.
So: Are academic luddites practicing academic freedom? I don't mean to be unkind, but are they perhaps merely professionally incompetent?
I would not call the refusal to teach new journalism techniques "academic freedom." I think it is irresponsible of the deans, directors and chairs to allow it to continue. And here's where a professor's academic freedom can be trumped -- your department chair assigns you to teach certain classes.
Supposedly you may choose to teach each class assigned to you in any way you like ... but that's not wholly true. If I were assigned a course about literary journalism, say, and I chose science fiction stories for all the assigned readings, and made the students write only science fiction stories, I'm pretty sure I would be reprimanded and told to get back in line!
So I think the deans, directors and chairs are wimping out.
They say they can't make professors teach the current, proper, up-to-date skills and methods -- because of academic freedom. But the truth is, they just don't want to fight that fight.