In his New York Times opinion column “Think Again,” distinguished academic and author Stanley Fish has written several recent pieces on whether or not the concept of academic freedom is misused by some educators in order to further their personal agendas, or to flaunt their disregard for rules and conventions.
It seems that in any given profession there are people who will manipulate the situation to their own advantage, so it stands to reason that the field of education isn’t exempt.
However, due to the nature of the job as an educator—the concept of “academic freedom” exists specifically in order to challenge the limitations of established wisdom—it would seem that instructors do have the right, perhaps even the obligation, to put convention to the test. Even, sometimes, when these experiments are at odds with administrative standards.
Although it might seem odd, since Fish is part of the system that he is condemning, he does not take the stance that academic freedom allows educators some leeway in their methods and practices. He defines academic freedom as: “the freedom to pursue the scholarly profession … according to the norms and standards of that profession.”
In other words, Fish seems to think that the primary responsibility of educators is to maintain a status quo of accepted professional behavior and that the act of challenging academic institutional policy is nothing more than irresponsible and childish posturing.
Fish specifically cites the case of a University of Ottawa professor Denis Rancourt, who made news by undermining the school’s mandatory grading policy when assigning all his students in an advanced physics course an “A+” on the first day of class. He then went on to teach the class as a study of hands-on activism and was later banned from the campus, led away in handcuffs by security and is now in the process of being fired.
In an interview conducted with Rancourt in the Canadian magazine Rabble, the educator said the idea of forcing students to work toward making grades was simply a “tool of coercion in order to make obedient people, it is a carrot and stick mechanism. It’s not about personal development, learning, creativity or understanding complicated concepts.”
This is only one instance of Rancourt’s somewhat controversial ideas on education. Professor Fish has been criticized in these articles for selecting someone so extreme an example of the abuses that occur in the name of academic freedom—but does this man actually represent the norm?
Well, no. Don’t get me wrong (and I hope none of my future professors are reading this. If you are, please don’t give me bad grades just to teach me a lesson, OK?) but I have to agree with Rancourt. I’m a good student. I get good grades. But I’m not always learning.
There seems to be an unspoken agreement between instructors and students to maintain a sort of “lowest common denominator” approach to education in which everyone (educators and students alike) expends the minimum amount of acceptable effort. If the course material is covered, and everyone shows up and does what is expected, then that is considered sufficient. This is often simply an exercise in conformity, as Rancourt claims.
I’m no academic martyr—there have been quite a few times when I was grateful to be in a class that exchanged a clearly stated positive outcome for my observance of the norms. You know, an “easy A.” Here’s the problem with that: I’m paying for these classes. I want something besides an “A.” I want to keep acquiring knowledge and increasing my ability to understand.
In many cases, this may require a step (or a shove) outside the existing norms, which seems to be well within the right—or obligation—of those who promote academic freedom. This doesn’t mean, as Fish claims, that there should be some exempted rock star status for educators to advance an agenda of self-interested drivel disguised as education, or to indoctrinate their students into a belief system.
PSU communication studies instructor Jil Freeman, who teaches, among other things, a Spring course called “Advocacy in Action,” expands on this idea: “It is dangerous for us to pretend that you can be without opinion and politics as a well-educated, engaged person. While I don’t think the point of being an educator is to bully-pulpit a group of students, and am a huge advocate for open, diverse dialogue and dissent in most academic settings, I do think you have an obligation to acknowledge your biases in order to help students understand what influences your thinking and paradigm.”
Academic freedom should confer special privileges to educators, and they should make use of those privileges to their fullest extent, providing a meaningful and relevant learning experience. Having said that, educator’s use of academic freedom also comes with a responsibility—and not just to the students, or to the institution that employs them.
Freeman discusses the ways in which she is accountable as an educator: “The primary responsibility of educators—especially in higher education—is supporting and promoting critical and sound inquiry in order to uphold the larger mission of a university which is to provide a place where knowledge can be produced, examined and critiqued as freely as possible … but when push comes to shove, I feel indebted to the citizenry and public to ensure that their tax money is being used to further a civilized, intelligent and socially responsible world.”
Intellectual freedom isn’t a weapon to be used against the academic institution, nor is it an excuse to promote petulant nonconformity. But I’m not convinced that Rancourt’s behavior was so absolutely outside the acceptable norms that he has no value as an educator.
Perhaps he is the example of one that is too extreme to function within the context of a university, but I am fond of the idea that a higher education should provide us with more than practice in obedience.