An opinion piece appeared in the Santa Barbara Independent on May 21 and was written by rabbi and professor and chair of the Marketing and Business Law Department at Loyola Marymount, Arthur Gross-Schaefer. Wm. Robinson, sociology professor at UC Santa Barbara, sent his students an email entitled "Parallel Images of Nazis and Israelis," with images of Jews from the holocaust and similar images of Palestinians. Two students dropped the class and filed grievances; the faculty committee said Robinson had sent "highly partisan email accompanied by lurid photographs" that they were not related to course content. His supporters argue that "his academic freedom is being attacked." Gross-Schaefer denies that saying that he supports academic freedom but that the principle exists to defend the intellectual integity of both professors and students." The UCSB Faculty Code of Conduct states that a professor "abuses his power when he brings in unrelated materials to promote his personal agenda." According to the author, Robinson and his supporters seem "surprised and angry" that the university is taking the students' charges seriously. Clearly, Robinson violated the Faculty Code of Conduct (the course focused on Latin American issues) as far as unrelated materials goes and because he sent emails, there was no opportunity for classroom discussion or the expression of opposing views. I agree with the author: academic freedom must exist for both faculty and students. I also agree with the Association of Collefes and Universities statement that "students do not have a right to remain free from encountering unwelcome or inconvenient questions." I believe Robinson was
wrong to use his position as a professor to force his views on his students, but I think there is a lesson here for librarians as well: we have a similar position of authority in the sense that we decide what makes it onto the library shelves and what doesn't: this is a sacred trust--as corny as that night sound--we are expected to make available diverse points of view in library materials, not simply what we value or believe to be true. I hope we wouldn't be as blatant as Robinson, but self-censorship is so dangerous, and maybe an easier trap to fall into than we would like to believe.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Tammy,
ReplyDeleteWhat an interesting article. I like your analogy about academic freedom existing for both faculty AND students and its relationship to intellectual freedom existing for all sides of an issue in materials that we select as librarians. I believe that as humans rather than machines our biases are going to play in to what we select. As professionals it is our job to check ourselves (and perhaps have coworkers check us as well) in making sure we represent varying points of views in our collection, but this isn't failproof and is why we have to allow the outside world (aka patrons) challenge what we do or do not shelve in our libraries. But as you said and I agree, it is a sacred trust, and if no one is challenging us we must work to keep challenging ourselves.