January 2009
WASHINGTON — In 1892, a Massachusetts court ruled that a policeman’s speech
rights had not been violated by a law forbidding certain political activities by
officers. State Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote: “The petitioner may have a
constitutional right to talk politics, but he has no constitutional right to be
a policeman.”
That thought is germane to the controversy — a hardy perennial — about the
rights and duties of college professors. Concerning which, Stanley Fish has
written an often intelligent but ultimately sly and evasive book, “Save the
World on Your Own Time.”
A
former dean, and currently law professor at Florida International University,
Fish is an intellectual provocateur with a taste for safe targets. While arguing
against an obviously indefensible facet of the politicization of higher
education, he suggests that a much larger facet is either nonexistent or
unimportant.
Some academics, he says, either do not know what their job is or prefer to do
something else. He recommends a “narrow sense” of the academic vocation that
precludes saving the world, a mission for which academics have no special
qualifications. Universities talk about making students sensitive,
compassionate, tolerant, democratic, etc., but those bland adjectives often are
packed with political agendas. The “focused” academic vocation that Fish favors
is spacious enough for actual academic skills involving “the transmission of
knowledge and the conferring of analytical skills.”
Fish’s “deflationary” definition of the scholar’s function denies radical
professors the frisson of considering themselves “transformative” – because “transgressive”
– “agents of change.” But he insists that his definition would exclude no topic
from the curriculum. Any topic, however pertinent to political controversies,
can, he says, be “academicized.” It can be detached “from the context of its
real world urgency” and made the subject of inquiry concerning its history and
philosophic implications.
Suggesting bravery on his part, Fish says his views are those of an excoriated
academic minority. Actually, it is doubtful that a majority of professors claim
a right and duty to explicitly indoctrinate students. But if they do, Fish
should be neither surprised nor scandalized — he is both – that support for
public universities has declined.
Fish’s advocacy of a banal proscription – of explicit political preaching in
classrooms – may have made him anathema to academia’s infantile left. The
shrewder left will, however, welcome his book because it denies or defends other
politicizations of academia that are less blatant but more prevalent and
consequential — those concerning hiring and curricula.
Fish does not dispute the fact that large majorities of
humanities and social science professors are on the left. But about the causes
and consequences of this, he airily says: It is all “too complicated” to tell in
his book, other than to say that the G.I. Bill began the inclusion of “hitherto
underrepresented and therefore politically active” groups.
Then, promiscuously skewering straw men, he says, “these were not planned
events” and universities do not “resolve” to hire liberals and there is no “vast
left-wing conspiracy” and inquiring into a job applicant’s politics is not
“allowed” and “the fact of a predominantly liberal faculty says nothing
necessarily about what the faculty teaches.”
Note Fish’s obfuscating “necessarily.”
The
question is not whether the fact “necessarily” says something about teaching but
whether the fact really does have pedagogic consequences. About the
proliferation of race and gender courses, programs and even departments, Fish
says there are two relevant questions: Are there programs “with those names that
are more political than academic?” And do such programs “have to be more
political than academic?” He says the answer to the first is “yes,” to the
second “no.”
But
again, note his slippery language: “have to be,” which he uses like
“necessarily.” The political nature of such curricula is why they often
are set apart from established, and more academically rigorous, departments of
sociology, history, etc. This political nature may not “have to” influence —
may not “necessarily” influence — teaching. But does it? Fish, who enjoys
seeming to be naughty, tamely opts for dogmatic denial.
Genuflecting before today’s academic altar, he asserts what no one denies: Race
and gender are “worthy of serious study.” He concedes that “many of these
programs gained a place in the academy through political activism.” But he says
that does not mean that political activism “need be” prominent in the teaching.
Gliding from “necessarily” to “have to be” to “need be,” Fish, a timid
iconoclast, spares academia’s most sacred icons. People who tell you they are
brave usually are not.
Real Clear Politics, November 27, 2008.
Help us maintain freedom in teaching, research and scholarship by joining SAFS or making a donation.
