20110131.0908

The online New York Times ran Lisa W. Foderaro's "Brooklyn College Revokes Instructor's Appointment to Teach Mideast Politics" on January 27, 2011. In the article, Foderaro notes that the official reason for the appointment's elimination is a lack of qualification on the instructor's part; the person in question only has a master's, and so Brooklyn College thinks it inappropriate that the instructor teach master's- and doctoral-level students. Foderaro also notes that there is an unhappy alignment of student complaints about some of the (decontextualized) views expressed in the once-instructor's unpublished work and the elimination, leading to the conclusion that the elimination of appointment is politically motivated.

While it is extremely unusual that a doctoral student would be in line to teach master's or other doctoral students, if qualifications alone were a problem, then why did Brooklyn College, affiliated with the school where the once-instructor is working towards a PhD, ever offer the appointment? While it is understandable that a local, city school would seek to respond to the beliefs and desires of the community in which it exists, it is part of the task of the academy to offer divergent and opposing views of matters. It is for that very reason that the principle of academic freedom exists. Once appointed for a term, an instructor or professor should be free to advance views regardless of their lack of alignment with popular belief, as long as they are put forth in a rigorous, scholarly manner as agreed upon by others in the field. And if they are not published, and the viewpoints in question are reported as unpublished, then they have not actually been formally advanced, and the presenter is presenting as a private citizen--a type of presentation which is supposed to enjoy extensive free speech protection.

Either way, I am suspicious of this. Something has been done wrongly.