The Duke chapter of Students for Academic Freedom is shortly to distribute an Academic Freedom Pledge to the liberal arts faculty, asking each member to sign, with the intention of making public which professors have done so and, more importantly, which have not. This pledge has received quite a bit of attention in recent months in the pages of this newspaper, as have the group that is producing it and the question of "intellectual diversity" in general. Instead of discussing the greater arguments of SAF or its founder, David Horowitz, we thought we' focus on the language of the pledge itself, to explain why even the least partisan of professor might hesitate before committing a signature.
Certainly this language strives for neutrality, but unfortunately seems to have the side effect of vagueness. What is "intellectual tolerance and diversity" anyway? Does it mean that faculty must tolerate all levels of intellectual ability, so that even the most poorly written papers should get A's? And in what sense should instructors keep their philosophical beliefs from biasing their grading? Instructors have a philosophical belief that good work should be rewarded. They have a philosophical belief that students should not sleep in class. Isn't education itself a social agenda? And do extreme racist or sexist comments fall under the heading of dissenting viewpoints we must respect in the classroom?
Of course, we're being nitpicky. Obviously this pledge is not meant to bring total anarchy to the classroom. However, we do like to know what we're (potentially) signing to guard against misinterpretation. History offers some basis for our paranoia; here's an excerpt from another pledge that may have seemed harmless at the time:
"I further swear [-] that I do not advise, advocate or teach, and have not within the period beginning five [-] years prior to the effective date of the ordinance requiring the making of this oath [-], advised, advocated or taught, the overthrow by force, violence or other unlawful means, of the Government of the United States of America [-] and that I am not now and have not, within said period, been or become a member of or affiliated with any group, society, association, organization or party which advises, advocates or teaches, or has, within said period, advised, advocated or taught, the overthrow by force, violence or other unlawful means of the Government of the United States of America [-]."
Who'd have thought that this loyalty oath, which would seem to only exclude the most extreme of revolutionaries, would turn out to be such a useful tool for the House Un-American Activities Committee and for Senator Joe McCarthy? Even the most specific language can be distorted and manipulated; vague language is just asking for distortion. And however non-partisan the Academic Freedom Pledge may appear on its own, it originates from an organization that is far from politically uncommitted. Is it surprising that professors might be a bit suspicious of signing something which-without any institutional backing or legal meaning to the institution of the university-can only be understood as its own form of political commitment?
The humanities should be all about healthy intellectual debate, but intellectual debate is never 100-percent safe or sanitary; who we are and how we think are too closely intertwined to allow a completely unthreatening classroom. Education exists to push us to think harder and further as members of an academic community; if class resembled Mr. Rogers' neighborhood we would never learn anything beyond how to share. Against recent accusations to the contrary, we believe that most humanities professors want to foster critical thought, and that they like nothing better than when their students argue with them in the classroom. And so, in the spirit of what our discipline does best and cares about most, we submit the following counter-pledge to the Duke Student Body:
Students' Academic Responsibilities Pledge:
1.) I will arrive in class prepared to have my views challenged, and welcome the opportunity to engage with opinions that are new, unfamiliar and perhaps even uncomfortable.
2.) My own personal or political views will not constrain me from learning how to think, nor will I let my fear of receiving a poor grade compromise my intellectual integrity or prevent me from voicing my opinions in a responsible and mature way in the classroom.
3.) I recognize that well-thought-out college courses inevitably carry with them some kind of underlying argument, frame or paradigm, and that learning how to critique the premise of a course, a field of study or an academic discipline is as much a part of my education as is the ingestion of the materials on the syllabus.
4.) I will conduct myself in a respectful manner in class, will note the difference between a personal attack and a critique of the way in which I have expressed my ideas and will work to ensure that I take responsibility for my own intellectual development.
5.) Given the significant portion of Duke students, faculty and staff members who bring to this institution perspectives from outside the contemporary U.S. political climate, I will not impose a narrow perspective on the range of political identities and the ways in which those identities are defined upon the intellectual community of which I am a part.
6.) I recognize that there is a difference between a student and a consumer. Further, a Duke diploma and GPA is more than simply a ticket to graduate or professional school, a prestigious internship or a well-paying job after graduation. I will work hard to avoid expressing a sense of entitlement to a good grade, an easy answer, or a "safe" education. Instead, I view my time at Duke first and foremost as a commitment to the development of my mind.
We get a chuckle or two out of the above items, but we recognize that others will find them silly, if not downright offensive. We are well aware of our responsibilities as students, they may say.
There is no need for us to confirm in writing that grades aren't everything, that we need to voice (and test) our beliefs in class and not just articulate what we think the professor wants to hear, that we need to keep open minds if we expect to learn. Perhaps some students, some of the time, forget these basic truths, but most of us don't; we're too smart and too good for that, and we've worked too hard to get here in the first place. We're well aware that with freedom comes responsibility. Why do you need us to sign a piece of paper saying so?
Professors, lecturers and graduate instructors feel the same way.
Anne Gulick and Katie McClancy are graduate students in the English department.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.