Academic freedom

Somewhere along the line, I've forgotten to be grateful for one of the core values of my profession.

Maybe it happened when my third fall course was cancelled the week before classes started. Maybe it was when I realized my office had more dirt than electricity. Or maybe I'm most forgetful when I drag myself in the door after two hours commuting, two hours arguing with ungrateful students, and four more hours not actually accomplishing anything I'm trying to do.

But it's Thanksgiving, after all; time to count my blessings.

I'm reminded of them by Stanley Fish's article reviewing a new book on academic freedom in America. Fish uses words like "newness," "independence," and "inquiry" to push his point: that these career bonuses also come with the responsibility to use them productively and professionally.

I've complained often about the unprofessional attitude I see around me, not just here, but in my previous institutions. It's one of the main reasons I'm here in Cairo, actually; I was fed up by the culture I hated in grad school. To be fair, there was one main perpetrator, but when you're angry and depressed, it's easy to generalize. For every irresponsible academic I encounter, I do find ten or so who actually take their jobs - and their responsibilities - seriously.

It's not all four-week vacations for "conferences" and booze on the NIH's dime, after all. Some of us do actually teach - and value that teaching - while others see their contributions as focusing on research. I don't see many people who combine the two sucessfully. I'm sure not getting the research done that I "should" be.

I noticed this passage from the article: "Responding to an expressed concern that liberal faculty too often go on about the Iraq War in a course on an entirely unrelated subject ...."

Ahem. Guilty as charged. In my particular case, I use it as an example of 1) non-logical interpretation of evidence; 2) bias; 3) immunization against falsification; 4) the difference between ethics and morals. But I admit it, I have had to forcibly stop myself from "going on" in class about political matters. After all, I'm not a political scientist - just a paranoid, frustrated, expatriate scientist. Clearly I'm in no position to be thinking about the things going on around me.

I also liked Fish's clincher: "And you just have to love a book — O.K., I just have to love a book — that declares that while faculty must “respect students as persons,” they are under no obligation to respect the “ideas held by students.”"

Case in point: our recent class discussion on evolution. After our first small session, examining testable predictions of evolutionary theory and the empirical evidence upholding those predictions, I was packing my bag to leave the classroom when I happened to glance up.

All of my veiled students had surrounded me.

Oh my God, I thought, Here it comes.

To my surprise the initial assault came from an unexpected quarter. One of my shy 80-lb Christians flung herself at me through the circle of hejabis.

"But Doctor!" she announced, "Evolutionary theory contradicts what it says in the Bible about God creating Man!"

"Yes," I responded flatly. "Yes it does."

"But the Bible was written by God!"

"Actually, it was written by a bunch of men a few hundred years later." Never thought that particular piece of university knowledge would come in handy.

"But it's the word of God!" Her eyes were round, her arms were thrown out, she was practically quivering.

I started to get annoyed. "Based on what evidence?"

Indrawn breath from the whole circle. "What?"

I tried to rein myself in. "Look, this is a scientific thinking class. All scientific thinking is based on evidence. I'm showing you the evidence that the Earth is older than 6,000 years - directly contradicting what it says in the Bible. And I'm showing you the evidence that Man is related to all living things on Earth, and does not hold some sort of special place."

I pivoted to include the whole circle in my diatribe. "Your faith is your faith. Nothing I say is ever going to change what you've already decided you believe. The point of this class is to show you that there are other ways of thinking besides having other people tell you what to think. What you do with that knowledge, these tools, is up to you."

Of course, that's the party line. I do see that it's possible to hold two totally separate things - your faith, and your science - in your head at the same time. I, personally, have not chosen this path. It doesn't work for me. And while I respect my students' right to make their own decision, nowhere am I required to respect the decision that they make. As long as I don't cut anyone down in the classroom, I'm doing my job and fulfilling my responsibilities.

I think.