American universities have long been celebrated for being at the forefront of cutting-edge scholarship — largely because of the scholar’s ability to explore. Intellectual freedom is at the core of any society dedicated to progress.
The ongoing debates over the work of psychology Prof. J. Michael Bailey, comments by Harvard University President Lawrence Summers and an essay by University of Colorado-Boulder Prof. Ward Churchill provide a prime opportunity for universities to reexamine the meaning of intellectual freedom and the role academics ought to play in ensuring their work does not fall victim to abuse.
The fracas over Bailey’s book, which examines transsexual life, has been raging for more than a year, yet it remains unresolved. At first, critics accused Bailey of violating federal research rules by revealing his subjects’ identities without their consent (Bailey contends he never was conducting hard-and-fast scientific research). Now, Bailey must contend with the appalling development that eugenicists have used his book and his other research to declare homosexuality a contagious disease and a source of social decay.
Many of these eugenicists have misused science — or simply invented it — to argue, for example, that Al Gore lost the 2000 election because of a “prim” lisp that alienated voters. Yet often what goes unmentioned is that Bailey has called eugenics completely false and even wrote in a 2001 article that homosexuality “is entirely acceptable morally.”
In a Jan. 14 speech, Summers referenced research at the University of Michigan and the University of California-Davis that explores whether genetic differences between the sexes may account for fewer women active in scientific fields. Summers reportedly said he’d “like to be proven wrong on this one,” yet he continues to endure charges of sexism.
Hamilton College cancelled a speech Churchill was scheduled to deliver today because of an essay he wrote pointing to U.S. foreign policy decisions as the motivations behind the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Accused of excusing terrorism and degrading the attacks’ victims, he since has resigned his position as chairman of Colorado’s ethnic studies program.
Instead of petty name-calling, intellectual discourse ought to consider substantive alternatives to controversial claims. New scholarship must withstand intense scrutiny to pass intellectual muster. Those of us in the public sphere have an obligation to provide that oversight. But refuting a theory for its empirical faults is one thing; rejecting it because it might enter the realm of the taboo is quite different. Self-censorship for political correctness will restrict future research simply because it makes certain people uncomfortable.
Intellectual freedom, however, does not mean intellectual sloppiness. Summers should have exercised more tact in his comments — even if he did warn audience members he intended to rile them up. A casual observer can read a snippet of his comments and conclude that women are inferior to men in the sciences. An ardent sexist can use it as justification for denying women educational opportunities. If anything, the fact that women make up a lower proportion of scientists only makes the cause for reform more urgent — something Summers should consider given his low levels of tenured female professors. Summers should not use the studies to excuse his poor gender diversity record. But critics should not dismiss the theory outright without thoughtful investigation.
Abusing scholarship for intentions beyond the author’s original purpose hardly is new. Many of the physicists behind the Manhattan Project were aghast at the sight of nuclear proliferation. Sweeping geopolitical changes were behind the adulteration of that breakthrough, but it illustrates the need for dogged vigilance against impropriety. If universities are to maintain their integrity as the citadels of creative thinking, they cannot abide either the stifling of intellectual thought or its abuse.
