******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. *****************************************************************
A Statement Supporting Johnny Williams and Academic Freedom at Trinity College
In light of the uproar in some corners of the internet concerning Johnny Williams’ posts, we strongly believe it is important to both: 1) continue to examine, debate, and critique the legacy of white supremacy in our society, and also 2) reaffirm a strong commitment to the defense of academic freedom.
On the first point, it is evidently clear to us that Johnny is not calling for violence again any person, but rather using social media as a platform to engage, discuss, and debate his critique of structures of racist oppression in America. Despite the innuendo and misinterpretation, Johnny’s posts are consistent with his scholarly work, including his recently published book Decoding Racial Ideology in Genomics in which he argues that “The endurance of racist perceptions and conventions are fueled in part by the deeply grounded commonsensical view that racism is an individual rather than a structural phenomenon and thus not sustained by ‘white’ control over institution tools of power. Racism is a network of interlocking, reinforcing institutions of all organizational domains: political, economic, social, cultural, legal, military, educations. As a system, racism affects every aspect of life. So, ‘white’ disregard of racism as a systemic phenomenon guarantees it continuous operation in society” (xiii). It was this complex of arguments that Johnny was examining over social media. While there may be an effort to claim that Johnny was talking about the targeting of individuals, this flies in the face of his consistent argument about structures of race and racialized oppression (hence ‘white’ in quotations).
On the second point, we call on President Berger-Sweeney and Dean Cresswell to affirm the principle of academic freedom in the face of the politics of fear and violence. The AAUP has taken a strong position defending social media usage as protected academic freedom. The AAUP publishes position papers on a whole host of issues, including the use of social media by college faculty. In their report “Academic Freedom and Electronic Communications” (updated Nov 2013; see attached) the AAUP acknowledges that the integration of social media into all aspects of personal, private, and professional lives has “further blur[red] boundaries between communications activities that are primarily extramural or personal and those that are related more directly to teaching and scholarship” (p.43). The report acknowledges that “Most colleges and universities have yet to formulate policies regarding social-media usage by faculty members” (p.51). Trinity College falls into this category. The AAUP recommends that colleges formulating such policies do so in ways that do not prioritize what is most expedient for the institution but rather follow the AAUP principle “that social media can be used to make extramural utterances and thus their use is subject to Association-supported principles of academic freedom, which encompass extramural utterances” (p.51). The AAUP acknowledges in “Committee A Statement on Extramural Utterances” that a “faculty member’s expression of opinion as a citizen cannot constitute grounds for dismissal unless it clearly demonstrates the faculty member’s unfitness to serve.” The AAUP points out that this is a high threshold to meet, and must be decided upon not by administration but rather by “an appropriate—preferably elected—faculty committee.” Furthermore, single utterances must also be weighed against “the faculty member’s entire record as a teacher and scholar.” The Trinity College Faculty Manual, designed around AAUP principles, provides similar protections for academic freedom (for example, Policy Statement B.9)
In addition to the examples given in the AAUP’s report cited above, there are two recent examples of how the AAUP has defended statements made on social media as protected under academic freedom. First, after the University of Illinois—Urbana/Champaign fired Steven Salaita for his comments on Twitter about Israel’s invasion of Gaza, the AAUP imposed censure on the institution for violating Salaita's academic freedom. UIUC has since adopted policies regarding extramural speech, which flow through traditional venues of faculty governance. Based on the recommendations of faculty, the AAUP will soon vote on the removal of censure.
The AAUP has also supported Drexel professor George Ciccariello-Maher who posted a satirical statement about the fear white supremacists express about the “threat” racial inclusion, diversity, and multiculturalism poses to their understanding of white culture. Drexel initially supported Ciccariello-Maher but may be caving to a withering, coordinated attack by white supremacists that include death threats, hate mail, and intimidating efforts to have the administration call for his removal. The AAUP continues to support Ciccariello-Maher. It is important to remember that there is currently an organized effort to intimidate academics, and especially those who speak out about issues of race and white supremacy, as Johnny did. In addition to upholding social media as protected under academic freedom, we—as a scholarly institution—also have an obligation to critically and honestly engage the work of those who have spent their lives thinking, reading, writing, and teaching on subjects of which they are experts, even when they are saying hard things to hear about race in America. We have no obligation—and should push back with every fiber of our being—to entertain, succumb to, or acknowledge the legitimacy of efforts to delegitimize scholarly engagement. We should not entertain the positions of those who choose not to engage his scholarship on white supremacy in American and instead seek to target, distort, intimidate, and punish an individual based on a (mis)reading of a few posts. Campus Reform, which helped propagate the hit on Johnny, is one institution we cannot let define what constitutes academic freedom, speech, and scholarship. We call on President Berger-Sweeney and Dean Cresswell to vigorously uphold the principles of academic freedom. In the future, we urge the administration to trust and affirm the integrity and intelligence of our faculty before privileging the claims made by organizations with track records of distorting the work of scholars. We also recommend that a committee be convened to create an appropriate social media policy, which states clearly that the college recognizes the importance of academic freedom and freedom of speech, even in the new environment of social media.
We also call upon the campus as a whole to dedicate itself to having a robust academic debate over the summer, next semester, and into the future concerning race, and racism, in America. In addition to being an attack on Johnny, and on academics in general, this is also an attack on Trinity College. We can choose to treat this event as if we are a besieged institution, or we could instead embrace the provocation as an opportunity to have the necessary conversations about race that our community, our campus, and our country need at this time.
—Executive Committee, Trinity College chapter of the AAUP _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
