Neutrality and the Politicized Classroom

In his book Varieties of Academic Freedom, Stanley Fish argues that academic work should be free of politics. Capturing well the impatience of critics of higher education who bemoan the “politicization” of the academy, and of the humanities in particular, Fish famously urges faculty to “save the world on their own time.” On this view, bringing any kind of political advocacy into the classroom or into research betrays the scholarly vocation by turning teaching into indoctrination and scholarship into activism.

On the opposite extreme are those who argue that political “neutrality” is a myth and that we are currently in a political crisis so extreme that faculty have no choice but to take sides—the only question is which. “The University”, declare Michael Bérubé and Jennifer Ruth in their recently published It’s Not Free Speech: Race, Democracy, and the Future of Academic Freedom, “cannot remain neutral. Faculty must make judgments calls on the university’s behalf that take into consideration the historical and political circumstances in which their universities find themselves.” As Bérubé and Ruth see it, professors either are on the side of the progressive resistance to a menacing political right, or they are at least tacit supporters of White Supremacy.

What follows is an attempt to locate middle ground predicated on the following beliefs about colleges and universities and the academic mission. First, colleges and universities are political entities in the sense that the conditions under which they function are shaped by political realities. Second, political debates and controversies often impact, either directly or indirectly, colleges and universities, their faculty, and their students. Third, the work produced by professors in their research and the material they teach their students often has either direct or indirect political implications. Fourthly, the ultimate mission of colleges and universities includes the pursuit and dissemination of knowledge. And finally, in matters where reasonable people disagree, academic norms favor civility, tolerance, and dialogue.

It seems to me that the inevitable entanglement of colleges and universities in the political world rules out the antiseptic approach to academic freedom championed by Fish. If colleges and universities are intertwined with current political realities and touched by current political controversies, it is hard to see how it could be inappropriate for professors (as well as administrators) to speak to those issues. To take an obvious example, legislation forbidding the teaching of “divisive” ideas about race directly impacts teaching and research in public schools, so it is entirely reasonable that professors have a lot to say about this legislation in their roles as professors. It is just as reasonable that they appeal to their experiences and expertise as instructors in so doing. Accordingly, it is no kind of a stretch or distortion to insist professors are protected by the principles of academic freedom when engaged in this kind of politics.

More, the direct or indirect relevance of a professor’s research to political questions surely licenses making the connections explicit. This might include noting that a study or argument challenges or supports controversial policy proposals or laws or political positions. This seems no different in kind than medical researchers highlighting the implications of their research for the care of children, for example. To be sure, this will often amount to professors “taking sides” in ongoing political controversies. But that should not be a problem as it hardly entails discrimination against students who might disagree. Nor does it show that their work is guided by pre-established political conclusions rather than flowing from open inquiry.

So, I have to disagree with Fish—professors need not maintain a strictly apolitical air about them while doing their jobs.

But this does not mean we should give up on an important element of neutrality as an academic virtue that distinguishes teaching and scholarship from political advocacy—Fish is right that activism is something professors can and ought to do on their own time. It is, I think, a betrayal of the academic mission when the pursuit of truth is subordinated to effecting political results. Professors do corrupt their vocation when they knowingly filter their work and teaching through a political lens to guarantee it does not work against their political aims. This happens when they perpetuate politically convenient falsehoods or hide inconvenient truths, or when they refuse to consider or teach work that challenges their political beliefs. It also happens when they refuse to provide space in their research or classrooms for reasonable but dissenting views.

That civility and tolerance are essential academic norms follows in turn. Where reasonable people disagree, professors should be at pains to allow them to do so—this is essential to the fundamental mission of pursuing and disseminating knowledge. This means presenting work in a fair-minded way that gives those who disagree the space to respond. Refusing to engage those with whom one disagrees, grossly one-sided and polemical arguments, discriminatory attitudes, and actions toward those perceived to be political opponents, all undermine the mission of academic institutions. While this is not “neutrality” in the literal sense of taking no sides, it does allow for the academic enterprise as a whole to avoid capture by narrow political factions.

Appeals to academic neutrality are often derided as calls for a scholarly version of bothsidesism, the patently absurd idea that all perspectives on any issue must be presented in an even-handed way. The appeal to reasonable disagreement should put this worry to bed. There is no reasonable way to deny that the Holocaust happened and that it was genocidal, so claims to the contrary have no place in academic venues. So, what does the modest neutrality I’m defending entail? It starts with not confusing political conviction with epistemic certainty and being mindful enough of genuine controversies to gain familiarity with the positions in play, including especially those with which we disagree. In the classroom, it means offering balanced readings when pedagogically appropriate and being careful not to reduce grading academic performance to judging political allegiances. More broadly, it means being open to challenges and disagreements and the productive dialogue they often bring.