The Review: Barnard's new and confused speech policy

The college fails to make the right distinctions. ADVERTISEMENT [The Review Logo]( You can also [read this newsletter on the web](. Or, if you no longer want to receive this newsletter, [unsubscribe](. As is true of many campuses across the country and especially in New York, Barnard College is in the midst of a painful showdown over academic freedom and faculty speech rights. The trigger, of course, is protest speech with respect to the Hamas-Israel war. As The New York Times [reports]( the trouble started back in October, when the college’s department of women’s, gender and sexuality studies (WGSS) posted a statement to its web page declaring support for Palestinians and opposition to Israel’s conduct of the war. “As decolonial feminist scholars and educators,” the statement reads in part, “we encourage our students to learn about the larger historical context of U.S.-backed and financed Israeli attacks on Gaza and to engage with a range of voices and perspectives analyzing the horrific genocidal violence and ethnic cleansing that we are now witnessing.” A month later, as the Columbia Daily Spectator first [reported]( in December, Barnard’s administration issued an updated “[Political Activity Policy]( prohibiting departments from posting political statements to any section of the college’s website; the statement on Palestine was accordingly removed from the WGSS page. The department has since reposted it on an [independent]( site. But as the Times observes, some Barnard departments’ political statements remain up — for instance this 2020 [statement]( from the Africana-studies department declaring solidarity with “those individuals and organizations in the Barnard-Columbia community, in New York City, in the United States, and throughout the world who have conveyed support for the individual and collective acts of resistance and rage in the streets of the United States in response to the ongoing devaluation and destruction of Black people of all ages, genders, sexualities, and abilities.” NEWSLETTER [Sign Up for the Teaching Newsletter]( Find insights to improve teaching and learning across your campus. Delivered on Thursdays. To read this newsletter as soon as it sends, [sign up]( to receive it in your email inbox. Statements like the above became very common following the police murder of George Floyd in the summer of 2020. The right to issue them might seem to be fundamentally protected by the principle of academic freedom. On the other hand, the corporate nature of such statements — which speak, supposedly, for every member of a department — raises hard questions about conformity and dissent. Mightn’t some faculty members, especially untenured ones, feel pressured to endorse political positions from which they actually depart? I have known several faculty members who report, privately, feeling just such a pressure. As David A. Bell wrote in an [essay]( about the ethics of departmental statements last year, “We do not need advanced cultural theory to understand how intimidating it can be for an untenured instructor to speak out against powerful senior colleagues.” And as Keith E. Whittington points out in his [new analysis]( of the Barnard situation, departmental political statements might seem to subject “current and future members of the faculty” to an ideological litmus test. Surely expressions of departmental political solidarity risk dictating a political orthodoxy to job applicants. These problems reflect a deeper question of value and purpose: Are expressions of solidarity, in general, the business of academics when speaking corporately, that is, on behalf of a department, field, discipline, or professional organization? In 1969, leftist radicals like the historian Eugene Genovese — who had become infamous a few years earlier for publicly declaring his desire for a Vietcong victory in Vietnam — nevertheless resisted efforts to get the American Historical Association to adopt a resolution formally opposing American involvement in the war. Genovese and his allies felt that such moves were both tactically risky (because they might trigger a right-wing backlash) and intrinsically objectionable (because they might inappropriately impose ideological constraints on research and teaching). As H. Stuart Hughes put it at the time, neutrality is necessary because otherwise “we will experience a polarization of the faculty and the campus, and wherever this has happened, whether under the auspices of the right or of the left, the result has always been a lowering of intellectual tone and the near-impossibility of teaching controversial subjects such as contemporary history.” (I have relied on Seymour Martin Lipset’s Rebellion in the University [1972] for this summary and Hughes’s quotation.) Barnard’s new policy, though, doesn’t just apply to departmental websites. It also prohibits faculty members from making political statements as individuals, at least on college websites or on college grounds without prior approval. According to the Times, some faculty members report being asked to take down pro-Palestinian signs from their office doors. The administration’s justification for those restrictions is the same as for the restriction on the WGSS statement — in both cases, the objection is to the use of college-owned platforms for the expression of political views. When it comes to individual faculty expression, that seems quite chilling. Is Barnard’s position that a faculty member cannot, for instance, post a sticker advocating for a political candidate on an office door, merely because Barnard owns the door? It might be more sensible to introduce a formal distinction between corporate and individual faculty expression, and confine restrictions to the former. As it is — and especially because statements like that of the Africana-studies department on George Floyd remain in place — it is hard to avoid the impression that Barnard, like [Indiana University]( entertains a “Palestine exception” to its campus speech policies. ADVERTISEMENT SPECIAL OFFER FOR NEW SUBSCRIBERS Enjoying the newsletter? [Subscribe today]( for less than $20 and get unlimited access to essential reporting, data, and analysis. And as a special bonus, you'll get the 2024 Trends Report, our annual issue on the major trends shaping higher education — coming in March. The Latest THE REVIEW | ESSAY [Political Solidarity Statements Threaten Academic Freedom]( By Keith E. Whittington [STORY IMAGE]( A fracas at Barnard raises fundamental questions. ADVERTISEMENT THE REVIEW | OPINION [The New Academic Arms Race]( By Jeffrey J. Selingo [STORY IMAGE]( Competition over amenities is over. The next battleground is technology. THE REVIEW | OPINION [Republicans Have a Plan to Make College Affordable. Will It Work?]( By Phillip Levine [STORY IMAGE]( A new bill offers some needed reforms, but it’s far from perfect. THE REVIEW | ESSAY [The Left’s Contradictory Goals for Higher Ed]( By Brendan Cantwell [STORY IMAGE]( It’s time to acknowledge that progressive aims are in conflict. Recommended - “This was not what I had expected. I had expected two Hollywood actors making fools of themselves as they attempted to say profound things.” In Church Life Journal, David Griffith [writes about]( Ethan and Maya Hawke’s Flannery O’Connor film, Wildcat. - “To situate his scholarship not as an exercise in scientific inquiry but as cultural work — an emanation both of its time and of a singular mind — is less relegation than elevation.” In The New York Review of Books, Kwame Anthony Appiah [discusses the artistry]( of Claude Lévi-Strauss. (From 2020.) - “But what about the enlightened critique of religion, the reader may ask. It’s too late at this stage, however, as we are already deep into the rabbit hole.” In Marx and Philosophy, Paul Stephan [reviews]( Christoph Menke’s Theorie der Befreiung. - “There is no doubt that his restlessly polymathic stories, essays, and stories-cum-essays are an acquired taste (albeit one that everyone should strive to acquire).” In The Washington Post, Becca Rothfeld [celebrates]( Guy Davenport. Write to me at len.gutkin@chronicle.com. Yours, Len Gutkin SPONSOR CONTENT | Ascendium [Rethinking College Behind Bars]( Discover how colleges are collaborating with correctional facilities and nonprofits to expand education access in prisons. FROM THE CHRONICLE STORE [Fostering Students' Free Expression - Buy Now]( [Fostering Students' Free Expression]( Many colleges are trying to expose students to views and ideas that challenge their own thinking. [Order your copy]( to explore how professors and administrators are cultivating environments that encourage discussion of difficult topics — in the classroom and beyond. JOB OPPORTUNITIES [Search jobs on The Chronicle job board]( [Find Your Next Role Today]( Whether you are actively or passively searching for your next career opportunity, The Chronicle is here to support you throughout your job search. Get started now by [exploring 30,000+ openings]( or [signing up for job alerts](. NEWSLETTER FEEDBACK [Please let us know what you thought of today's newsletter in this three-question survey](. This newsletter was sent to {EMAIL}. [Read this newsletter on the web](. [Manage]( your newsletter preferences, [stop receiving]( this email, or [view]( our privacy policy. © 2024 [The Chronicle of Higher Education]( 1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037