I guess I’m now a real blogger: I’ve had my first and second thrashings at the hands of fellow bloggers. My offending entry suggested that Condoleezza Rice be excommunicated from the (admittedly permeable) bounds of political science on the grounds of gross malpractice. So much for satire.
As an ardent free speecher myself, I’m not unsympathetic to their critiques (though, given the blogs in question, I wonder whether they’d have been as quick to oppose the professional excommunication of say, Noam Chomsky). The real irony is that free speech activism was a central part of the Ph.D. in question.
But now, just to be ornery, I’d like to raise a larger question: are we saying that any field in which the work product is intellectual or artistic must be free of all professional sanctions? After all, we (generally) accept the idea that doctors can lose their licenses, or that lawyers can be disbarred for violations of their professions’ core standards. But the idea of “excommunicating” a political scientist for egregious violations of even the loosest pretensions to empirical validation or the pursuit of truth somehow feels (even to me) problematic. Partly because of the practical effects — as my critics point out, it’s far more likely that junior academics will be censured than that senior celebrity academics will be — but partly because we have that well-founded, principled skepticism about anything that smells like censorship.
The difficulty is that in any field that consists of creating and promulgating words and ideas — such as academia — there is no way to hold people accountable without in some way setting parameters on what kinds of speech will be acceptable within the bounds of the field. We seem willing to live with those parameters, in some contexts: when would-be academics present dissertations that are inadequate to the intellectual standards of their field, they are denied the professional recognition of a Ph.D. And when journalists plagiarize text or falsify stories, we don’t argue for the protection of their jobs on free speech grounds.
But wait, you say, wouldn’t even tenured academics be sanctioned if they falsified information? See, now you’re catching on.
I recognize that, as a practical matter, any effort at holding current members of any academic field to the research and intellectual standards imposed on would-be Ph.D.s would inevitably and unacceptably compromise speech rights. But as an issue of principle, do we really believe that it is undesirable for our nations’ intellectuals and educators to be held to some sort of collective standard of intellectual integrity?
UPDATE: COMMENTS AND ACCOUNTABILITY
This thread has certainly brought a lot of free speech advocates out of the woodwork. I’ve had lots of comments on this post, as well as on my original entry, some of which you can read below. But it is interesting to note that many of these would-be free speech defenders have submitted their comments anonymously — which is not exactly in keeping with a committment to free and open debate. The difference between diatribe and dialogue is that in a dialogue, people both talk and listen; if you’re not available to receive responses to your comments, you’re not listening, and you’re certainly not engaging in dialogue or debate.
For that reason, I will only approve comments that have a verifiable e-mail address, and not one created for the sole purpose of commenting on this blog. That doesn’t mean you have to use your real name to post — one of the great things about the Internet is that people can build meaningful reputations and accountability using traceable or untraceable handles. (Another theme of my dissertation, by the way, for those of you who are actually interested in whether my own research meets the standards I am advocating.)
But I do expect people to take on some form of accountability for their comments. After all, I have put my name on my posts — why should my fellow defenders of free speech be shy about standing behind theirs?
UPDATE: FOR THE RECORD
What I think about what other people think about what I think. What do you think?
“But as an issue of principle, do we really believe that it is undesirable for our nations’ intellectuals and educators to be held to some sort of collective standard of intellectual integrity?”
So, what’s your plan how to go about that? Who gets to be the judges?
“But as an issue of principle, do we really believe that it is undesirable for our nations’ intellectuals and educators to be held to some sort of collective standard of intellectual integrity?”
So, what’s your plan how to go about that? Who gets to be the judges?
Curtis, you might want to reread the sentence immediately before the one you’re quoting.
Curtis, you might want to reread the sentence immediately before the one you’re quoting.
Well, it turns out somebody beat me to it. The American Political Science Association has its own ethics committee, which is empowered to hear grievances for violations of professional standards.
In this case the relevant guidelines for professional conduct may be:
5.5 Authors are obliged to reveal the bases of any of their statements that are challenged specifically, except where confidentiality is involved.
5.6 When statements that are challenged are based on reproducible data authors are obliged to facilitate replication.
However note that the above specifically pertains to scholarly activity, so maybe that lets Rice off the hook. Not a bad way to draw the line between professional violation and personal speech, actually.
Well, it turns out somebody beat me to it. The American Political Science Association has its own ethics committee, which is empowered to hear grievances for violations of professional standards.
In this case the relevant guidelines for professional conduct may be:
5.5 Authors are obliged to reveal the bases of any of their statements that are challenged specifically, except where confidentiality is involved.
5.6 When statements that are challenged are based on reproducible data authors are obliged to facilitate replication.
However note that the above specifically pertains to scholarly activity, so maybe that lets Rice off the hook. Not a bad way to draw the line between professional violation and personal speech, actually.
You make some interesting points, especially as I’ve been following the ethical issues involved in academics who “borrow” (without attribution) for the sake of publishing, not to mention the debates over bad statistics (or worse).
Should be interesting to see how this blog goes with the kickstart it has gotten from the various links. You couldn’t wish for a better start to generate readers.
You make some interesting points, especially as I’ve been following the ethical issues involved in academics who “borrow” (without attribution) for the sake of publishing, not to mention the debates over bad statistics (or worse).
Should be interesting to see how this blog goes with the kickstart it has gotten from the various links. You couldn’t wish for a better start to generate readers.
Where to start.
1) You make a great deal of malpractice. The lawyer & the doctor are punishable by their professional organizations for their PROFESSIONAL misconduct. You were a little slow but found the APSA ethics panel. Good for you, only took a few months.
2) Moreover, the lawyer & the doctor are also LICENSED by the state to practice. Please direct me to what state licensed you to “practice” as a political scientist or Dr. Rice for that matter. Oh wait. That’s right. It doesn’t exist.
3) You seem to believe that only those with ink from Harvard may “practice” political science, as if those of us poor schmucks who lack the imprimatur of an Ivy League school cannot engage in “the study of government and political processes, institutions, and behavior” and my doing so we are guilty of “malpractice”. Not content with purging those you disagree with from political science, you are now up for purging using official organs of the government or organizations ANYONE that doesn’t have your credential or its equivalent.
Just to review: APSA didn’t give me the right to engange in discussion and study of my government and its political processes. Neither did Harvard or my state “political science” licensing board (which as we have established does not exist). Because they did not grant it to me (or Dr. Rice or you) they have NO right to take it away.
4) No one except YOU is saying “any field in which the work product is intellectual or artistic must be free of all professional sanctions?” Try looking up the fallacy called false dichotomy. Either ASPA and you get to purge Dr. Rice OR the field of political science is “free of all professional sanctions”.
Again, read your own words PROFESSIONAL. Let me repeat this again PROFESSIONAL. One more time, with feeling PROFESSIONAL. If she was a Professor at WHATSAMATTA U and decided to dummy up some stuff as part of her PROFESSIONAL academic activities, then sure, toss her. Oh wait, I keep forgetting. When LIBERALS make up stuff in academia, it is ok and they retain their positions. (See Bellesiles & the Arming America fiasco). She’s a conservative, so she’d get tossed. And a BLACK conservative at that. Can’t have that now can we Alex? Have to purge her from the profession, now don’t we?
MUST
PURGE
RICE!
MUST
TOSS
ANY
WHO
DISAGREE
WITH
WHAT
I
WAS
TAUGHT
IN
MY
PHD
PROGRAM!
Where to start.
1) You make a great deal of malpractice. The lawyer & the doctor are punishable by their professional organizations for their PROFESSIONAL misconduct. You were a little slow but found the APSA ethics panel. Good for you, only took a few months.
2) Moreover, the lawyer & the doctor are also LICENSED by the state to practice. Please direct me to what state licensed you to “practice” as a political scientist or Dr. Rice for that matter. Oh wait. That’s right. It doesn’t exist.
3) You seem to believe that only those with ink from Harvard may “practice” political science, as if those of us poor schmucks who lack the imprimatur of an Ivy League school cannot engage in “the study of government and political processes, institutions, and behavior” and my doing so we are guilty of “malpractice”. Not content with purging those you disagree with from political science, you are now up for purging using official organs of the government or organizations ANYONE that doesn’t have your credential or its equivalent.
Just to review: APSA didn’t give me the right to engange in discussion and study of my government and its political processes. Neither did Harvard or my state “political science” licensing board (which as we have established does not exist). Because they did not grant it to me (or Dr. Rice or you) they have NO right to take it away.
4) No one except YOU is saying “any field in which the work product is intellectual or artistic must be free of all professional sanctions?” Try looking up the fallacy called false dichotomy. Either ASPA and you get to purge Dr. Rice OR the field of political science is “free of all professional sanctions”.
Again, read your own words PROFESSIONAL. Let me repeat this again PROFESSIONAL. One more time, with feeling PROFESSIONAL. If she was a Professor at WHATSAMATTA U and decided to dummy up some stuff as part of her PROFESSIONAL academic activities, then sure, toss her. Oh wait, I keep forgetting. When LIBERALS make up stuff in academia, it is ok and they retain their positions. (See Bellesiles & the Arming America fiasco). She’s a conservative, so she’d get tossed. And a BLACK conservative at that. Can’t have that now can we Alex? Have to purge her from the profession, now don’t we?
MUST
PURGE
RICE!
MUST
TOSS
ANY
WHO
DISAGREE
WITH
WHAT
I
WAS
TAUGHT
IN
MY
PHD
PROGRAM!
Curtis, the answer is simple, really. Alex and APSA should judge under the scheme, as she makes perfectly clear, should “cleanse” and “purge” anyone who disagrees with them.
Curtis, the answer is simple, really. Alex and APSA should judge under the scheme, as she makes perfectly clear, should “cleanse” and “purge” anyone who disagrees with them.
As an ardent free speecher myself, I’m not unsympathetic to their critiques (though, given the blogs in question, I wonder whether they’d have been as quick to oppose the professional excommunication of say, Noam Chomsky).
As I recall, Noam Chomsky is still a full professor at MIT, and enjoys widespread readership for his political ramblings well beyond his specialty in linguistics.
As an ardent free speecher myself, I’m not unsympathetic to their critiques (though, given the blogs in question, I wonder whether they’d have been as quick to oppose the professional excommunication of say, Noam Chomsky).
As I recall, Noam Chomsky is still a full professor at MIT, and enjoys widespread readership for his political ramblings well beyond his specialty in linguistics.
Robb C: Yes, I read that, but Thanks so much anyway. Isn’t the point here that the plan is (at the very least) troublesome because of things like that very sentence implied? I’m not ashamed of asking the dumb questions first because someone’s got to do it. (HERE I AM!)
Robb C: Yes, I read that, but Thanks so much anyway. Isn’t the point here that the plan is (at the very least) troublesome because of things like that very sentence implied? I’m not ashamed of asking the dumb questions first because someone’s got to do it. (HERE I AM!)
First, I have to say this an interesting topic to debate. With regard to Dr. Rice’s testimony, though, I think you need to show at least a malicious disregard for the truth (if not actual lying) to justify a sanction. Instead, you have a situation in which every credible intelligence service in the world believed that Saddam Hussein’s regime had WMD (largely because the regime wanted everyone to believe he had WMD, to enhance the regime’s status as a regional power); the only thing separating Dr. Rice from Dominique de Villepin is that the U.S. used that information as part of its case for war, while the French used that information as part of its case for continued inspections. Calling for the excommunication of Dr. Rice is a bit like calling for the excommunication of anyone who believed Arming America or More Guns, Less Crime and used one of those books as an argument for or against gun control; at worst, they failed to do due diligence into the credibility of the information they used.
First, I have to say this an interesting topic to debate. With regard to Dr. Rice’s testimony, though, I think you need to show at least a malicious disregard for the truth (if not actual lying) to justify a sanction. Instead, you have a situation in which every credible intelligence service in the world believed that Saddam Hussein’s regime had WMD (largely because the regime wanted everyone to believe he had WMD, to enhance the regime’s status as a regional power); the only thing separating Dr. Rice from Dominique de Villepin is that the U.S. used that information as part of its case for war, while the French used that information as part of its case for continued inspections. Calling for the excommunication of Dr. Rice is a bit like calling for the excommunication of anyone who believed Arming America or More Guns, Less Crime and used one of those books as an argument for or against gun control; at worst, they failed to do due diligence into the credibility of the information they used.
Noam Chomsky is generally acclaimed as an important linguist, even by his critics.
His avocation as a controvert is not his day job.
Show me a leftist academic who has been fired for political opinions in the U.S. (or Canada) in the last 20 years.
Noam Chomsky is generally acclaimed as an important linguist, even by his critics.
His avocation as a controvert is not his day job.
Show me a leftist academic who has been fired for political opinions in the U.S. (or Canada) in the last 20 years.