« The AAUP's Continuing Failure to Recognize Antisemitism | Main | NCAA adopts too-many-men limiting rule »
Wednesday, October 16, 2024
A Question for the AAUP and FIRE [UPDATED]
What if a hypothetical professor were to write (paraphrasing Muhlenberg College's Prof. Finkelstein),
Palestinians are an ethnic group, but Palestinian nationalism is a political ideology. Palestinian nationalists must be shamed and their presence must not be normalized in our space.
Would that be a defensible expression of academic freedom, or would it be evidence of unfitness to teach "social justice" courses?
I think we know the answer. Feel free to substitute the political view of your choice.
(Note: I doubt and hope no professor would ever make such a statement. Students of all groups and political views have always been welcome and respected in my classes.)
UPDATE: I unintentionally left comments open when I posted this. In fairness, I will leave them open until 5:00 CDT, but will monitor for relevance and civility.
Posted by Steve Lubet on October 16, 2024 at 07:52 AM | Permalink
Comments
I have always respected you and your work, John. Early in my career, I represented the Illinois Alliance of Non-Smokers in workplace litigation.
But you are far off base here. Smoking and drinking are behaviors; obesity is not. Bill Maher is not a model for university professors.
I hope you will see that you cannot both shame your students and respect them, much less ostracize them as Finkelstein advocated.
Posted by: Steve L. | Oct 16, 2024 4:56:37 PM
For many years the antismoking and nonsmokers' rights activities of my antismoking organization caused - as a byproduct and not as its primary purpose - the shaming of smokers. This shaming - smokers said they were made to feel like "social pariahs" - was a major factor, along with higher cigarette taxes and a 50% smoker surcharge we were able to obtain under Obamacare, in slashing the rate of smoking in the U.S.; thereby saving millions of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars of unnecessary financial burdens (which largely fell on nonsmokers). In that situation at least, shaming was a powerful and very effective weapon - indeed, far more effective than educational programs, health messages, and warnings - for changing attitudes and then behaviors.
Some have suggested that shaming might also be a powerful and effective weapon for dealing with obesity. For example, Comedian Bill Maher has said that we should use fat shaming as a tactic to attack America's second most serious and expensive public health problem (after smoking), despite objections from many liberals (whom he called "the NRA of mayonnaise"), and from the so-called fat acceptance movement. Maher ridiculed that movement which excoriates anyone who criticizes a person for being fat - accusing such critics of suffering from fat-phobia and sizeism - and drawing an analogy to criticizing someone who is drunk; saying sarcastically "How dare you drink-shame me - being blotto is beautiful." Quoting a New York Times report that "poor diet is the leading cause of mortality in the United States," Maher argued that "fat shaming needs to make a comeback," and that "shaming is the first step towards reform," noting that it worked for smoking, littering, and to some extent for racism.
Maher is probably correct that shaming was to some extent effective against racists and their racist behaviors. It is also being used against those who are regarded (at least by some) as sexists, male chauvinists, homophobes, transphobics, etc., as well as those who drive while drunk, beat their spouse, question what is called "climate science," are said to be insufficiently sensitive to the needs of animals, drive big cars or wear animals furs, refuse to support or even belittle various trends and movements, etc. And of course some very prominent people have tried to shame Blacks and others who plan to vote for Trump, just as some on the other side have tried to shame those who support candidates claimed to be overly woke.
So shaming works well at least in some areas, and is certainly widely used against many people with a wide variety of beliefs, values, and behaviors. Although I was very widely criticized for my legal and other actions which led to the shaming of millions of smokers, no smoking student in my many law school classes ever expressed concern, to me our anyone at my university) that I would discriminate against or disparage them. As Steve said, "Students of all groups and political views have always been welcome and respected in my classes."
Similarly, professors who publicly and forcefully support Black Lives Matter, or LGBTQ+ rights, or the rights of American Indians, police, tradwives, etc. are not punished or even criticized over concerns that they might discriminate against students who not members of such groups.
For a law review article which explores the role of shaming in changing beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors, see:
WHY “SUING THE BASTARDS” IS MORE EFFICIENT IN FIGHTING UNHEALTHY BEHAVIORS THAN EDUCATION
13 US-China L Rev 287 (#4 April 2016)
Posted by: LawProf John Banzhaf | Oct 16, 2024 3:37:20 PM
What AAUP or FIRE would do here is meaningless. A fascist is poised to seize control of the country, empowered by the fecklessness (or just plain mendacity) of legal sages such as yourself. Arguing about academia is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
Posted by: Vireo | Oct 16, 2024 12:52:23 PM
The response to this I have heard is that so long as these statements are extramural so long as there is no evidence of bias in the classroom. Is this just a factual dispute?
Posted by: depends | Oct 16, 2024 12:52:05 PM
I don't think you can lump FIRE in with the AAUP. I think FIRE would defend the right of a professor saying what you provide as a counter-example. I agree with you, however, on the AAUP.
Posted by: AML | Oct 16, 2024 9:26:37 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.