[lbo-talk] Academic Freedom, was Re: Ward Churchill. . . .

[andie nachgeborenen]

A very strange view, Carrol. We should ignore a
well-documented expose of a purported scholar's shoddy
work, and treat that work as if the evidence of fraud,
fabrication, misrepresentation, etc. did not exist,
because the investigation was initially motivated
--improperly, I agree -- by revulsion against the
purported scholar's political views?  But all
knowledge is interested, driven by some agenda, that
is a basic principle of Marxism. You write as if only
investigations motivated by a disinterested love of
truth merit our attention. I suppose there may be such
a thing, but it's not very common (certainly not in
history or the social sciences), and for inquiries so
motivated to gain any traction they typically have to
be hooked to some kind of extra-academic interest.  In
fact, on your principle, we can ignore Churchill to
begin with, because his entire body of work is
motivated by political, extra-academic interests.  I
don't see anything wrong with that, myself,a s long as
the work is good.

Maybe you say that it's different because the initial
basis for investigating WC was itself suspect, an
attempt to discredit him because of his political
views. Well, if his work had been really solid, if he
hadn't been a liar, he wouldn't have gotten into the
sort of scholarly trouble he's in because of of those
views. Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein (to name two
solid controversial scholars) have been pissing off
people for years, but because their work is honest it
is their critics who have to lie, distort, and
misrepresent. Would that we could have said the same
in the case of WC. Or Bellisides, for that mater.

Me, well, I'm the leftist that likes Judge Posner and
Hayek, so I appreciate that real insight can come from
all sorts of dubious places and questionable
motivations. Sure, I agree that we ought to oppose
witchhunts based on people having unpopular views.
That doesn't mean that people with bad motivations and
investigations with foul beginnings can't turn up real
dirt, as this one did. And it maters. As Kelly says,
WC lied to _us_, he damaged _our_ standing and _our_
work.  He reduces smart people to saying, well, you
shouldn't treat him worse than other cheats and liars,
Some defense. Whatever the initial motivations of the
inquiry, WC has been weighed in the scales and found
wanting, and that is something we can't pretend we
don't know.


> I'm utterly uninterested in the details of the case
> because, from the
> viewpoint of either academic freedom or left
> politics those details are
> irrelevant.
> 
> Here is the principle that the case establishes, and
> it is a vicious
> principle:
> 
> The _origin_ of an investigation, no matter how
> illegitimate, no matter
> how poisonous nd contrary to all concepts of
> academic freedom, is
> irrelevant.
> 
> That is the line we have to defend. No Academic
> investigations triggered
> by outside political interference.
> 
> I am somewhat ashamed of the posters on this list
> and on lbo-talk who
> have utterly ignored the poisoned roots of this
> investigation and have
> contented themselves with the details of the
> investigation itself. But
> those details should be thrown out as irrelevant by 
> anyone who believes
> in academic freedom. They should be thrown out
> particularly by anyone
> who accepts the liberal emphasis on procedural
> legitimacy. The
> procedures in this case were an outrage from the
> beginning.
> 
> ---

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com