In the name of academic freedom, John Silber months ago boasted of Boston University’s success in resisting “political correctness” and “ideological fads” during his tenure as president. Now his words have backfired, as some faculty leaders ask whether he was imposing his own brand of dogma on the campus.
Administrators say the matter is “much ado about nothing,” but the issue has become so heated that during a faculty meeting last week, Mr. Silber called one professor “a liar and a coward” and accused him of “McCarthyism.” The professor, James Iffland, heads the Faculty Council and a faculty committee that examines academic freedom at BU. He and other members of that committee say Mr. Silber’s personal opinions have had a chilling effect on some scholarship and that a climate of fear exists among professors who oppose Mr. Silber’s views.
The academic-freedom committee last month asked Mr. Silber to clarify his remarks. It is now collecting information on alleged violations of academic freedom at BU.
Mr. Silber, who was out of town, could not be reached for comment. But in a letter released to the campus community last month, he elaborated on his views.
“Boston University has resisted the imposition of doctrines that would curtail intellectual and academic freedom,” he wrote, and added: “Some versions of critical theory, radical feminism, and multiculturalism, among other intellectual positions, are ideological in character and inhospitable to free intellectual inquiry.”
The controversy began over comments Mr. Silber made in April in the context of a 95-page report to the university’s Board of Trustees. The report outlined the university’s accomplishments over the last two decades under Mr. Silber’s leadership. After discussing faculty salaries and federally backed research, Mr. Silber turned briefly to issues of scholarship.
“This university has remained unapologetically dedicated to the search for truth and highly resistant to political correctness and to ideological fads,” the report said. “We have resisted relativism as an official intellectual dogma, believing that there is such a thing as truth, and if you can’t achieve it, at least you can approach it.”
In the report, Mr. Silber listed a few specific areas where such resistance had occurred: “We have resisted the fad toward critical legal studies. In the English Department and departments of literature, we have not allowed the structuralists or the deconstructionists to take over. We have resisted revisionist history.”
The report said the university had also resisted the “official dogmas of radical feminism,” and “the fad of Afrocentrism.” “We have not fallen into the clutches of the multi-culturists,” it said.
Some professors criticize Mr. Silber’s logic. “The notion that one should be against a whole set of academic disciplines on the argument of upholding academic freedom is implausible to me,” says a professor in the department of modern foreign languages, who asks not to be identified. Mr. Silber has long been an outspoken critic of “trendy” scholarship. But some faculty leaders say that his recent statements give validity to their concerns about infringements on academic freedom at the university.
Says George Psathas, a sociology professor: “This is not something that he said to a person in a conversation, this is not a lecture to the faculty, this is a review of his 23 years at the university that says what he’s accomplished, what’s been done, what actions have been taken.”
Some professors worry that Mr. Silber’s personal criticism of some areas of scholarship has led to an institutional “resistance,” and hence rejection, of certain doctoral dissertations. They say they have specific examples of such actions, but have yet to cite them because those involved fear repercussions from the administration.
Administrators, some department heads, and some professors deny these charges. They accuse a handful of faculty leaders of twisting the meaning of Mr. Silber’s words, which they say were meant to indicate the university’s strong support for academic freedom.
Says Jon Westling, executive vice-president and provost: “BU has conformed and continues to conform to the idea that universities are places where, in a context of scholarly inquiry, all views should be heard, all views should be expressed, and there ought to be a spirit of free inquiry among competent professors working in good faith.”
Mr. Westling says he knows of no cases where professors or students have suffered at BU because of the types of scholarship they pursued. He says there is room on the faculty for feminists and those who promote the study of different cultures.
