To the Editor;
In the 19th century, the New Thought spiritual movement introduced the world to the concept of manifestation, through which people could wish things into existence. This concept seems to have found new life in the recent opinion piece by Professor Mark Berkson (“Hamline’s President Goes on the Offensive”, The Chronicle Review, September 19). He appears to wish that our September 12 academic-freedom event meant something other than what it actually did.
I begin my comments as I have begun them throughout the controversy that surrounded Hamline, which Professor Berkson seems to be doing his level best to prolong. We support his academic freedom. As a tenured faculty member, he has an absolute right to say whatever he wishes about his employer and to teach his classes however he pleases. His essay is a perfectly legitimate extension of the debate.
However, his essay is also incorrect on certain points, deeply hurtful to certain members of our community, and shows a near-total lack of understanding of, or appreciation for, what actually did happen on our campus on September 12.
Sadly, the inflammatory picture The Chronicle created to accompany Professor Berkson’s article — our beautiful, historically listed administrative building, Old Main, grotesquely tilted to one side — helps stir the pot. The picture’s angle would indicate that the old, warmed-over arguments, had they been theoretically placed inside Old Main, would have likely drained into my office, along with the contents of most of our first floor. Truth is not served by sensationalized pictures.
I must have said this a thousand times in the past, but I am now forced to say it again: The events of last winter at Hamline University did not occur in the manner reported by most of the mass media. Sadly, these warmed-over allegations now find themselves reheated in this publication through Professor Berkson’s commentary.
As for the arguments in question: A federal court has already dismissed four of the five claims alleged by our former adjunct, and the viability of the final claim is in doubt. While the decision is still subject to appeal, and the matter is proceeding, we remain confident in our position. That said, the matter is still in litigation, which is perhaps the most important reason of all that the controversy was not a focal point of the September 12 event at Hamline University. Professor Berkson ought to know this.
Yes, Michael Eric Dyson spoke forcefully. Yes, Robin DiAngelo, Tim Wise, and Stacy Hawkins spoke with great conviction. Yet, I think they might be taken aback if they were led to believe that somehow Professor Berkson held some sort of veto power over their genuinely held beliefs and common-sense understanding of student sensibilities and their relation to academic freedom in the 21st century because they didn’t say what he wanted them to say. We don’t need to hear anyone tell the world what we “really meant.” We all saw and heard it for ourselves.
And as for Hamline’s own Distinguished University Professor of Political Science, David Schultz — we were honored by his presence. We firmly believe he belongs on a panel of national experts because Hamline has a voice in the national conversation and his voice is known throughout the world. Yet, he also realized that the purpose of the forum was not to rehash old arguments but to help advance the conversation so that others might learn about this issue and the importance it has for higher education.
The overwhelming feeling in the room that day was not that Hamline needed to apologize. Instead, it was that higher education must find a better way to support academic freedom and still meet the needs of our students in a rapidly changing educational environment. We would welcome Professor Berkson’s support in this endeavor but completely understand if he chooses otherwise. He does have academic freedom.
However, in defense of Hamline’s good name, I must note that it is not for him to say, or to claim, that Hamline conducted no internal investigation. It is also not for him to cast aspersions on the motives of any member of the Hamline administration.
I would further remind him that the unfounded claims and insinuations in the AAUP report he referenced were made possible through the complete cooperation of Hamline University in the report’s production, even though Hamline is not an AAUP member and was under no obligation to take part.
We have clarified our statements. We have examined ourselves and grown from the experience. We have voluntarily subjected ourselves to external review, and offered amends to those of our faculty, like Professor Berkson, who are upset. It is up to him, and them, as to whether they are acceptable. However, I will never abandon our students. They will be heard, they will be listened to and they will leave my office feeling like they belong.
Finally, to the subject of “doubling down.” Professor Berkson, perhaps ironically, claims Hamline is “doubling down” on its position by virtue of its September 12 event and a free-speech event we co-sponsored with the Georgetown University Free Speech Project one week later. Actually, Hamline was making good on a promise we made last winter, that of being a leader in the national conversation about academic freedom and free-speech rights. With all due respect to Professor Berkson, it appears he himself has done the “doubling down” by dredging up his old arguments, with the help of The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Fayneese Miller
President
Hamline University
St. Paul, Minn.
Correction (September 28, 2023, 3:49 p.m.): A previous version of this letter asserted that “the AAUP report did not conclude that Hamline had violated anyone’s academic freedom, an inconvenient truth that rarely seems to make its way into commentaries like Professor Berkson’s.” In fact, according to the AAUP, their “report concludes that the administration of Hamline University violated the academic freedom of Professor Erika López Prater.” The letter has been corrected.