My Dialogue with a Prof

Since I began working at Accuracy in Academia one of my primary tasks has been reporting on the academic freedom movement. In pursuit of these stories, I have been able to attend hearings in Pennsylvania of the state House Select Committee on Academic Freedom at Temple University and Millersville University. I’ve listened to radio programming from Lion Radio at Penn State and have conversed with Pennsylvanians on the topic of academic freedom whenever possible.

Last week as I searched for new information on the issue I found an opinion piece by William Kashatus, assistant professor of History at Luzerne County Community College on CentreDaily.com. His entire article can be read here.

His article begins by saying that when he was a graduate student a professor wrote a comment on his dissertation draft that read, “You’re religious! What else is wrong with your thinking?”

“I immediately understood that my beliefs and his Marxist interpretation were at odds and that if I wanted a doctorate I would have to compromise my position,” wrote Kashatus.

He then briefly explains that David Horowitz is championing an Academic Bill of Rights and mentions the committee hearings that have been going on in Pennsylvania.

Then Kashatus comes to his conclusions, which are that the ABOR is a politically motivated attempt to stifle liberal speech, not simply to protect conservative speech, that the accumulated anecdotal evidence is not an “accurate barometer,” and that it discredits the intelligence of students and the integrity of professors.

“Most college professors are decent people who chose their career because they were inspired to teach young minds. In doing their jobs, professors are teaching critical thinking skills—how to formulate an argument, to question the stereotypes of society, to analyze a text—not trying to change the beliefs or political orientation of their students,” wrote Kashatus.

The article intrigued me, so I decided to ask Prof. Kashatus a few questions myself. Here is part of our email conversation:

JS: Do you believe students can play those politics while retaining their views or can playing politics erode their views?

WK: I refused to play the “politics of academic” and that’s why I was so disillusioned with the dissertation process. I’m certain that one could do so and still feel as if they retained the integrity of their own views, but I didn’t. I did however resolve the issue by going to the university’s ombudsman, part of the grievance process at that particular university. I might also add that shortly after I earned my doctorate, the graduate students formed a union in order to protect themselves from similar situations.

JS: Do students use the grievance procedures in place?

WK: Having taught at the University of Pennsylvania, West Chester University and now Luzerne County Community College, I have observed the grievance process and supported it at two of those institutions. From my experience, the students who use it are those who are highly motivated, intellectually curious, and aggressive in pursuit of a grade. Those are not value judgments, simply an observation. Some try to manipulate the process and I do not respect that. I do, however, defend their right to appeal because of my own experience in grad school.

JS: Are grievance procedures adequate and are they publicized? Do students know about them?

WK: The “adequacy” of the existing procedures is relative to the individual. I’m sure those who feel they’ve been victimized by a liberal professor feel that the procedures are not adequate, those who haven’t probably do. That’s where my op-ed originated. I was a victim. That is why I am very careful to respect the intellectual and political views of my students. My grades are based on the ability of a student to defend their position, orally and in writing; not on their position itself. At the same time, I do believe that the existing grievance procedures at the three institutions I’ve taught at are, indeed, adequate and students, if the issue is important to them, will be counseled on how to use them.

JS: What do you think will happen if the Academic Bill of Rights is adopted? How and why? Specifically, how will that stifle liberal views?

WK: My concern is not whether liberal views are stifled, but that all views: conservative, moderate and liberal, may be expressed in an atmosphere that is respectful of the intellectual enterprise and without fear of reprisal, either by a professor, or a student, which is just as likely these days. How, for example, will the ABOR protect a professor who is actually doing his/her job and grading student mastery of critical skills when the students claims that a poor grade reflects the professor’s liberal bias? Finally, I cannot see how the proposed ABOR would be implemented without violating the First Amendment.

Julia A. Seymour is a staff writer at Accuracy in Academia.