May 19, 2006
WRTA
 Brown
Shoes Diary
Academic Freedom: Leave the Taxpayers Out
of It
Yesterday I got an email from a dean at
Penn State announcing that Penn State is now 9th in the nation (having moved
up from 11th) in research awards and expenditures. Only in government and the
academy can one use expropriation and spending as the metrics of performance.
Worse than that, however, is the implicit bragging about the spending of
stolen money.
What's that have to do with academic freedom? Well, I think the record is
pretty clear that we academics are pretty hot for our own freedom, but we
don't seem to care one whit about the freedom of other people. I mean, how
does one morally justify using government to confiscate taxpayers' hard earned
money for one's own personal benefit? (Don't tell me this money provides
society with benefits because if it does universities will charge anyone who
uses their research the market rate, thus forcing them to pay a second time
for the same benefit.) Seems to me some of that stolen money could be well
spent on research in ethics, but even that wouldn't justify the theft.
[ True story: A college in Ohio got a half million dollar government "grant"
to study how to reduce government spending.]
There is a practical reason that academic institutions shouldn't be using
stolen property in their operations: Public monies create disputes and
contentiousness among those who ought to be united in the pursuit of truth.
As one example, thanks to colleges being on the dole, people spend valuable
public resources trying to define the proper bounds of academic freedom when,
in fact, it should be a non-issue for the public. If a college or university
was entirely privately funded, no First Amendment issues could arise. The
First Amendment applies limits only to actions of the government, not those of
private individuals and institutions. Remember the first five (and most
important words) of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law ?" It
would have been better if it just stopped there, but in any case, it clearly
was meant to apply to the national government and nobody else.
Am I saying I should be allowed to prevent you from saying whatever you want?
Absolutely, if you're on my property. Those who own the property in question
get to make whatever rules they want. In the case of a college, the trustees
act as fiduciaries for ownership so whatever rules that are agreed to by the
governing body are the rules that should apply. No reason to involve lawyers
and the law in private matters.
That's very easy to understand. Also easy to understand is the mess we get
into with the different kinds of taxpayer subsidized funding of all kinds for
universities and colleges. With the state involved (where it has no authority
to be involved) every dispute literally becomes a federal case. Professors
and students start claiming their rights are being violated anytime an
institutional rule interferes with their passionate beliefs. Of course, if
such schools are being funded by taxpayers, the taxpayers will demand to have
some say too. Thanks to socialistic education, academics spend a lot of time
and resources playing political games and that detracts from the missions of
these schools.
[ Another true story: A Hollidaysburg high school student threatened to sue
the school system because it forbade students from dying their hair blue. I
thought this laughable and frivolous, but the ACLU actually has a link on its
website on how to examine state laws to present such a case. Check out
http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/sybilfree.pdf ]
The right thing to do, morally and practically, is to privatize ALL
education. If a college wants to teach that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the
world then it has every right to do so with its own resources. If it's going
to require its professors to speak and embrace that theory, it has every right
to do that. Professors who don't subscribe to such truth and don't want to
work under those conditions are free to go elsewhere or start their own
college.
Similarly, if a college wants to teach there is no God and will employ only
atheists, who's to stop them? And if a college wants to try to reach a
balance between secular truth and theological wisdom, who's to stop them? But
nobody should be compelled to assist these folks through taxation.
Every institution ought to be free to pursue and promote truth as it sees fit
so long as it seeks no compulsory support whatsoever. When we get clear on
this point of personal sovereignty and freedom, the apparent thorny issues of
academic freedom disappear.
The opinions and ideas expressed in this essay are those of John D
McGinnis and should not be considered representative of WRTA.com, any
institution with which McGinnis is associated, or anyone else. He can be
contacted at zoiprof@atlanticbb.net.
Contact John D McGinnis
Back to
Main Page of Brown Shoes Diary
|