Free speech has its limits in academia

Author: Bryan Goldberg ’05

Thus far this year, America has witnessed two massively controversial incidences in which academic leaders uttered shocking and controversial remarks. The first scandal concerns Harvard University president Larry Summers - unarguably one of the world's greatest economic thinkers and a former Secretary of the Treasury under former President Clinton. The second is with regard to little known Ethnic Studies chair Churchill Ward of the University of Colorado. What is more surprising than the remarks themselves has been the reaction - Ward has grown something of a cult following from so-called civil liberty advocates who argue against his firing. Summers, in contrast, just received a no-confidence vote from Harvard's faculty, many of whom want him out. Why have these men inspired such differing responses?

Both Ward and Summers are guilty of at least one crime - uttering unpopular opinions. Summers suggested that the average woman might not be as good at math and science as the average man. Ward stated that many September 11 victims were analogous to Holocaust implementer Adolf Eichman. So what is the discrepancy between these two? Summers remarks may have been true, while Ward uttered complete nonsense.

It is not this article's purpose to confirm or deny the merits of the men v. women debate, but it is unarguable that there are some natural differences in our anatomies. Do these physical differences affect quantitative ability enough to produce more male math geniuses than female ones? Possibly - and it is something worth exploring. If, in the process, some women are offended or demoralized, then that is unfortunate but necessary. The pursuit of truth is far more significant than the pursuit of self-esteem. What's more, Summers is exploring the average man v. the average woman - he is not implying that every man is more quantitative than every last woman. Female scientists have a responsibility to applaud Summers - who delivered his remarks as a professor, not a school president - because he wants to pursue the truth. Could any pursuit be more in keeping with science?

In a well-ignored article, Churchill Ward suggested that American businessmen were ethically comparable to Hitler's most enthusiastic murderer. He defended his heinous thesis before hundreds of applauding well-wishers several weeks ago. Noam Chomsky, one of the world's most respected academics, sent him a congratulatory letter. Ward's ideas are so foolish that they do not warrant analysis; but, the fact that he had hundreds of well-wishers does deserve to be questioned. Any person who supports Ward's right to speak nonsense should at least do so while distancing themselves from the charlatan.

Still, Churchill Ward deserves to be fired in order to uphold the dignity of Colorado and all universities for that matter. The terms of tenure are implicitly contingent upon the production of quality material. Were a mathematics professor to only discuss "American Idol" in his classes, one would expect his termination. Ward's absurd writing is no more worthwhile or relevant than such nonsense. Many of his colleagues support his right to spout out acrimonious gibberish, yet his writings are not in keeping with free speech principles. Even the greatest defenders of speech acknowledge that certain words are not acceptable - racism leads to firing; speaking freely about top-secret information can land one in prison. Ward's tirades are no less offensive than mindless racism, and not a bit superior in terms of quality. Sadly, one must wonder if Ward is surviving because his wrath's target was capitalistic business people, predominantly white men. Is there anyone less popular in the academic world than an investment banker, financial planner or consultant? Last week, The Middlebury Campus juxtaposed Rudolph Giuliani - currently a successful consultant - with Adolf Hitler. But there was minimal outrage. This is the culture of university thinking. Certain people are fair game when it comes to political-correctness inspired attacks or Witch Hunts, others are not. For the record, another Harvard professor, Roland Fryer, has suggested that the average black may be genetically less intelligent than the average white man - but it's alright because he is black himself.

The academic world has failed to create an environment in which men like Summers are encouraged to discuss controversial, but potentially accurate ideas. Even worse, it is resigned to this fate, and it has failed to see the Summers speech as an opportunity to combat the political correctness that many recognize as problematic. Yet, many - though certainly not all - powers atop the ivory tower seem to support controversial ramblings like Ward's that are not rooted in any logical truth, so long as they oppose America, capitalism, or Caucasian males. For his part, Ward has made the dubious claim that he is a Native American. Maybe Summers should do the same thing - in the bizarre world of colleges, the possession of moral authority might have helped him escape the no-confidence vote.