"... and in this respect we are deeply dismayed with the actions Professor Sara Goldrick-Rab has taken toward students and faculty on Twitter in recent weeks to discourage them from coming here. While claiming to stand for academic freedom, she has in fact damaged that principle and our institution with inaccurate statements and misrepresentations. We stand with our fellow faculty, staff, and students who have devoted themselves to maintaining and building on our university’s extraordinary and distinguished record of teaching, research, and service to the people of Wisconsin and beyond."
That's the University Committee Statement — dated today, signed by Beth Meyerand (chair), Dorothy Farrar-Edwards, Thomas Broman, Amy Wendt, Ruth Litovsky — reacting to what we were just talking about this morning in the post titled "UW professor under fire for tweeting at incoming freshmen."
The most interesting word in the statement is "actions" — "we are deeply dismayed with the actions Professor Sara Goldrick-Rab has taken toward students and faculty on Twitter...." It's not "actions," it's speech.
Now, the Committee is not suppressing the speech. It's only providing more speech, objecting to the things Goldrick-Rab has said. I object to the things she's saying and hate to see students scared over things that I don't think will affect them. But I think it would be better to address the substance of Goldrick-Rab's remarks rather than to call her speech "actions" and to accuse her of damaging the principle of academic freedom.
89 comments:
"It's not "actions," it's speech."
Speech directed at specific incoming Freshmen is also an "action."
Complaining in a public forum about policy changes is one thing, issuing "warnings" to such students another.
The faculty reaction is itself a bit over the top, but they are right to call her on irresponsibility.
Even Progs have to care about their image.
I don't think it is a mystery why the word was used, is it? Goldrick-Rab is going to face some sort of penalty, and that penalty seems more just if it is tied to an "action" rather than something she said.
"It's not "actions," it's speech."
I don't agree. I think "actions" is a reasonable characterization of what Goldrick-Rab did. These students didn't approach her, she went looking for them.
It's not "actions," it's speech.
If an "action" (say burning the American flag) can be "speech", why can't "speech" be "action"?
As many have said on the earlier thread, Goldrick-Rab was engaging in creepy stalker-like behavior.
I hope UW provides a safe space for those incoming freshmen where they can be protected from non-value added "scholars" who see Hitler trying to take away their tenure.
It sounds to me like she needs some sensitivity training and perhaps some anger management, and you know what? Let's throw in a little psychological assessment as well.
If I were one of those incoming freshman I would complain that as a transgender lesbian Polynesian woman, or at least that's how I identify, I felt very uncomfortable with this frat boy racist rapist professor, or at least that's how I identify her, and demand to know what the university was going to do about it.
It's being an adult these days..............
The prospective students did not seem too worried. That's good. Plus this provided a service. Best that the students learn as early as possible that some of the people teaching them should be avoided. And I don't just mean Goldrick-Rab. The people who would like to discipline her are even more dangerous.
They are still allowing her speech to remain free. They just don't want to be associated with her "inaccurate statements and misrepresentations". Her action is bearing false witness, by telling students/customers that the value of the degree is now diminished, and all the faculty is leaving. What prof is going to leave a lib haven like Madison?
I wonder if this distancing also includes Ms. Goldrick-Rab's hyperbolic assertion that Walker is a fascist and is eerily similar to Hitler. Probably not. It's self-preservation.
After the bad publicity in the Journal they could not remain neutral and let Professor Goldrick-Rab be the short term face of the UW faculty. The winds have shifted in Wisconsin, and many in the red counties think the UW staff are nutty enough.
The Wisconsin public and those that send their kids to UW are the paying customers. They are also the taxpayers that voted for those that approved the budget cuts and reforms. Maybe the new reality is sinking in, and it really isn't as bad as University employees have stated.
Don't you think most of the criticism has, in fact, been against the substance of what she said? Certainly among your readers.
I work for a place that has some controversial involvement with public issues (mostly land use). We have a social media policy. I am not allowed to comment on these issues even if I make it clear that I am not speaking for my employer. Grow up, Althouse. If I don't get free speech, Goldrick-Rab doesn't free speech. We're all equal here in America.
It's too much to ask that university professors act as grownups?
"Speech directed at specific incoming Freshmen is also an "action.""
Selectively addressing particular listeners doesn't turn speech into an action.
This has to be the worst day in Professor Goldrick-Rab's career. First she is publicly shamed in the Journal, who for some reason decided to cover a complaint levied by College Republicans. Later the same day she is betrayed and abandoned by her peers, who in her mind, are the very people she pretends to protect from the evil fascist actions of Governor Walker.
She has to be seething this evening. The comedic irony is that she probably lacks the self-awareness to realize her immature, unprofessional actions/speech are the very things that diminish the value of the degree and the academic environment.
Sorry. It's funny.
I'll defend to my death the right of Sara Goldrick-Rab to the free expression of her views. If her views are immature, irresponsible, inflammatory and detrimental to her employer, I welcome the consequences of her ill advised actions.
I don't want to stifle of punish the Professors speech. Keep going.
But isn't assault a threat that doesn't require action, but only the realistic combination of the speech and the ability to carry out the threat? In that case isn't speech a punishable action?
I still think you are being too dismissive of the power relationship.
You're reading "who are you lol" as who are you to snark at us?
Instead, read it as "who is this person?". I think once the students discovered this could be one of their teachers at UW, and in control of decisions that would affect their future, they had a right to worry.
Ann is getting a little Clintonian with her differentiation of "speech" and "action". The faculty idiot has a right to say whatever she wants, but once she directed that verbiage toward those specific students in my view she took action inappropriate to her role as a member of the UW faculty. The faculty are right to censure her.
Perhaps Ann could enlighten us as to why this speech is appropriate rather than continue with her one-liner responses that hint that she knows more than we do.
Your last paragraph is dead on, Ann.
If Two-names says something disparaging or incorrect, rebut. It's as simple as that. No need to condemn. That''s free speech. The old "having a conversation."
If I were an incoming, I'd be wondering if UW is my university of choice. No one in the administration had a good response to Sara.
Wow! There are just so many similarities between the Committee's statement and Hitler that I can't even wrap my head around it. It's a regular kristallnact. -CP
"I'd prefer not to bake wedding cakes for gay couples." seems like speech to me.
The professor has the right to publish any such statements she wishes. I don't know that she has the right to continued and unfettered employment when she makes statements in circumstances which could conceivably affect her ability to continue to fulfill her conditions of employment, as in maintain relationships with the students she contacted and others, who might understandably be averse to having her in a position of influence over them. So, I guess in these specific circumstances, there is a rather fine distinction between the speech content and the speech target. I certainly wouldn't want to be graded by a professor who allowed personalities and personal beliefs - fascism? really? - to interject so deeply into professional conduct that her judgement is in obvious question.
I'm trying to imagine an equally bat-shit crazy right wing professor contacting new students about the Bolshy-pinko anarcho-techincal admin plots and discouraging them from attending as planned, for fear of being purged (in the Stalinist, not Greek, sense of the word).
"Selectively addressing particular listeners doesn't turn speech into an action."
The operative word was "also."
Mere linguists and philosophers might insist that all speech consists of acts. Some are even studied at UW, I suspect. Not at the Law School, I take it.
Good thing your faculty colleagues show more sense and good judgment.
"I'd prefer not to bake wedding cakes for gay couples." seems like speech to me.
Good catch. I had forgotten Ann's opinion on their free speech. Double standard. Maybe if the students were gay...
I was beginning to think that Ann was beginning to get a little uncomfortable with her side’s policies and procedures. I mean, she even called Planned Parenthood’s organ harvesting program “harrowing” as opposed to the right of women to choose what to do with their bodies. And her comments on making the Little sisters of the Poor pay for birth control sounded faintly sympathetic. And she seems to support the victims of the Chisholm’s jack booted thugs who instituted a reign of terror against anyone associated with Scott Walker. But she is still the kind of person who simply wasn’t able to see Obama for what he was in 2008 and she never will be. She’s like Atticus Finch, a bigot who gets a few things right from time to time, but on the whole … a bigot to the end. As Ann is fond of saying, if it were not for double standards I would have not standards at all.
"Selectively addressing particular listeners doesn't turn speech into an action."
Be sure to advise the Secret Service.
"The prospective students did not seem too worried."
I doubt the STEM majors are worried. Who cares if "African -American Studies "majors don't show up?
It's not "actions," it's speech.
She sought out their tweets, addressed tweets to them, and typed out her weird little tweets and hit send.
She performed actions, carrying her speech. She didn't speak. She typed. She tweeted. She sought. She linked.
Now, none of that is illegal. But it isn't *just* speech.
Doubt is it's the worst day of her life. She's finally getting her 15 minutes of CHORF fame. She's probably reveling in it tonight with some indignant sympathetic friends and a little wine. Fight the Power! Smash the State! Stick it to the Man! Street cred is not what it used to be.
Seeking out students and tweeting them is ugly. It was ugly.
It took an action to jump on Twitter to seek out incoming students. And then she "spoke" to the students who were otherwise minding their own business.
Action is, of course, a bad word in the academy, a micro aggression in itself.
And as to the suggestion that the students should have had a conversation, no need to condemn, blah blah blah, consider this: no. No. No more conversations, just aggressive boots in the faces to these dipshits. Because the conversations are always one way so stop pretending you are dying to hear our reasoned arguments. Because you are not. So watch it.
It is speech, but it is intended to damage her employer. She is free to state her mind, but her employer should be free to terminate her in this case.
The college republicans asked the university to address her statements, not to take action against her. They addressed her statements, and didn't take any action against her. What's the problem?
Keep smacking 'em, Althouse. You rock.
This is like the old Hugo Black days. They're actually going after Commies now.
Once you start the fascism, there is no end to it.
Pay attention, liberals! The nanny state wants your head, too!
I picture the University of Wisconsin as if it's Woody Allen's giant boob.
It wants to nurture but it will crush you!
SGT Ted said...
"I'd prefer not to bake wedding cakes for gay couples." seems like speech to me.
Thread winner. Seems like speech to me, too.
Suppose I run a bakery and am asked to provide a cake for a SS wedding.
"I would really prefer not to" I might say. "I am an atheist but I find what you are doing disgusting. You might consider taking your business down the street.
"However," I continue, "I am required by law to provide service to the likes of you and I will. I'll bake you the same cake as anyone else and won't spit in the batter or anything."
So I assume that Ann and everyone would defend my speech rights here, right? After all, I am not taking any actions (or more correctly not refusing to act). I am not threatening to harm the cake. Just the opposite, I promise I won't spit in it.
It's only speech. We're all good to go. Right?
I am not saying it is good business or right, just that the baker would be within their free speech rights. Or would that be "hate" speech subject to sanction?
John Henry
From a previous post
[Sara Goldrick-Rab... a professor of educational policy studies and sociology]
Wow, a threefer.
Not just an Ed school professor
Not just an ed policies professor
But a sociology professor as well.
How bent does a person have to be to be a professor of 3 completely useless, contentless, disciplines at the same time?
I think UW has too much money if they can afford professors like this. OTOH, perhaps the silver lining is that it is only one professor for all three. Perhaps by combining all three in one position, they can add up to about 25% of the value in a normal discipline.
I dont even know Professor Sara Goldrick-Rab but feel the need to defend her. An 18 year old disagreeing with a decorated college professor. is NOT grounds for dismissal.
If your response to a Professor asking you to do some research is to say "no one cares sara", you have bigger problems than College can fix.
If you are not going to College to expand your mind and challenge your beliefs and world views stay home and go to University of Phoenix
Professor Goldrick-Rab had the unmitigated gall and childlike naivety to ask some incoming freshmen to do some research! If there is one thing we have found out these last 6 years, the Scott Walker supporters know what they know and there is no need for any opposite or opposing opinions.
http://cognidissidence.blogspot.com/2015/07/uw-professor-naively-harrasses-incoming.html?m=1
"Everyone in this class is expected to participate in next weekend's pro-life demonstration at the capital."
It's just free speech.
My professor texted me!
Oh sure, babies get a knife in the neck, Jews in wheelchairs get pushed into the ocean, children are raped, homeless people are starving, innocent people on death row.
But my professor texted me!
Yep, research. By linking to an op-ed. Hey! I've got a college degree! I'm going to start mailing complete strangers with links to op-eds that I agree with! How can anyone object to doing 'research'?
"I hate to bring bad news but," her tweet began. She then linked to an opinion piece published in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel with the headline: "Threats to shared governance and tenure put mission of UW at risk."
If I was a college prof, I guess I could tweet random students to research the Amway products I am selling. Because free speech!
Speech can also be action: You're fired. I resign. I promise to guard the house. I now pronounce you husband and wife. I pardon you.
When you are in a position of authority or potential authority over the people you are harrassing, it is not "speech", Ann... by the proglodytes' own definition, it is "bullying" or, dare I say it? microaggression... Shame on her.
Suppose a prof had tweeted freshmen an op-ed about how many affirmative admits fail to make to a four-year degree and are wasting taxpayer resources?
Hey, it's free speech about university governance!
I object to the things she's saying and hate to see students scared over things that I don't think will affect them.
Oh please. No students were scared by this tweet...it's not like she threatened to close all the bars on State Street.
Academics, at least in the humanities, seem to have a problem with equal rights. For example, they think that their thumbs up -- gays, thumbs down -- Christians should have a lot more political sway than the guy who fixes their car. This is America. You don't like equality, you could always go somewhere else.
Incoming students: email me selfies of your breasts or I might quit.
Weighs about the same.
I am Laslo.
I've noticed a high correlation between hyphenated names and a certain worldview.
I seem to remember that Ms. Goldrick-Rab posted some pretty vile things about the governor back during the days of the Capitol occupation. No doubt she's too self-absorbed to realize that her very presence at the UW devalues the place.
And yeah, seeking out students on Twitter and starting an argument with them is action, not just speech.
"But I think it would be better to address the substance of Goldrick-Rab's remarks rather than to call her speech "actions" and to accuse her of damaging the principle of academic freedom."
Yes, that would be good. But essentially all lefties, esp. academic lefties, are totalitarians, and they hate the idea of engaging with people who are disagreeing with them.
In this case, they'd have the better argument. If they are willing to make it. But often their arguments are so asinine that they can't possibly want to establish the precedent of actually having to discuss things, and let the other side present its point of view, too.
That's the whole point of "speech codes" after all, giving the thugs the power to shut up anyone they disagree with.
UW professor under fire for tweeting at incoming freshmen.
It's kind of like...
Robespierre decapitated.
I understand the glee of watching socialists eat their own.
Nonetheless, be mindful that your schadenfreude doesn't turn you into a mindless mob who is hostile to free speech. We have enough mobsters already.
You're wrong on this one Anne. This is the same situation as a business with its customers. It's not a free speech issue when an employee disses the businesses or insults the customers.
Professor Sara Goldrick-Rab has the right to post what she wants on publicly forums. Students and others have the right to tell her to fuck off. The college has the right to wonder if she's doing the job she's paid to do and fire her if not.
The University Committee is quite interesting. Four scientists, and one specialist in the history of science. The four scientists are women. The history of science person is a guy. They are all white. None of them went to northeastern ivy leagish schools.
There may be a diversity violation here, but it's not of the usual type.
Joe said...
Professor Sara Goldrick-Rab has the right to post what she wants on publicly forums. Students and others have the right to tell her to fuck off. The college has the right to wonder if she's doing the job she's paid to do and fire her if not.
You nailed it until the right to fire her part.
By the way, though I think Professor Hyphenate-Rab is a fool, I defend her right to say foolish and even offensive things. This forum is full of people telling the "little snowflakes" at colleges to grow up, and then some of us get bunched panties because a professor tweeted something critical. Hyphenate-Rab sounds very unpleasant to me, but she has a right to be unpleasant, even to the not yet matriculated snowflakes.
...such freedoms requires responsible behavior...
Or else what? Responsible determined by a committee?
Ditto what Joe said.
The tweets were inappropriate and childish. The university should simply apologize for having such poor thinker on their faculty
It would be great if she followed through on her threat to leave, but layabouts like her never do. If she and the other malcontents left, it would undoubtedly redound to the benefit of UW and its students.
I wouldn't be surprised if Goldrick-Rab is a professor of middling abilities who is doing this in an effort to insulate her from ever losing her position. If her tenure was threatened, now she can say they are just trying to silence her, when in reality she probably isn't that good at her job.
I doubt she'll convince many students to not attend UW. It's more likely she'll convince a lot of students to avoid her classes and perhaps the entire sociality department. If so, is that a bad thing?
They use the argument most likely to win. Today this is an argument from offense.
When free speech by the Right has negative consequences - including the loss of a job - while free speech by the Left has no consequences there is a serious free speech problem which cannot be resolved by preaching to the Right about free speech. Passivity in the face of asymmetric attacks does not resolve the problem unless one has a death wish. The left will not police it's own and the stupid middle to which Ann would like to belong is like a pacifist in war, an enemy fifth column. In the case of Ms. Hyphen, what she was doing was harassment. Feel free to defend verbal or written harassment as free speech, but don't squawk about blowback when it occurs.
Obama "joked" about auditing his opponents. SSDD.
I doubt she'll convince many students to not attend UW.
Not being a resident of Wisconsin I doubt if any of my grandchildren would consider attending UW. However, if one were to mention that desire I would have to urge them to reconsider simply based on the contents of Ann's blog. She has managed to bare all of her employer's warts here over the years.
David
But these particular kids aren't snowflakes. Which is the point. They punched back through mockery and then took the aggressive lefty approach of ratting her out to the authorities. It is at this point that the professor and others jump in and call for a "conversation" as though professor hyphen has the slightest interest in their views or any inclination to listen.
I think the days of leaning in and having a conversation are about over. Even high schoolers have gotten the picture.
I understand the motive behind this internecine warfare typical of Wisconsin academics. The timing is interesting given the recent ruling by Wisconsin Supreme Court regarding the "John Doe" method of suppressing speech. It beggars credulity to not see the connection between academics and local "Special" this or that positions making the rules to cover their unlawful actions against those they don't agree with. The so-called "JOHN DOE" method of mind control continues under the guise of academic freedom of speech. Wisconsin is an unfriendly place for anyone who doesn't toe the liberal line.
it would be better to address the substance of Goldrick-Rab's remarks
These comments addressed the prof's insubstantial nonsense:
"No one cares sara,"
"Who are you lol"
On 7/1/15, Professor Goldrick-Rab tweeted:
"My grandfather, a psychologist, just walked me through the similarities between Walker and Hitler. There are so many- it's terrifying."
From nation-wide examples it most strongly appears that "Academic Freedom" is NOT allowed students, especially as to that fiction of "Micro-Aggressions"
Ann Althouse said...
Selectively addressing particular listeners doesn't turn speech into an action.
Speech is an action:
speech (spēch)
n.
1.
a. The faculty or act of speaking.
b. The faculty or act of expressing or describing thoughts, feelings, or perceptions by the articulation of words.
Hard to respond to "substance" when none exists.
I hope UW provides a safe space for those incoming freshmen where they can be protected from non-value added "scholars" who see Hitler trying to take away their tenure.
Ridicule seems the appropriate response for her puerile behavior.
BTW, how can one blog about whether a tenured prof can be fired for inappropriate speech without mentioning Marquette's McAdams?
http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/02/stripping-a-professor-of-tenure-over-a-blog-post/385280/
This professor wrote reports that helped develop Obama's recent policy on free community colleges. She probably is headed for another job closer to the font of life - Washington DC. Victim cred is now a resume requirement. So she issues a prophecy - in a year I will be gone. And then becomes offensive about the university. And works away at developing an internet profile of victimization by Scott Walker. I predict she will be making appearances on behalf of the Democratic candidate, denouncing Scott Walker while holding down a tenured job at the University of Chicago Sociology department.
And, PS, she will be cheering for the Bears. Or perhaps trying to abolish them. Maybe she could tweet Bear fans about their rotten team. Run, Sara, Run.
If this were a court decision those calling professor idiot's tweets an "action" - and inappropriate - would have a huge majority, putting Ann's interpretation firmly in the minority. Sorry, ANN.
What I love about this story is how she never thought this through:
Her engagement is designed to scare off SJWs and sociology majors, which decreases demand for her services.. There is no power dynamic because all of these students will either steer clear of her and never need a grade from her or take her class to challenge her worldview and make her miserable. She was expecting respect and deference which is normally the right of a professor, but she is not their professor and they owe her nothing. Now she has squandered her inherent authority as a professor. Not a strategic mind here.
On the flip side if they take her class and get a bad grade they too can claim retaliation.
As for "are tweets an action": is a blog an action? or is it free speech?
Was Ellen Pao of Reddit right to censor Reddit?
Is the picture of journalists roped into a corral and being dragged down the street by Hillary's minions an artistic presentation of how Hillary thinks about journalists? and thus free speech?
The dumb cunt is now crying victim on her twitter account.
Apparently she only likes Alinsky's rules for radicals when they are used on the targets she approves of.
Fuck her.
"She was expecting respect and deference which is normally the right of a professor"
Which is why "no one cares sara" was such a classic response. She's just an internet troll named Sara to them.
I don't think the nut job should be disciplined. Wisonsin SHOULD fire her for being a nutjob though. She could then become the martyr she truly wishes to be, and your students wouldn't be instructed by a nutjob. Win/win baby!!
"She was expecting respect and deference which is normally the right of a professor"
Perhaps if she'd shown some of the respect and deference to others, she'd get some in return. She has the right to say stupid things about Scott Walker but not the right to feel no backlash for what she says. Some people fail to grasp that freedom of speech works both ways. Besides, professors such as herself have shown by their words and actions that they aren't worthy of much respect or deference, much less do they have an inherent right to it.
Wait a minute. An employee, even a tenured (?) employee of a public university, owes his or her employer some level of institutional loyalty. If they are unable to provide that, they should resign. It is one thing to speak in opposition to a particular policy (in a letter or op ed in the campus newspaper, say) and another thing to target incoming freshmen with the intent of discouraging them from attending. I don't actually know what "tortious interference" means to lawyers, but that's what this sounds like to me.
I look at the offensive tweets as something similar to a pedophile grooming a potential victim: IF the child doesn't run away screaming "STRANGER DANGER!" or immediately get the parents involved, THEN the grooming can continue.
Enjoy your time at UW, freshman class! You get as much of this kind of behavior as you will tolerate, and then you get the mandatory stuff.
"But I think it would be better to address the substance of Goldrick-Rab's remarks rather than to call her speech "actions" and to accuse her of damaging the principle of academic freedom."
Speech can have an action quality to it: Say you were lounging in your front yard and I approached and tried to get you to join some cause. This would have elements of action that just posting such arguments on an obscure blog would not have. There are plenty of grey areas: How about a phone call to your office (I assume the UWM website has office numbers for faculty and staff), what about your home number or cell number? A direct message on twitter or Facebook has qualities of action, though is clearly not purely action.
So much Alt-parse...
I bet the students feel the same about the back patting of the Admins lofty "We're so much better than this" response:
"Nobody cares..we're coming for the piece of paper."
Nobody cares..we're coming for the piece of paper.
Yup. I remember back at my very liberal college, G. Gordon Liddy (Nixon) somehow managed to wrangle an invitation to speak. He gave one of those "this is how the world you are about to enter really works" speeches. Got a standing ovation.
My professors were mortified. For the rest of the week they moped around like there had been a death in the family. I was liberal then, and earned brownie points by being the only student who refused to stand or clap. But I think that for the professors, the incident was their first awakening to the fact that no one cared about all their liberal preaching. "We're coming for the piece of paper"
If your response to a Professor asking you to do some research is to say "no one cares sara", you have bigger problems than College can fix.
Lame analysis, the students didn't know she was a UW Professor when she attempted to indoctrinate them over Twitter.
"When free speech by the Right has negative consequences - including the loss of a job - while free speech by the Left has no consequences there is a serious free speech problem which cannot be resolved by preaching to the Right about free speech. Passivity in the face of asymmetric attacks does not resolve the problem unless one has a death wish. The left will not police it's own and the stupid middle to which Ann would like to belong is like a pacifist in war, an enemy fifth column. In the case of Ms. Hyphen, what she was doing was harassment. Feel free to defend verbal or written harassment as free speech, but don't squawk about blowback when it occurs."
Belay that order Scotty, we just encountered intelligent life. There is hope.
Post a Comment