Perhaps not so silly. Remember that one of the reasons of faculty discontent over the last several years has been the perception that academic freedom was constrained.

Matory is asking his colleagues to signal whether they still believe in academic freedom.

Maybe he should ask the same question to the many administrators that have usurped governance functions previously held by faculty. And maybe he is also asking whether his faculty colleagues turned administrators --deans and deanlets-- still believe in academic freedom.

Not an entirely futile exercise...
 

Then, 9.17, Matory's resolution should read, "This Faculty believes in academic freedom." Or, "This Faculty calls on the University's administrators to affirm academic freedom" (and then explaining how that's done). R-Brad is right. The correct wording is laughable, execrable.
 

Or, if the real issue is that Ruth Wisse has hurt Matory's feelings (and certainly she sounds like a holy terror), then his resolution could state, "This Faculty censures Professor Wisse for uncollegial and hostile remarks against her colleagues on an issue on which sincere and honest people can reasonably disagree." It's the plaintive, almost babyish mealy-mouthedness of the resolution's wording that's so distasteful, I find.
 

It would be unfair to attribute Professor Matory's initiative to the recent actions of Professor Wisse.

Is it possible for black male members of the faculty to be assertive and principled without sounding too aggressive to their colleagues?
 

Deft playing of the race card, 10.36. Who said or implied anything about Matory's being black?
 

Perhaps Matory could suggest that Harvard administrators, and perhaps even the faculty, take the following test, in the privacy of their offices. Who knows? they might learn something...

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/
 

10.38, how do you know that Matory's concerns for freedom for faculty are not based on his own personal experiences? How can he parcel out his racial identity from his experience on his freedom to speak his mind at Harvard?
 

If Matory's concern for academic freedom relates to his perceptions re the freedoms of minority faculty, the report released by the Provost's Office last June provides support for the proposition that the context at Harvard is not as supportive of minorities as it is of others. The report is discussed at some length in the current issue of the Harvard Magazine.

http://www.faculty.harvard.edu/

In due time we should expect Professor Matory to clarify whether these issues where on his mind when he proposed the statement.
 

Richard, EADW: I agree with you that the wording of the motion is silly. However, now that it's coming before the faculty meeting, it should still be supported.

You say that the symbolic impact of it passing would be to make the facilty look "spoiled" -- why and to whom? I suspect that to casual observers it would seem an entirely reasonable action. If anything, i would think people who are not readers of this blog might link the motion to the way people reacted to Summers' women-in-science remarks -- ie, encouraging people to state such views freely.

On the other hand, what's the symbolic impact of NOT passing this motion, now that it's on the agenda? That seems to me to be a much worse outcome now that this motion has been put forward -- although, again, I agree it very likely need never have been put forward at all.
 

Let's analyze the subtext of the previous commentary:

"I agree it very likely need never have been put forward at all."

But a member of the faculty must have felt it necessary to put it forward, since he did so.

Hence that member of the faculty must be cognitively challenged to not see the obvious, or perhaps he has ulterior motives for creating such discomfort for his colleagues with a superfluous action. This colleague surely is not to be trusted.

How is Professor Matory to read this response to his initiative? as an indication that freedom of speech is welcome? or that one has to be calculating about what to say so as not to trigger the suspicions of one's colleagues?

Sounds as if, once again, Matory is speaking with courage on matters that others do not see or do not care to speak up about.
 

There is solid research on the processes of self-evaluation of academics, in particular in how academics from minority backgrounds cope with self-image threat. By posing an extra self-evaluative and belongingness threat to such groups as African Americans in all academic domains and women in quantitative domains -- these processes influence intellectual performance and academic identities. Maybe Matory is providing a good opportunity for the faculty to have a serious discussion of these topics. Not futile at all.
 

How quickly people forget. A year into his tenure as President Larry Summers asked the Deans to discuss with their faculties a 'Statement of Values'. The Statement was, in many ways, full of the same kind of platitudes Professor Matory is now proposing. Perhaps President Summers thought it necessary to obtain an explicit commitment of his faculty to these values, even though he did not articulate why he had reason to question their preexisting commitment to them. President Summers' initiative was well received by the FAS faculty, and by other faculties.

What Matory is suggesting is of a very similar tone, except for the obvious fact that Summers' statement ommited the commitment to academic freedom. Why is his initiative received so differently by some of his colleagues?

Harvard University aspires to provide education and scholarship of the highest quality — to advance the frontiers of knowledge and to prepare individuals for life, work, and leadership. Achieving these aims depends on the efforts of thousands of faculty, students, and staff across the University. Some of us make our contribution by engaging directly in teaching, learning, and research, others of us, by supporting and enabling those core activities in essential ways. Whatever our individual roles, and wherever we work within Harvard, we owe it to one another to uphold certain basic values of the community. These include:

Respect for the rights, differences, and dignity of others
Honesty and integrity in all dealings
Conscientious pursuit of excellence in one’s work
Accountability for actions and conduct in the workplace
The more we embrace these values in our daily lives, the more we create and sustain an environment of trust, cooperation, lively inquiry, and mutual understanding — and advance a commitment to education and scholarship, which all of us share.
 

Professor Matory's statement is embracing and protecting Professor Wisse's right to speak her mind. Why is this so objectionable to her colleagues?
 

Perhaps Professor C. West could comment on the initiative of Professor Matory. He would be a good person to share his comparative experiences speaking his mind at Harvard and Princeton.
 

Prof Matory: so long as you are going to be posting multiple anonymous comments here refering to yourself in the third person, why not go whole hog and adopt a number of pseudonyms to make it seem like even more people support your motion?
 

The previous poster is a nice example of what prejudice does to the mind. There's no evidence whatsoever that these postings are made by Professor Matory, but the writer assumes that the ideas of Professor Matory cannot elicit support from anyone else but himself.

Have you read the work of
KWAME ANTHONY APPIAH? He would be a good person to talk about the differences between Harvard and Princeton.
 

What are you, colormute?
 

Amazing that 11:36am doesn't even offer a perfunctory denial of being Matory.
 

do you need to know who posts an idea to be able to respond to the idea? why is it to hard to address issues on their merits?
 

I'm coming to this late. And full disclosure: I'm not an academic. So maybe I just don't understand. But by god the idiocy of some of these posts. This resolution is (a) toothless (impossible to enforce, because impossible to define), (b) wimpy, (c) the product of a warped idea about debate, (d) free speech chilling and (e) stupid on the merits. Putting aside what it means to feel "safe", who's judging what is "reasoned" and "evidence-based"? This crap really puts the ivory back in ivory tower!
 

Perhaps the Crimson or the Boston Globe should ask Professor Matory what is the context for this initiative and what he hopes it will accomplish.

Maybe he is just trying to stimulate discussion among the faculty.
 

10:47 says "I suspect that to casual observers it would seem an entirely reasonable action." He/she obviously doesn't know any casual observers.

Intolerable shame. Turn out the lights and pull the shades, lest the real world notice...
 

Would Professor Matory be a good Dean for the Radcliffe Institute?
 

"speak freely" and wisely!
 

All this speculation about Professor Matory's reasons for putting forward this resolution ignores his op-ed in the Crimson that is his explicit rationale: http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=519498
 

There are two concepts at issue here: (1) academic freedom and (2) civil dialogue (the phrase Professor Matory uses in his resolution). They are not the same.

(1) In many people's minds, academic freedom is associated with tenure: one rationale often adduced for tenure is that it guarantees academic freedom. From this perspective, Professor Matory does not need to tremble in his boots if he publishes on a controversial topic (he is a tenured professor), but a non-tenured colleague might feel anxious.
The AAUP's statement about academic freedom makes clear, however, that the same freedom should be granted to professors during the probationary period that precedes tenure:
http://www.tiny.cc/AxEYV
From the perspective of the AAUP statement, tenure-track professors are also protected.

(2) Civil dialogue is an issue that has come up in recent discussions concerning invitations from universities and colleges to controversial speakers. This may be the reason why Professor Matory uses "civil dialogue" rather than "academic freedom." Matory mentions three occasions in recent years when an invitation was extended to an outside speaker and then rescinded because the speaker's views were deemed too controversial. That is the simple answer to Richard's question, "what problem is this [resolution] responding to?"
From that perspective, Matory is trying to test whether invitations to controversial speakers will be allowed to stand under the aegis of President Faust, as opposed to that of President Summers.

That more (and particularly more personal issues) may be at stake here is quite probable, but it may not be necessary to go into that in order to vote on the resolution.

Finally, however, I do agree with those who have said they don't much care for the wording "feel safe" in this resolution.
 

What, is Professor Matory thinking of inviting Mahmoud Amedinejad to speak at Harvard?
 

Read his Crimson editorial.
 

The faculty should approve a resolution on free speech that distances itself from the Israeli-Palestinian issue. That is all Matory has asked for, regardless of his motives.
 

The Palestinians, like the wider Middle East, like the wider Islamic world, wait for leadership. And wait. And wait. Leadership that will finally both condemn the targeting of innocent civilians in the name of Islam AND demonstrate some degree of influence over the populace, in equal measure. When will any Islamic head of state have the courage to passionately and earnestly advocate peace and non-violence? How can such a large portion of the world's population suffer from such an absolute bankruptcy of leadership for so long? Where is the outrage? Where is there even hope? That this continues to be a radical idea for Islamic political and, more importantly, spiritual leadership is an embarrassment owned by the entire Muslim world. How long must we wait? In short, when will Islam clean house?
 

Speaking of racism . . .

It's hard to develop leadership when you are occupied and when the occupier continues to encroach on your territory by permitting expanded settlements and with the help of land-grabbing walls – sorry, "fences".
 

so much for distance...
 

Today's meeting will be fascinating.
 

I doubt it.
 

What adjective would you use, then?
 

Stupid
 

Matory's motion was tabled, by a substantial margin.
 

Anyone care to report the details?
 

His speech was embarrassing. Among other "evidence" he cited for the muzzling of minorities was the fact that there are no African Americans on the faculty council. He failed to note that this is an elected body, that almost no one actually votes, and that the positions are filled by a proportional representation system designed to make sure minority blocs will be represented. Who does he think is to blame for the fact that blacks apparently don't turn out to vote along ethnic lines? Larry Summers? For some reason he kept talking about Summers. Matory was also outraged that there are no minority academic deans, meaning (he alleges) that ethnic minorities have no hope when policies are discussed. Then one of them, who is a Latina, stood up and identified herself as such. So silly. People just wanted it all over with as quickly as possible. At least we now know that the Harvard faculty will not automatically vote in favor of whatever claptrap the left puts forward.
 

Turns out there already is a good Harvard document on free speech which was voted in 1990. It's under "reports" on this web page:
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~secfas/
It's hard to see what more could be wanted.
 

The "crackpot of clap-trap." I love it!
 

Amen, 10:21.