Paul Brandon wrote:
At 11:45 AM -0400 7/24/06, Miguel Roig wrote:
There was an interesting Op Ed piece in the NY Times by Stanley Fish
that I
thought would be of interest to the list:
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/opinion/23fish.html.
So far, sounds pretty reasonable.
However, the author (Stanley Fish) at times seems to be saying that
you can _study_ any topic in your field of competence, but your rights
to _talk_ about it are restricted.
Read the column. It is not talking, per se, that is not convered by
academic freedom (according to Fish), but rather *advocating.* Not all
talk is advocacy. In Fish's opinion, apparently, *no* advocacy is
"academic." One may bring forth any topic in the classroom "as objects
of analysis rather than as candidates for allegiance."
Although I thnk this is an important distinction, I wonder how well it
actually delineates the territory covered by academic freedom. Do not
(some) biology professors "advocate" and "endorse" evolutionary theory?
Would we of the rationalist/scientific "party" (which obviously does not
cover everyone on this list) actually want some watchdog on the hunt for
instances of illicit "evolutionary advocacy" in the classroom, with an
aim to punishing "violators"?
Regards,
--
Christopher D. Green
Department of Psychology
York University
Toronto, ON M3J 1P3
Canada
416-736-5115 ex. 66164
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.yorku.ca/christo
=============================
---
To make changes to your subscription go to:
http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
