After months of negotiation, back and forth, and campus media attention, the Office of Student Development has formally denied the application of Students for Academic Freedom.
While I personally have some caveats about SAF’s desired agenda, I think the Administration’s rationale for denial is quite faulty.
In the letter from OSD Dean Dr. Mark McCarthy, the Administration says,
[F]or any group that articulates an affiliation with a local, state, national, or international organization, it is our responsibility and practice to consider the mission, vision, and practices of that organization in light of Marquette’s mission, purposes, and policies.
I entirely agree that MU should evaluate the national affiliate. However, in cases when a parent organization’s agenda conflicts with Marquette’s mission, the past practice has been to simply say that Marquette’s mission takes precendence in the specific areas of disagreement, not to deny the group outright. Thus, even though both the national Democratic Party and Amnesty International support abortion and gay marriage, we have College Democrats and AI on campus. If Marquette objected to certain parts of the nationwide SAF Information Center, common practice would have been to specify that the Marquette chapter could not advocate those objectionable parts of the national group’s agenda.
Additional comments made to student media after the denial are equally questionable. According to Marquette Tribune reporting,
The university “objected to types of programming and activities the group proposed as some of their functions,” said Mark McCarthy, assistant vice president of student affairs and dean of student development. “The main focus of such an organization is on academic freedom, which is really under preview [sic] of faculty.”
This is typical of the administrators’ mindset – students are to be babied. They bring nothing valuable to campus but their tuition dollars and butts in the lecture hall chairs. Academic freedom is of interest to everybody! SAF argues that students need the freedom to express themselves in the classroom or in assignments without fear of ideological punishment. I suppose it should not be surprising that the administration that does not see a need for a student voice on governance issues does not believe students have academic freedom.
Dr. McAdams over at the Marquette Warrior blog provides a statement from Brigid O’Brien Miller, director of University communication:
As you may know, the Office of Student Development worked with the student over a period of several months regarding concerns about the group’s proposed constitution and discussed numerous options or revisions for the student to consider. When this student decided not to amend the constitution, the office notified the student that the group would not be recognized as a Marquette student organization.
i.e. It’s all Chuck’s fault for being inflexible. This is a stretch at best. I know Chuck worked very hard on this and tried to find common ground with the administrators through multiple meetings. Frankly, there was no comprimise to be had – the administration did not like the group’s name, its goals, or its fundamental premise: that students have academic freedom. The only comprimise that would satisfy would reduce the group to nothingness. It is a shame that the University has chosen the low road of painting Chuck as obstructionist rather than admitting a fundamental difference of opinion and defending their position.
Some of the issues identified in the proposed constitution, i.e., reading lists, academic conferences and classroom speakers, are curricular decisions within the purview of individual faculty members or faculty departments. Preserving this faculty discretion is a key tenet of academic freedom.
The group wanted students to have access to reading lists for courses before being asked to sign up for those courses. That is an entirely reasonable request – students should know what they’re signing up for. Speakers and conferences are curricular decisions properly up to faculty – but it is also proper for students whose tuition funds these events to point out when one after another after another after another is liberal in its ideological agenda.
Doubtless GOP3.com, Dr. McAdams’ blog, The Warrior and others on campus will continue to criticize and critique Administration and faculty actions and activities from our unofficial perches. After this disappointing rejection, I hope Chuck will add his voice by starting a blog or something, so that even if he cannot host lectures, etc., he can still engage in the conversation about academic freedom on campus.
Last 5 posts by Daniel- Tom Barrett's Savings Plan - June 8th, 2010
- C.J. Abrahamson on J. Stevens - April 11th, 2010
- Why always Bill Bablitch? - March 24th, 2010
- Suhr on Nixon on Health Care - February 23rd, 2010
- Did the USCCB Foresee Dead People? - February 8th, 2010
I asked OSD at least five times in the last 18 weeks:
Me: “What specifically could we change in our Constitution that would allow Students for Academic Freedom to be approved?”
OSD:“Now Charles, that really is not our role to dictate to you how to write your Constitution, we do not want to tell your organization what it should be.”
EVERY TIME. Not once did OSD say “eliminate this section or modify this wording and you will be all set.”
To say that OSD gave me options or revisions to consider is not accurate.
We asked for wordings of other approved constitutions and did not receive them.
We were given vague objections for most of the semester and no path to approval.
Reading things like this doesn’t improve my impression of academia as a whole in this country.
To be perfectly blunt they seem to prefer a more communistic outlook as to one of pure education. Ie. The state knows far better than you what you need.
It’s little wonder then that our colleges and universities are staffed with such far left leaning administrators. They’re merely havens for people with the same belief system and they are run as such.
Either way, I’m not impressed. Evidently you are to leave the principles that led to the founding of this country at the door when it comes to college.
I understand rejecting a student organization that is “inimical” to Marquette’s Catholic, Jesuit identity. Students for Academic Freedom is not.
Coincidently, the Office of Student Development has approved more than a few student organizations that promote views against the Catholic Church.
I don’t know if it should be more disturbing that the group was rejected, or that the Trib came out backing the rejection.
Reading the additonal objections from OSD today make my head hurt.
The Tribune editorial argument from “Freedom Already Exists”
Premise 1: “Concerns over free speech at Marquette are valid” (freedom does not exist, the argument is stultified in the very first premise)
Premise 2:“It remains a bad idea for the university to step in and restrict speech.” (And yet, they support restricting the speech of SAF)
Premise 3:The Tribune further endorse the restricting of speech in all the instances mentioned: Adopt-a-Sniper, Dental blogger and philosophy department quote.
Premise 4:The Tribune places unfounded faith that “the university will continue to pursue and support academic freedom” (A claim made without evidence, what has the university done to earn that faith?
Premise 5:The Tribune does not have faith in SAF. (SAF has already spurred tangible developments inside OSD and the Office of the Provost)
Premise 6:The University has a definition of academic freedom (which excludes faculty) and has (unarticulated) avenues to express concerns.
Premise 7:Faculty are worried that SAF would make something out of nothing unsubstantiated worry
Conclusion:The Tribune supports the administration’s rejection of Students for Academic Freedom.
Please tell me if I misinterpreted any of the above premises but I really do not see how that argument follows. They endorse SAF in some sentences, rip the administration in others and in the end…endorse the administration based on…I’m not sure.
It remains a bad idea for the university to step in and restrict speech.” -Marquette Tribune
“Three cases from the last three years all drew public fire: Adopt-a-Sniper, the dental school blogger and the quote removed from the office door of philosophy graduate students. The university handled each case poorly; each time criticism was richly deserved.” (emphasis added)
“However, we agree with the university’s end decisions in each situation …”
So, it is a bad idea for the university to restrict speech…except for the times when they restricted speech…and it predictably turned out very poorly?
They endorse not restricting free-speech. Two sentences later, they endorse the university restricting free-speech.
*Premise 6 – (which excludes students)
In editorial one they support the discussion of the Vagina Monologues.
In editorial two they do not support the discussion of academic freedom. Even though the very last sentences in the academic freedom editorial admit that there are unresolved questions.
I’m disapointed but I can’t say I’m really suprised.
[...] Out of the otherside of our hypocritical administrators’ mouths comes the destructive denial of the Students for Academic Freedom on campus. Using a series of carefully constructed straw man arguments (described and dissected by Chuck, one of the founders of the organization), the university set up the Students for Academic Freedom for failure and them blew them over. This is just another glaring indicator of Marquette University administrators’ continuing disregard for the university’s students and it’s Catholic identity. [...]
[...] that happens will be fun to watch. Will Marquette professors see this an an infringement on their closely-guarded academic freedom? Will those professors that give out information see their classes fill up more [...]