top of page

On the Role of Modern Academics

I have waited a few days to say anything in response to the attacks in Charlottesville, and it is my hope that this period of silence is not taken as a lack of empathy, or worse, an acceptance or even tolerance of these hateful actions. There have been so many words and interpretations already given, that there really is little left to offer in regard to an understanding. However, as an academic, who will soon discuss these events and their implications, causes and historical bases with my students, I feel that I might have something useful to add to the dialogue. It also strikes me that we, as academics and people who might not want to engage in street warfare, don’t have a good way to combat situations like these. It is my attempt herein to help build a groundwork for dealing with the problems and issues that face us today, from the new brink of nuclear war, to the Nazi party parading in the streets. What I am proposing here is by no means a complete “playbook”, and is very much based on my own experience, but I hope that it can be useful to get us all moving forward and to help avoid the quagmire that is meaningless and uninformed bickering. To paraphrase C. Wright Mills and part of his sociological imagination (2000), it is vital not to stand at the sideline during times of social tumult. Rather, I choose to enter in the best way that I know how, with a systematic and passionate analysis. While I am a white male, and thus have no experience in being oppressed as a minority, I hope that I can offer some understanding and insight to others in a similar privileged social position who have a great ability (though now largely untapped) to take positive social action.

1. The Scholar as Activist, Logical and Engaged

It is in times like these that our resolve as rational and humane people (if such a resolve exists) is put to the test in the most extreme way. It is in the wake of the domestic terror attack in Charlottesville, and similar hate crimes worldwide, that anger, hatred and fear can take a terrible toll on our grand experiment as a cognizant species. I have, in the last week, seen both the foulest hatred and the greatest compassion that humans can muster. I have also seen a great deal of poorly informed arguments and positions being taken in an attempt to “teach” and persuade one another to a particular “truth”. It is to this point that I hope to focus my first main argument, that academics, and others in positions of some influence, need to be rational scholar-activists. I should note here, that my political leanings tend towards the left, and thus it should be no surprise that my conclusions and arguments fall on the left of the political spectrum. And yet, this does not negate the point I am making here, nor should I take a centrist position and offer “a balanced approach” in order to achieve a sound argument when talking about any issue. As Mills argues in The Sociological Imagination, every scientist has his/her values upon which their work is based, and it is the “political task of the social scientist... to translate personal troubles into public issues, and public issues into the terms of their human meaning for a variety of individuals” (2000, p. 187). In other words, those with the training and ability to do so must help to translate social problems (like racism and inequality) so that more people will come to understand the intersection between personal lives and larger social forces, regardless of where the scholar stands politically.

And to this end it is vitally important for scholars to employ their methods and rationale to understanding these problems, without going off the rails or relying on research of poor quality (i.e. fake news, etc.). For example, if one is making the argument that racism is no longer a major issue in the U.S., then far more evidence is needed than a “Prager University” video which cherry picks a few pieces of data and negates an entire history of actual scientific research and theory, even if presented by a racial minority as narrator. If such evidence can actually be provided (which is a long shot, given the fact that the best to be mustered so far is the cherry-picked Prager version of “truth”), then we can have a rational conversation about the merits of the position, regardless of how diametrically opposed to it I may be in terms of research and my own political/social understanding.

This logical approach and fact checking can also help us root out and make known bad information. A lot has been said in recent months about the prevalence of “fake news”, but as many of us know this is nothing new. There has been a tendency towards embellishment and outright lying throughout our country’s history, from political mudslinging to the yellow journalism which pushed us into the Spanish-American War. Thus, the stories about racism not being real, vaccines making our children sick, Islam waging a holy war to establish Shari Law in your middle of nowhere town, Fascism being a “non-right” phenomenon, or the narrative that the major political parties didn’t switch bases in the 20th century (and thus it is really modern day Republicans who are equality heroes, and modern democrats who despise diversity) should not be a surprise, regardless of how annoying and persistent they might be. As academics, and trained scientists, we should be able to identify the bad information that is often presented as fact, even if that means going back to the original study upon which a news article or argument is based and double checking the method.

Earlier this year, when the debate over repealing the Affordable Care Act was beginning to rage, I came across a series of news articles claiming that some 70% of Americans favored repealing and replacing “Obamacare” (Drucker, 2017; Newsmax, 2017). After digging deeper and finding the poll from which this conclusion was drawn (Strimple & Kochvar, 2017), it became quite clear that widespread issues of invalidity were rampant at the point of data collection, from leading questions to confusing wording and weighted categories, this survey had it all. Thus, even if the sample and subsequent analysis were sound, there was no way that the survey measured what it thought it was measuring, a point obviously displayed months later in the broad bipartisan resistance to the actual repeal efforts. Now, most of you reading this would likely dismiss such a news article at first glance, chocking it up to hyperbole and bad research. But the problem of our current moment is that there are plenty of digitally connected people, who don’t dismiss such headlines off hand, and likely never read the whole story anyway (Purcell, et al, 2010; Purdy, 2013), thus leading to broad conclusions based off of very little fact. And indeed these stories, and other similar research, did make their rounds on social media, and may have even helped to shape a large scale political effort which felt justified in its actions based on public support.

This type of misinformation and bad research is really where the modern academic has a lot to offer as an activist. When it comes to presenting evidence, and checking sources, we have (or should have) very good training. When it comes to formulating arguments based on an interpretation of scientific evidence, that is our bread and butter. It seems as though we have let slide the responsibility of making these efforts onto journalists (who I don’t intend to denigrate), pundits, kids in their parent’s basements, and the fine politicians who have made such statements as Congressman David Webster regarding a survey which was conducted with a random sample: “...in the end this is not a scientific survey. It’s a random survey” (Rampell, 2012). It should therefore be our renewed effort to be the voice of reason in debates such as racial equality, poverty, crime, and anything else that falls under our purview, not only to show our worth as academics, but to help others avoid logical and methodological flaws in their understanding of this complex world.

There are certainly many challenges in this effort. For instance, the traditional publication method is vastly outpaced by the 24-hour news cycle and the immense ineptitudes of the current political landscape. And yet, it is not beyond us to post in a blog, provide evidence when none is provided in a Facebook post or tweet, and to have conversations with students, family members, neighbors and community leaders who may benefit from a new set of arguments and ideas. This doesn’t mean that modern academics need to go door to door in efforts to convert the population, or even write news article (nor would that be possible with all of that “free time” we have), but it does mean that we can make small steps in the right direction, and try to bring about a change, however small. If marching in rallies is your thing, then go ahead and do it, but if you can’t make it there’s plenty more you can do as a scholar-activist. There are other ways to be an activist. Language experts can step up and correct presidential grammatical errors, or offer interpretations of their meaning; historians can help to lay a foundation of actual events that can shed a light on a vacuous understanding of where a current event stands; biologists and chemists can present works related to pollution and climate change; sociologists can blog about the inequalities or power dynamics at play in a riot; and all other academics should contribute what evidence and logic they are able, in order to elevate the tone and content of our public conversations. This push for more collegiate engagement as activists doesn’t mean that emotion should be left off the table. On the contrary. If you are passionate about a topic, event, or issue, then let fly your words (however radical), emojis and memes; just be sure to account for your sources and to utilize a systematic approach when attempting to persuade someone of a position. In other words, if a student making the same argument wouldn’t convince you, there’s more work to do!

We can also use our research and teaching to help inform and better understand these issues, even if they seem daunting or controversial. If you have a topic that is controversial, then push for researching it. While this may not be the most lucrative avenue, it is on the fringes of our scientific understanding that the truly great discoveries are made. Perhaps even more importantly, we need to take more efforts at conducting and engaging (ourselves and our students) in applied research that actually works for our communities. While knowledge for knowledge’s sake is certainly something to admire, researchers can have a dramatic impact on their communities by working with non-profits and other agencies to help improve their activism. For example, while I love to read theoretical works regarding the causes of crime, or the way people socially interact, I am far more interested in seeing a researcher work with a prisoner advocacy group to help direct their approach, or with a youth organization to assist with the implementation of programming that makes a difference in the lives of children. This type of engagement also has the additional benefit of bringing research and academic work to the community, and improving the public view of these efforts and research in general. In other words, if academics engage with their communities, their communities might be more willing to listen to academics!

While many of these efforts already exist in the academic world, and are mainly due to efforts of scholar activists in the mid-20th century, we also still operate under the traditional scope of research and publication (as requirements of tenure, etc.). In a grand stroke of irony, I often hear social scientists remark that this traditional approach doesn’t capture what is best for their discipline (i.e. rewarding more applied work or non-journal publications like blogging or news stories), and yet there appears to be little impetus to actually change this social structure. It is very much as though we are stuck in the iron cage of intellectualism, in which we dislike the structure, but submit to its control in order to succeed. While there is likely no quick paradigm change that could fix this issue, the impact of a renewed scholar-activist generation should help to shift academia towards a more engaged and diverse force in our world.

And don’t forget to never stop learning and seeking out new knowledge. I was recently scrolling through social media, and found a post related to climate change that said something to the extent of “my fifth-grade teacher said that global warming wasn’t real in the 80’s, so I have no reason to believe it is real now”. We should all try to avoid being the person who stops learning at the 5th grade level, but also the person who stops learning at any level or stage of life. There is no magic point at which academics keep learning automatically, it is always an effort that must be actively engaged in. If we go stagnate in our thinking, then we can only serve to stagnate the world. Search out new evidence, and bring it to the rest of us, that is the truly scientific thing to do. By continuing to learn, taking active steps to set the record straight and elevate conversation, and being more engaged in the application of our work for change, modern day scholars can practice their craft while also being activists. And if we do take to the streets, to stand up for our beliefs and those we support when necessary, then all the better!

2. “No Room for Hatred” isn’t Intolerance

Though I have digressed into the realm of scientific and academic purpose, I do so in order to lay out the rest of the groundwork. After all, without a good scientific backbone, how are we to take a stance against something like hatred or intolerance, and translate that into real world action? The important element of this process, is to take an active stand against issues of intolerance and hatred, in order to foster a more inclusive and productive world view. Basically, Nazis don’t develop in isolation, it is a lifelong social process, and we need to be the ones who help put up roadblocks in the process. I often see memes of kids from two different races hugging with a caption such as “no child is born racist”, trying to make us feel better about ourselves. Taken from a social constructionist standpoint however (read Berger and Luckman’s The Social Construction of Reality), if we aren’t born racist (which I agree with) that means the rest of us messed up somewhere along the way in the racist adult’s socialization. Not to go off track too far, but if we hold (as many generally do though there isn’t a complete consensus, we won’t get into biological determinism here) that who we are as adults is due to our interactions, relationships and experiences from day one, then there is plenty of work to be done by educators and others to pivot away from hatred and bigotry. Once a child enters school, they gain a new set of socialization agents, including teachers and peers. And given that our children spend (in the U.S. public education system) more than 900 hours in school every year (Desilver, 2014), not to mention the countless hours in class for those who go on to higher education, that’s a lot of opportunity for socializing against these negative beliefs and behaviors. As a member of the higher education world, my experience with teaching lies primarily in the college classroom, though I do teach some high school students from time to time in dual enrollment programs. And it is in my classroom that I take a direct and vocal stance on the issue of anti-bigotry socialization.

On the first day of each semester, I make an announcement to the class regarding our policies and ground rules. One of these policies holds that everyone is encouraged and welcome to share their thoughts and opinions in class. This is a fairly standard practice, and I would expect no less from any other teacher out there. To create an environment where everyone feels comfortable in sharing their opinions is vital for a successful and well-rounded education. However, I also add in the statement that while all voices are welcome, there is absolutely no room for hate speech, intimidation or harassment in the class, and it will be shut down should it rear its ugly head. I add this rule for the very same reason that I support and encourage everyone to share their voice: inclusion, tolerance and a positive educational experience. You might read this and think that there is something contradictory, hypocritical or even paradoxical about this set of classroom rules. Isn’t it intolerant to shut down the free speech of someone, even if that free speech is advocating for something you hold to be morally wrong? As we will see shortly, my answer to this question is wholly and unequivocally NO. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a lot to wade through in order to reach this answer. This question of the limits of free speech has taken on new life and interpretation in the U.S., and around the world after the Charlottesville attack. After all, the supremacist rally, and many more like it, was partially billed as a “free speech rally”.

Of course, we have a constitutional right to say whatever the hell we want and not have any negative actions taken against us by the government for those words, within a set of further legal limitations (such as threatening to carry out a terrorist attack, or inciting violence, for which you can potentially be found legally liable). It is never my intention to infringe upon one’s right to legally express their opinion. It is my intention however, to ensure a level of decency and collegiality in the conversations that take place in my classroom. As I have already stated, I am totally fine with anyone, student or otherwise, who wants to debate a topic or perspective, regardless of whether I agree with their stance. That position will never waiver, nor will my insistence that such a debate requires the presentation of actual evidence. What I am willing to put limits on, is any speech that threatens or limits the free expression of others (as per our constitutional mandate). And this is where the paradox becomes quite a bit less paradoxical. My solution is to address and shut down hate speech and intimidation because it creates a barrier to the learning in the classroom. Think of it this way, if you were sitting next to someone in a classroom and had something to say, but you know that the person sitting next to you has threatened to harm anyone who shares your opinion, then you are far less likely to take full advantage of the educational experience, and may well suffer from it. I make the same argument in regard to firearm carry policies on campus. Would you feel more free to express yourself in a classroom if your teacher had a gun and was making the opposite argument, or if a student sitting next to you with an opposite view sitting next to you had a gun slung across his/her hip? But I digress. Thus, in my efforts to promote free expression in the classroom, it is tantamount to ensure that no one feels afraid to share their opinion.

While some may argue that having a conservative student sitting in a classroom with a liberal professor and liberal classmates might intimidate them, I would counter by saying that the steps taken ensure that no one will ever threaten that student, and that encouraging everyone to share should help in this regard as well. This is very much what we are talking about when promoting and maintaining “safe spaces”, which are a pariah for many (namely conservatives) who feel that this is an attempt to shut down free speech. On the contrary, I have found that the only times I have ever needed to actively enforce or implement anything like a safe space have been in response to conservative students stating that they felt uncomfortable talking about issues such as religion or terrorism in a sociological context. In these cases, I ensured the students that they could share their opinions, and that the point of a sociological discussion is, at least in part, to push us beyond our comfort zone, and in one instance I even allowed a student to step outside of the class until the discussion was finished. In all of these cases, it was the creation of an environment that promotes and encourages taking risks and sharing ideas that maintained both the interest and comfort of students from all walks of life, even when discussing issues that are controversial and challenging. And in this way, I hope that we can add to the positive socialization of students.

3. Taking a Stand isn’t Wrong!

There is another element to this limitation of hatred and intimidation in the classroom, and it is one which should extend far beyond the classroom and into our daily lives as well: if we stand in neutrality to hatred, what is preventing it from growing in strength? Many who may disagree with a policy such as the one I employ, which shuts down and severely limits hatred and intimidation, tend to hold that simply taking a more neutral or moderate approach (i.e. not getting involved and simply letting everyone say what they will) is the best way to approach the issue of tolerance. If recent events are anything to go off of, there is a definite imperative to stand against such speech and actions at every possible instance, be it from a relative or distant childhood family friend. This is basically Karl Popper’s approach to the tolerance paradox. Popper held that tolerance of hatred leads to the spread of hatred that aims to take away any tolerance whatsoever (Popper, 1945). In other words, if you take a neutral position you may not be supporting hatred, but you also aren’t doing anything to stop it! If we continue to allow hatred to go unchecked, be it on the streets or online, we are providing the leniency needed to for such positions to flourish and even become mainstream. This may seem like a lot of hyperbole, but remember that things like white supremacy aren’t formed in a vacuum. If we don’t build a sense of indecency for those who promote such views, we are ultimately giving them a pass to continue unabated. And it is this sense of doing something wrong that is important to the social construction process. While it would be unconstitutional to not allow such speech, it is completely OK to push back and make sure that there are consequences for taking positions that are antithetical to freedom and human flourishing. As academics, we can set this standard in the classroom, but also in the rest of our lives, by speaking out and taking action when we see hatred, violence, discrimination and prejudice.

This takes our discussion to different area all together, one of morality and belief, which isn’t typically addressed in regard to science and objectivity. Often, our scientific and academic training requires of us the use of strict objectivity and the ability to address our own biases and account for them in our work (in the lab or in the classroom). I am all for being an objective academic and educator, an indeed my approach to teaching takes this to heart. It is not my goal in the classroom to preach a definite truth that students must subscribe to or regurgitate, but rather to present students with information, evidence, theory, and giving them a platform from which to engage in critical thought about the social world. However, as we discussed already, there is also an imperative to promote accurate information, and also to take a stand against hatred and intolerance. These two positions are not as opposed to one another as we might think. Rather, one can remain entirely objective while still taking a moral stand on the issues. There are plenty of topics for which this is already the case. Take climate change for instance. In my discussions about the environment and our social impacts on it, such as pollution, etc., I don’t need to present students with an “alternate” view that climate change isn’t real or man-made. This is because there is clear scientifically derived fact on the side of climate change existing, and very little credible evidence to the contrary. If the conclusion of researchers changes in the future, I will gladly change the way I approach my lecture, but for now there is no need to provide students with fuzzy non-scientific conjecture. The same can be said about any topic that I cover, from the social construction of race, gender and religion, to the existence of structural inequalities such as racial profiling. In these cases I am bound to use scientific data in order to base my stand, and usually that stand is far from the “there’s another way” arguments. As such, when I take a stand regarding the existence of racism, I am not doing so from a purely moral basis, but rather from a fact based line of theory and argument. Thus, talking a stand for accuracy and quality information is not opposed to the objectivity of science.

But what about saying no to intolerance and neo-Nazis, isn’t that taking a moral stand? This is definitely a moral statement, but if you’ve come this far in life and don’t see a moral problem with neo-Nazis, white supremacy, racism, etc., then you are definitely on the wrong side of history with your stance. You may also want to refer to the statements above regarding those who stop learning at the 5th grade level (and that may be offensive to the vast majority of fifth graders!). Put simply, there are certain things that just need to be spoken against. There are strong historical precedents for a moral stance against Nazis, white supremacists and racism (see anything about the second world war, Native American genocide, Jim Crow, slavery, etc.). If it is our goal to avoid repeating these historic events, then it is necessary to take a stand against the ideologies and beliefs which created them. But doesn’t that make you one of those durn violent anti-fascists? No. I personally adhere to absolute non-violence when it comes to protests, but that doesn’t make me not and anti-fascist (though I must admit I don’t shed tears when a neo-Nazi gets punched in the face).

As a human who enjoys freedom and a lack of persecution, I should by default be an anti-fascist, and you should be too. Speaking out against fascism and hatred shouldn’t be an extreme thing to do. I can’t deny that there has been violence on the side of the more extreme anti-fascist movement, or that many on that side may use similar justifications for their actions. But there is no doubt in my mind that when we are talking about a group which supports genocide and ethnic cleansing, and a group that is fighting them, there is certainly a higher moral ground, regardless of tactics. I do implore for a non-violent approach however, and as we have seen with successful social movements throughout human history, it might not be the easiest way, but in the long run has definite advantages over taking to violence. As academics, and in the interest of the safety and longevity of our students, it is important to discourage violence as a solution to any problem. This is also the natural progression from a fact based and logically reasoned approach to defining and explain the issues; with more consideration there may tend to be less of a reactionary and potentially violent approach to solving problems.

Once we have established a moral framework based on fact and logic, it is imperative that we utilize it in order to offer a quality education, but also to carry out the work of elevating conversation and interrupting the socialization that leads to hatred and intolerance. Once again, this spreads far beyond the classroom. When you see an article floating on social media that tells its readers that racism doesn’t exist, be the person to step up and correct the record. We know from existing programs (or a single existing program which just lost its federal funding), that confronting a supremacist with an alternate way of thinking, along with compassion, can lead to success in getting them to leave the movement (Carless, 2017). While most of us won’t have a bunch of supremacists sitting in our classrooms, presenting different world views can still help to limit the spread of intolerance, discrimination and prejudice in its many forms. There is no silver bullet, but little by little the cultural change that is required can be built by academics and the larger public, by changing the conversation and upholding a higher moral ground along the way.

Conclusion

At this point, the three main points laid out here form a rough (and sure to expand) groundwork for academics to employ as they move forward and confront extremism and hatred in our work and in our lives. I am not at all saying that this is a complete step by step guide, and I’m sure that many will disagree with the finer points herein. However, if we can shift our academic force and purpose towards more external pursuits, especially striving for changing the social narrative to one which is more fact based, and do so along with taking a stand for important causes and issues, with particular focus on shutting down intolerance and hatred, we will be taking a step in the right direction.

References:

Carless, W. (2017). Three ways the trump administration has downplayed white supremacy. Public Radio International. Retrieved 8/19/2017 from: https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-08-14/three-ways-trump-administration-has-downplayed-white-supremacy

Desilver, D. (2014) School days: How the U.S. compares with other countries. Pew Research Center. Retrieved 8/19/2017 from: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/09/02/school-days-how-the-u-s-compares-with-other-countries/

Drucker, D.M. (2017). Poll: Schumer’s ‘Make America Sick Again’ slogan bombs. Washington Examiner. Retrieved 8/19/2017 from: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/poll-schumers-make-america-sick-again-slogan-bombs/article/2611308

Mills, C.W. (2000). The Sociological Imagination. New York: Oxford University Press.

Newsmax (2017). Survey: 70 Percent of Voters Want Obamacare Repealed. Newsmax. Retrieved 8/19/2017 from: http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/voters-Obamacare-repeal-and-replace-ACA/2017/01/09/id/767604/

Popper, K. (1945). The Open Society and Its Enemies. London: Routledge.

Purcell, K., Rainie, L., Mitchell, A., Rosenstiel, T. & Olmstead, K. (2010). Understanding The Participatory News Consumer, How Internet and Cell Phone users have Turned News into a Social Experience. Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved April 5, 2012 from: http://www.pewInternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2010/PIP_Understanding_ the_Participatory_News_Consumer.pdf

Purdy, S. (2013). The Internet and Mass Society: Civic Engagement in the Digital Age. Unpublished Thesis Research. Retrieved 8/19/2017 from: http://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses/134/

Rampell, C. (2012). The Beginning of the End of the Census? The New York Times. Retrieved 8/19/2017 from: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/20/sunday-review/the-debate-over-the-american-community-survey.html

Strimple, G. & Kochvar, B. (2017). American Action Network Obamacare Survey PowerPoint Presentation. American Action Network. Retrieved 8/19/2017 from: https://americanactionnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/AAN-Obamacare-Survey-2017.pdf?_ga=1.144816756.137333208.1484083320


Recent Posts
Archive
Follow Us
  • Facebook Basic Square
  • Twitter Basic Square
  • Google+ Basic Square
bottom of page