Abuse of Academic Freedom

A Sampling of Academic Freedom Links

Don't use our Constitution or Academic Freedom
to trample on the rights of others.

The Georgia Institute of Technology asserts that the presence of Art Crimes on school web servers since 1995 was protected by the First Amendment and especially academic freedom. The teachers that approved this trash for the web and the administrators who supported it have memorialized the site, (after it was shut down at the end of 1997) in part with this statement: "Nor does this decision represent an infringement of academic freedom, a principle to which the Georgia Tech administration remains strongly committed. Academic freedom is not applicable to individuals who are not members of the academic community. Freedom of speech, on the other hand, is. In continuing to archive Susan Farrell's masters project, and in maintaining a link to the "Art Crimes" site, Georgia Tech would underscore its unqualified support not only for academic freedom, but also for the constitutional right to freedom of speech."

In my opinion, this University maintained garbage before and after this student's graduation. This web site actively portrayed and still portrays graffiti as a heroic artistic adventure. It fosters interest in and growth in a deviant lawless sub-culture responsible for victimizing the rest of us through billions of dollars of damage to public and private property. The secondary effects of criminal advocacy under the claimed protection of the First Amendment and academic freedom is a sham. (These same people are now shamming the world with their support of http://www.fearnoart.com. People that are legitimate victims of art censorship should be outraged!)Despite the fact this site has no obvious educational merit it somehow deserves the university's protection. Why? Who reviewed this site to determine whether real research was being conducted and proper restraint was observed by the researchers? Who checked to make sure the web site didn't advocate criminal activity? Who made sure that graffiti-advocate groups outside the university's control were not using the university servers? Who noticed Art Crimes curators were posting instructions in the alt.graffiti newsgroup for vandals to to avoid detection, arrest, and prosecution? Who noticed that pictures of criminal activity were being posted on the net? No one. And if they did why was no action taken? Is this what you call academic freedom? Is my outrage, the outrage of the average citizen, the coercion the university fears.?

Read the following links. Read about academic freedom. I think you will find several serious issues with which to criticize the university's support of Art Crimes as well as the support of graffiti advocate web sites at other academic institutions. Once you have read these links ask yourself if Georgia Tech crossed the line of common decency by abandoning academic principals. Have they abused academic freedom? What were their real motivations behind the site? Are they hiding from the truth? Is it possible for individuals or groups to take advantage of academic freedom and the first amendment to intentionally propagate, support, and defend an illegal activity? How do we know when academic freedom is abused? What can we do about it? How does the University prove to the rest of the world that real academic study is associated with a web site even when the site may not meet with public support? When is a university abusing academic freedom? What standards, if any, should be met by teachers and students to assure their research activity is obviously that, research.

Georgia Tech's need to hide behind the First Amendment and Academic freedom is an attempt to hide gross errors in personal and professional judgment. Reading about this freedom, I think you can determine for yourself that Georgia Tech made a big mistake they still cannot and will not acknowledge. I think you can determine for yourself that other schools that still allow graffiti advocate sites on student home pages are not taking proper care of your kids. Despite the fact that most universities will consider your opposition "vexatious interference" you need to speak out against on-line criminal advocacy. Ignoring means the problem will just get worse.

What Academic Freedom means. Highlights from Policies

"Academic freedom is the freedom of the faculty to teach and speak out as the fruits of their research and scholarship dictate, even though their conclusions may be unpopular or contrary to public opinion. Both within and outside the classroom, the faculty should exhibit the accuracy, restraint, and respect for the opinions of others appropriate to educators and persons of learning. "

A very broad freedom. It is however defined by the words "research, scholarship, accuracy, restraint, and respect." No one can disagree that schools must have the right to challenge the status quo and open eyes to new ideas and new approaches to problems through research. I challenge anyone, however, to prove to the average person that Georgia Tech's Art Crimes web site met the terms of these definitions. To a degree the site may have been an anthropological research documenting the vandalism of a sub-culture. But then the "research" crossed the line of acceptable restraint and respect. The site was deliberately provocative and became a central figure in the perpetuation of the sub-culture. It wasn't that the opinions were unpopular. The major problem everyone has with this site is that clearly encouraged and advocated and catered to the vandalism sub-culture. The secondary effects this site has had on the rest of the world are horrific. To carry this explanation to an extreme, one could point to the government studies that deliberately exposed people to radiation or the atrocities perpetrated on holocaust victims in the name of science. Scientists agree there is bad science. The world agrees that some research is pure junk. So how can Georgia Tech claim in good conscience that Art Crimes is protected by Academic Freedom? You cannot tell the average man that absolutely anything goes regardless of secondary effects in the name of research. Hiding behind the words "unpopular or contrary to public opinion" is too easy to do. The public will continue to judge and alert the rest of the world to bad science and the mad scientists that perpetuate it.

"As a person of learning and as an educator, the teacher should remember that the public may judge his or her profession and institution by his or her utterances. Hence the teacher should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that he or she is not an institutional spokesperson. "

Art Crimes did not, until late 1997, put any opinion from the anti-graffiti community on their web site. Art Crimes was never a study of the unpopular opinion. It was never a site that encouraged debate or real academic analysis. There was no attempt at accuracy. The site made popular the submission of vandalism photographs without identifying the photographs as such and without identifying how each photograph contributed to the research being conducted. The ONLY compliant act by Art Crimes the easiest to perform. They published a disclaimer and went on about their business.

"Expression of the widest range of viewpoints should be encouraged, free from institutional orthodoxy and from internal or external coercion."

There was no expression of a wide range of viewpoints. One could hide very well behind this definition. All you have to do is decide that opinion contrary to your own is coercion. Once you do that you can effectively ignore anyone that has another viewpoint. Art Crimes could have cared less about the anti-vandalism movement rising against them. They didn't study it. There minions harassed us and called us nazi's. Go figure.

"Individual scholars should be free to select the subject matter of their research, to seek support from any source for their work, and to form their own findings and conclusions. These findings and conclusions should be available for scrutiny and criticism as required by the University's Policy on Secrecy in Research. "

But is there academic review that protects the public from those who take advantage of research and academic freedom. Can you publish without purpose? I submit there is a point, or a line, or whatever you call it, that can be crossed where research becomes junk science. Who evaluates the projects to keep the rest of the world safe from idiots. Does the school have an obligation to listen and share the opposing opinion on public displays?

"Research techniques should not violate established professional ethics pertaining to the health, safety, privacy, and other personal rights of human beings or to the infliction of injury or pain on animals."

This is interesting. This college recognizes personal aka/property rights. Art Crimes was in clear violation of this definition of research technique. Go out and commit a crime and I'll study you! I'll even put evidence of your crime on the web! How did this fundamental research rule escape the professors still defending Art Crimes?

"The above principles circumscribe the University's role with respect to University-connected research. They in no way diminish, and indeed they reinforce, the individual researcher's personal responsibility to assure that the sources of funding for research, and its perceived applications, are consistent with individual judgment and conscience."

Judgement and conscience. Well I suppose if you have neither you can claim your perception is in line with the rest of the academic world and get away with it. Who measures this at Georgia Tech?

"Academic Freedom is the Freedom to discuss all relevant matters in the Classroom, to explore all Avenues of Scholarship, Research and Creative Expression and to speak or write as a public Citizen without institutional Discipline or Restraint. Academic Responsibility implies the faithful Performance of Academic Duties and Obligations, the Recognition of the Demands of the Scholarly Enterprise and the Candor to make it clear that the Individual is not speaking for the Institution in Matters of public Interest. "

I agree. But what does this have to do with Art Crimes?

"Institutions of higher education are conducted for the common good, and this common good can be assured only through the free search for, and the free exposition of, truth and understanding wherever and whenever they may be found. The freedoms protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States are indispensable safeguards to a democratic society. Within the academic community, the vigorous exercise of constitutional freedoms, together with freedom to learn and to teach what scholarship suggests is the truth, to question generally accepted tenets, and to publish without fear of reprisal what scholarship has discovered, gives vitality to the institution. Indeed, without these freedoms the University cannot fulfill its duty to society, and though these freedoms have long been accepted in democratic societies and reaffirmed when tested, they need continuous reaffirmation and recommitment. "

How did Art Crimes contribute to the common good? What did anyone learn from it? What conclusions did the research come to? None of this was ever posted on the web site. This site was a graffiti advocate site simply because the creators think the pictures are pretty and they wanted to see the vandalism sub-culture flourish! They hide behind the First Amendment and have taken advantage of academic freedom.

It is essential that faculty members be free to pursue scholarly inquiry without undue restriction and to voice and publish their conclusions concerning the significance of evidence they consider relevant. They must be free from the fear that their professional careers may be damaged by others, inside or outside the University, whose opinions are different. All faculty members are entitled to full freedom in the classroom in discussing the subjects they teach. However, faculty members should be judicious in the use of controversial material in the classroom and should introduce such material only as it has clear relationship to their subject fields.

Did the manner in which Art Crimes presented their material have a clear relationship to the subject field of research? Was treatment of the material judicious?

"All faculty members are also private citizens, and as such, when speaking or writing, must be free from institutional censorship but shall not be relieved of academic responsibility. It should be recognized that the public will sometimes judge an institution or the teaching profession as a whole by the statements of an individual faculty member. Therefore, faculty members should strive to be accurate, to exercise appropriate restraint, to show respect for the opinions of others, and to avoid creating the impression that they speak or act for the University when actually speaking or acting as private persons."

Art Crimes never respected the opinions of others. The study of graffiti as vandalism was ignored and vandalism was celebrated. The presentation was neither balanced nor responsible. School administrators refused to communicate with the anti-graffiti community. This isn't academic freedom, this is arrogant defiance of respect for the human rights of others.

"The teacher is entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results, subject to the adequate performance of his/her other academic duties; but research for pecuniary return should be based upon an understanding with the authorities of the institution. b. All teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter that has no relation to their subject. Limitations of academic freedom because of religious or other aims of the institution should be clearly stated in writing at the time of the appointment. c. College or university teachers are citizens, members of a learned profession, and officers of an educational institution. When they speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline, but their special position in the community imposes special obligations. As men or women and as educational officers, they should remember that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances. Hence, they should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that they are not institutional spokespersons."

The public has indeed judged this school based on the words of Art Crimes and the professors who supported it.

"Academic freedom consists of a body of rights, not written into law but well established in custom and grounded in traditions of long standing in the colleges and universities of the Western World. It is designed to protect professional scholars from hazards that might interfere with the obligations to pursue truth. The justification of academic freedom is that it is indispensable to the scholar in the preservation, extension, and dissemination of knowledge. Though it is a specific kind of freedom peculiar to members of the teaching profession in higher education (and in this respect it is somewhat analogous to the freedom of judges from political control in Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence), its benefits ultimately accrue as much to the public at large as the scholars themselves."

And I suppose if the freedoms are not written in the law those freedoms can be interpreted as absolute? There is and can be no restraint or responsibility if you don't define it. Art Crimes was not prudently published.

. The academic employee must be free from the corrosive fear that others, inside or outside CCS, because their views might differ, may threaten that academic employee's professional career or the material benefits accruing from it. Therefore, there shall be no restraints which would impair the employee's ability to present subject matter in this context.

There is a certain amount of paranoia in this statement. "Corrosive fear" is an interesting term. So how does the rest of the world protect themselves from the professional idiot who provokes the fear of the general public the name of education? How do educators protect their rights from abuse? It is just too damned easy to fall back on absolute rights as a defense for ANY sleazy activity enjoyed by educators. What stops schools from creating child pornography sites? What constitutes "corrosive fear" on the part of everyone else?

Academic freedom does not require neutrality on the part of the individual. Rather, academic freedom makes commitment possible. Academic freedom carries with it the duty to use that freedom in a manner consistent with the scholarly obligation to base research and teaching on an honest search for knowledge.

This definition is one of the best. It is clear, quite clear. Reading this definition, any college Freshman can see that the intent behind this definition is not to protect projects like Art Crimes. The phrase, "..scholarly obligation to base research and teaching on an honest search for knowledge" never fit the Georgia Tech model.

University administrations should consider a few basic principles for ensuring the maintenance of academic freedom and appropriate management accountability. University administrations should: provide an atmosphere in which faculty know from experience that they can pursue their research, teaching and scholarly activities without vexatious interference from the public at large, university administrators or other faculty. This would include, for example, making it clear that administrations will stand behind faculty who are sued while going about their scholarly, research and community work as prescribed in handbooks/agreements etc. (It is more than a little ironic that the same university administrations which take great pride in the publicity obtained by their "star" academics run for cover when it comes to defending a faculty member who has earned not "good" publicity but "bad" publicity while carrying out his or her scholarly and contractual duties in a perfectly appropriate manner);

Anyone demanding absolute freedom needs to define "vexatious interference from the public at large." Just what do they imagine they are protecting themselves from? Seems to me the educators need to agree on what "scholarly review" means. When research becomes an integral member of a societal aberration under study, then something is wrong. When a university promotes illegal activity that causes billions of dollars in damage around the world then the so-called educator is herself guilty of vexatious interference in world affairs and the rights of others. The issue is no longer whether the opinion or approach to the research is generally unpopular. Moreover, the responsible person is guilty of violating my Constitutional rights to live peacefully and secure in my home, my city, and my state. But absolutists will disagree. (At least they will disagree until they themselves fall victim. That's pretty typical of the liberal minded in general. When the shoe fits they can't wear it. ) Any educator studying an unpopular issue ought to be damned well be ready to deal with vexations and INVITE opinions. That vexatious public ought to be part of the research. At Art Crimes not even the University President would answer mail about the aberration that was Art Crimes. Not one person at Georgia Tech could outline how Art Crimes was presented in a "perfectly approrpiate manner."

 

Last modified February 22, 1998

An Anti-Graffiti Web Page / nograffiti@dougweb.com