Bill Cork, the blogfather of "Refuge for the Literate," changed his blog name…again. It’s now "Built on a Rock." Before that it was "Tischreden." Before that it was "ut unim sint."

My favorite comments from the post:

You’ve changed the blog title almost as many times as you’ve converted. (i.e., from Adventist-Lutheran-Catholic)

Bill, your changes in name are not the entire reason I went to a dynamic blogroll, but . . .

"We are now… no longer the Knights Who Say ‘Ni’…. We are now the Knights Who Say ‘Ecky- ecky- ecky- ecky- pikang- zoop- boing- goodem- zoo- owli- zhiv’."

"A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways."

I went a long time ago to blogrolling you as "Bill Cork" rather than the ephemeral name of your blog.

Then again, maybe you’re just trying to get yourself listed closer to the top of peoples’ Bloglines lists.

Here are some musings on academic freedom (and, more specifically, regarding the "Academic Bill of Rights" proposed in various forms by Horowitz and colleagues) I had while listening to old NPR discussions.  They are not definitive opinions, though they may appear to be.  Lobby me if you wish to change my mind (I don’t golf, but I would like a trip or two to Scotland).

• One of the major problems of the Academic Bill of Rights is that it fails to take into account the place of margianalization.  In this country, we have fairly unrestricted speech.  As a result, the culture self-regulates by margianalizing views it holds to be odious, such as Holocaust denial, white supremicism, and sexism.  It’s not a perfect system; some odious ideas remain popular (anti-Catholicism comes to mind) while other, worthy ideas are margianilized unnecessarily.  An Academic Bill of Rights, with its legislated insistence on showing all sides of every issue, would give those holding margianilized views access to impressionable students.  The argument exists that students are already exposed to views worth margianilizing, and the Academic Bill of Rights would offer students access to reasonable but unfairly margianilized views.  I think this solution would cause more problems than the current system, though.  It’s true that higher education is tipped to the left, but I think  most professors, even the most radical, are professional enough to not "indoctrinate" students.  I’m much more concerned about racists and bigots in the classroom (and yes, I know there are a few there already, but there are very few) than leftist, professional professors.
• No matter what happens in the legislatures, religious institutions must be able to maintain their freedom.  This freedom must include the ability to make students and faculty sign a statement of belief, hire and fire faculty based on religious affiliation and views, and restrict on-campus and university-sponsored activities that violate the core beliefs of the institution.  I do not say this as a religious person (I am, but that’s irrelevant to the point), but as an American concerned about government’s intrusion into religion.  Religious institutions have the right of self-definition–that is, they can decide who or what represents their values.  If government is allowed to intrude on religious institutions’ freedom of self-definition, it will eventually intrude on individual citizens’ right of self-definition.  I don’t want to imagine what would happen thereafter.
• The Academic Bill of Rights could be a legal nightmare for instructors.  I think there’s already a witchhunt for liberal professors (see David Horowitz, The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America, [Washington: Regnery, 2006]).  If that witchhunt were legislated, imagine the result: students "outing" professors they think too liberal or conservative, regardless of the quality of instruction.  Imagine how many students would appeal their grades–through the courts–if they felt their professors were "discriminating" against them.  I know that such grade discrimination exists, but I think it’s rare enough to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.  An example: My thesis (which will one day be posted here) took seriously the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures and the writings of the patristic fathers (including extended examinations of Saint Augustine).  My thesis committee consisted of three feminists, two of whom were interested in gay and lesbian literature and one of whom was a former novice at a Catholic religious order.  Though they couldn’t be more liberal, they were all extremely fair and honest in their criticisms.  I was never discriminated against, and even received an "A" on the project.

I sometimes don’t know how to feel about bills like the one described in a recent Inside Higher Ed article.  The article notes:

The legislation there would require public colleges to provide students with “alternative coursework” if a student finds the assigned material “personally offensive,” which is defined as something that “conflicts with the student’s beliefs or practices in sex, morality or religion.” On Wednesday, the bill starting moving, with the Senate Committee on Higher Education approving the measure — much to the dismay of professors in the state.

As much as I believe in student and parent rights in education, I cannot square this proposal with my academic freedom concerns.  In the K-12 world, students are still under the protection of their parents and, therefore, teachers must be very careful that individual family values are not insulted. 

College students, though, can be treated as adults.  They can handle everything from dirty words to violence to sex.*  More importantly, they can make the decision at the beginning of class to drop if they believe the subject matter will offend, bother, or bore them.**  Of course, many easily-offended students might object, saying that time constraints may leave them no choice but to take a course with "offensive" literature.  As a matter of fact, we all know that such courses are normally restricted to electives.  Still, I don’t think this exception to the rule justifies a new rule.  (Of course, I mean public colleges.  Private colleges, religious or no, certainly have the legal right to push and maintain a point of view–including a "moral" reading list.  Public colleges, on the other hand, have a responsibility to adhere to academic freedom.  See footnote below.)

The strongest argument against the Arizona law, besides that of academic freedom,*** is that obscene literature is either misinterpreted or indeed useful (despite its obscenity).  There have been various campaigns, over the years, to banish The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn from education because of the book’s use of racial slurs.****  Many have misinterpreted the book as racist, rather than as historically accurate–said racial slur was used to describe slaves in specific (which is why people like me are so confounded at the slur’s current widespread use).  An obscene book that (maybe) is useful to study is Hitler’s Mein Kampf.  Although more or less useless to aesthetes, Hitler’s paranoid diatribe is useful in showing students how racism is rationalized.  If such material is avoided, students will be unprepared to deal with real-world problems.  Decency is all well and good, but it is not always carried out in the world.  College is about showing the world, as it is, to students.  Then, after they know, they can change it.

*Some professors have even made a case for teaching the "aesthetics" of pornography ("What is art?" and all that), with proper warnings in the course description.  I’ve never been convinced that pornography is worth studying as art (it has some interesting sociological and psychological aspects), but I know little as of yet.

**Two examples: 1) I had a choice of "Introduction to Literary Theory" sections.  One examined Gulliver’s Travels from gender, feminist, and Freudian perspectives.  I’m sorry, but none of those three perspectives particularly interested me at the time.  The section I chose had plenty of gender, feminist, and Freudian theory, but these were restricted to individual articles (the main texts were novels).   2) A young woman I knew at UH–a young woman, I note, who is in the process of becoming a nun at the present time–took a class called "Queer Studies."  She thought "queer" meant the study of odd and interesting things.  Yes, she did drop the class.

***Others are arguing this point better than I, so I will restrict my comments to a footnote.  The problem, in my opinion, is conflicting perspectives.  There’s a large and lively movement for "standards-based" education (i.e., the three "R’s", standardized testing and all that) that doesn’t understand the place  of academic freedom.  If the purpose of teaching literature is to understand literature, then why is so-called obscene literature necessary?  The problem with this perspective is the assembly-line image it evokes; professors are turned into cogs in an education machine.  Academic freedom is necessary, then, to ensure that literature (as an example) is still taught as art and not as rote memorization.

 ****Another example of misinterpretation (it’s touched on in the Inside Higher Ed article) is when champions of moral art read satirical works.  The article uses The Ice Storm as an example–the legislator can’t understand that certain scenes do not approve of promiscuous behavior, though it is portrayed.  An example that immediately comes to mind is South Park, which has developed a satirical edge that is perhaps unparalleled on television.  One episode transfers the Hurricane Katrina story to a small town destroyed by a collapsed beaver dam.  The episode’s writers did not make fun of those who lost their lives and homes; rather, they pointed out how concerned the press was about blame.  One child asks his parents if the town’s residents will be saved, and the parent replies (paraphrased), "I don’t know.  What really matters now is who’s at fault."  Perhaps the Arizona leglislator could see no reason to include this episode of South Park in, say, a modern literature course; I could, though.  Beyond the dirty jokes and dirty language is a profound point about our society: people are more important than politics.   If students have to sit through a few dirty jokes to get that point, then I’m fine with it (and I’m sure they will be, as well).

Since David Horowitz released his latest scathing attack on academe, I’ve been scratching my head.  Does Horowitz, a guerilla politico, honestly think he can speak intelligently on matters of literature, economics, and social sciences?  How does he honestly believe he can correctly understand the points raised by legitimate scholars in these fields–and understand them well enough to dub their progenitors "dangerous"?  As a freshman and sophomore, I was very concerned over the "liberal slant" in academe.  By the time I had completed my undergraduate degree in English (one of the more liberal departments on any campus), I was wondering if this slant even existed in substance.

Now, I’m not naive.  I don’t know the numbers, but they substantiate a supermajority of liberal and liberal-leaning professors in American universities and colleges.  I’m also aware that, not being as conservative as I once was, I’m perhaps not as sensitive to any "insidious liberalism" in the academic environments where I’ve resided.

That said, I think bias needs to be evaluated based on substance.  Just because a professor–say, Professor Berube–conducts scholarship that is informed by a liberal worldview does not mean that he advances bias in the classroom.  Bias results when professors discriminate against students for opposing views.  My personal experience is perhaps informative.  I could tell that most of my professors were liberal, and conservative views did not offend them.  No student was ever talked down for being a conservative or expressing conservative views.  Was their scholarship biased?  A little.  Still, I never felt they were indoctrinating me or anyone else.  Conservative students expressed conservative views and did just as well as liberal students, which is how it should be.

Caveat: I’m expressing my personal experience.  I don’t make any claims to know everything about this subject or any other.  I just think, sometimes, that conservatives are perhaps over-sensitive about this subject.  Food for thought.  Discuss.*

*Please don’t bring up Ward Churchill.  All of us, conservative and liberal, agree he’s an idiot.  Thank you.

Start with an innocent hunting accident involving the vice president of the United States.

Call the accident a (I’m not making this up!) "shooting" at least twice.

Ask the White House press secretary whether it is "for a private citizen to be the person to disseminate the information that the vice president of the United States has shot someone."  It’s very important that you leave out the adverb "accidentally," because you can be sure CNN will quote the question verbatim (though it hardly ever quotes reporters’ questions).

Make up a controversy when no one notices the story.  The substance of the controversy isn’t all that important–how about the manner in which it was disclosed?  Now, I know what you’re saying: Who’ll find that interesting/controversial/outrageous?  Well, no one, until you put the following headline in place:  "White House defends handling of Cheney shooting."  It’s very important that you use the word "defend"–it implies that there is something to defend against.  Most reasonable people will instinctively think that ordinary citizens are leading the cries against the White House.  Don’t worry about that–just bury the fact that no one is raising criticism except journalists.*  It’s equally important that you use the word "shooting."  Get it right there in the headline.  It’s not technically a lie, even if it’s not accurate.

Place the hyperlink to the story on the top fold sidebar of your website.  Some may click on it, but most won’t, leaving them with the perception that people are uprising over Cheney’s "shooting."  Most will probably think he went around killing stray puppies.  Whatever.

And we thought the yellow press was dead. 

*And remember: A room full of loudmouthed journalists does not amount to "rising criticism."  Until we elect journalists to represent us, they do not represent us.

—–

Being a follower of Neil Gaiman’s work in academia is a lonely vocation. There have only been about five articles published in MLA Bibliography-indexed journals directly analyzing Gaiman’s writings. Other than those articles, there are a handful of theses and dissertations (including my thesis), as well as a few scattered conference papers. Most of these scant materials relate directly to the Sandman comics–indeed, all of the journal articles focus on the comic series, and all but one focus on the seminal issue, "A Midsummer Night’s Dream."* Things seem to be changing, though, as the second weekend in April attests.

As some of you know, I am presenting a paper analyzing American Gods at the College English Association on the second weekend of April. On the same weekend, two (!) panels are scheduled on Gaiman’s work at another conference (I’ll give more details when I have confirmation). Also–and this is particularly exciting–another scholar will present on Gaiman at the same conference I’m attending. I’m thankful to organizers of both conferences for being so open to contemporary authors.

Followers of Gaiman’s work have long awaited this much access to academic discussions. These conferences, as well as the upcoming issue of ImageTexT, are important to us because they provide networking and discussion. We can now cite peer-reviewed and juried sources. We can now meet each other and organize.** For the first time in my life, I can say that it’s a great time to be interested in Gaiman’s writing.

*Most contemporary authors are analyzed (it seems to me, anyway) either in relation to popular culture or canonical authors. These methods compose the entirety of journal articles, as they either analyze Sandman as an example of Shakespeare in the popular culture or compare "A Midsummer Night’s Dream" to the original text.

**One of my goals is to get enough scholars networked to merit an H-Net listserv and then a full-fledged society. If you’re a scholar on Gaiman’s writing, let me know–I’ll try to keep an informal list together. 

—–

Currently, groups like the American Family Association are up in arms over an upcoming episode of Will and Grace in a manner they find offensive.  The AFA and other like-minded organizations are declaring victory over NBC after the network pulled its controversial and short-lived program, The Book of Daniel.  I’d like to put in my two cents on this issue.

–We should all remember that others have just as much right to blaspheme as Christians have to call out blasphemy.

–Declaring victory does little good, especially when the evidence is not particularly favorable to the  claim.  The Book of Daniel was released in January and scheduled on Friday nights–clearly, NBC did not have much faith in its continuance.  Had the controversy caused curious eyes to watch the show, then NBC would have continued it.  NBC’s decision was economic, not political–letters matter little, viewers matter much.  Thus, declaring that Christian protests were "instrumental" in the show’s cancellation makes protesters sound arrogant.

–Conspiracy theories do less good than declarations of victory.  The head of the AFA said in a press release that NBC is "smarting from the Book of Daniel defeat they suffered, and this is their way to get even."  If NBC is announcing the show this past week, then it was probably in the docket for at least a month.  The offending joke (and, not to mention, Britney Spears’s guest appearance) was probably put together months ago.  Crafting conspiracy theories only makes the AFA and associated groups look paranoid and irrational.

–Politics is perception (The American President–rent it sometime).  Consider the current fiasco in the Arab world over a five-month-old Danish editorial cartoon.  Arab leaders are using an offensive–but protected–cartoon as an excuse to incite violent protests.  Meanwhile, many in the West are beginning to say some nasty things about Muslims because of how their leaders are representing that faith.  I’m not saying that the current fuss over Will and Grace is as irrational or dangerous as the current fuss over the Danish cartoon–far from it.  I’m just saying that all should be aware that no group makes inroads into the mass culture by ignoring how the mass culture perceives that group.

–Responses to offensive art should be prompt, grassroots efforts.  It is acceptable, for example, to boycott the network, send letters to network and advertiser contacts, and encourage one’s entire address list to do the same.  Such actions must be restrained, though.  All rhetoric must be peaceful, for the reasons discussed above.

–Education is far more effective than anger.  When the US government was accused of desecrating the Qu’ran, the Council on American-Islamic Relations gave free away thousands of copies of the Muslim holy book.  Currently, they’re promoting stories from the Islamic tradition of Muhammad turning the other cheek in an attempt to assuage the anger being hurled by many Muslims at the West.  They criticize, but they also educate–which, in the end, will bring far more people to their side than anger, however righteous it may be.

In summary, I don’t think Christian groups have to submit to attacks on religion by the mass culture.  I would love for them to join the conversation our country is trying to have on morality, but I want the conversation to be civil.  In my opinion, the joke on Will and Grace is just as insensitive and juvenile as the Danish cartoon that portrays Muhammed as a terrorist.  What that tells me is that many in the mass media are still immature in their understanding of Christianity; they need to be educated, not shut down.  Maybe they can’t be convinced, and maybe they will always be so immature.  Christian groups cannot stoop down to that low level, though.  They have a higher calling, after all.

—–