I Thought College Professors Were All About Free Speech

[CamEdwards]

Fascinating story from the Wall Street Journal today:

You Still Can't Write About Muhammad - WSJ.com

Just a portion...

Starting in 2002, Spokane, Wash., journalist Sherry Jones toiled weekends on a racy historical novel about Aisha, the young wife of the prophet Muhammad. Ms. Jones learned Arabic, studied scholarly works about Aisha's life, and came to admire her protagonist as a woman of courage. When Random House bought her novel last year in a $100,000, two-book deal, she was ecstatic. This past spring, she began plans for an eight-city book tour after the Aug. 12 publication date of "The Jewel of Medina" -- a tale of lust, love and intrigue in the prophet's harem.

It's not going to happen: In May, Random House abruptly called off publication of the book. The series of events that torpedoed this novel are a window into how quickly fear stunts intelligent discourse about the Muslim world.

Random House feared the book would become a new "Satanic Verses," the Salman Rushdie novel of 1988 that led to death threats, riots and the murder of the book's Japanese translator, among other horrors. In an interview about Ms. Jones's novel, Thomas Perry, deputy publisher at Random House Publishing Group, said that it "disturbs us that we feel we cannot publish it right now." He said that after sending out advance copies of the novel, the company received "from credible and unrelated sources, cautionary advice not only that the publication of this book might be offensive to some in the Muslim community, but also that it could incite acts of violence by a small, radical segment."

This time, the instigator of the trouble wasn't a radical Muslim cleric, but an American academic. In April, looking for endorsements, Random House sent galleys to writers and scholars, including Denise Spellberg, an associate professor of Islamic history at the University of Texas in Austin. Ms. Jones put her on the list because she read Ms. Spellberg's book, "Politics, Gender, and the Islamic Past: The Legacy of 'A'isha Bint Abi Bakr."

But Ms. Spellberg wasn't a fan of Ms. Jones's book. On April 30, Shahed Amanullah, a guest lecturer in Ms. Spellberg's classes and the editor of a popular Muslim Web site, got a frantic call from her. "She was upset," Mr. Amanullah recalls. He says Ms. Spellberg told him the novel "made fun of Muslims and their history," and asked him to warn Muslims.

In an interview, Ms. Spellberg told me the novel is a "very ugly, stupid piece of work." The novel, for example, includes a scene on the night when Muhammad consummated his marriage with Aisha: "the pain of consummation soon melted away. Muhammad was so gentle. I hardly felt the scorpion's sting. To be in his arms, skin to skin, was the bliss I had longed for all my life." Says Ms. Spellberg: "I walked through a metal detector to see 'Last Temptation of Christ,'" the controversial 1980s film adaptation of a novel that depicted a relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. "I don't have a problem with historical fiction. I do have a problem with the deliberate misinterpretation of history. You can't play with a sacred history and turn it into soft core pornography."

After he got the call from Ms. Spellberg, Mr. Amanullah dashed off an email to a listserv of Middle East and Islamic studies graduate students, acknowledging he didn't "know anything about it [the book]," but telling them, "Just got a frantic call from a professor who got an advance copy of the forthcoming novel, 'Jewel of Medina' -- she said she found it incredibly offensive." He added a write-up about the book from the Publishers Marketplace, an industry publication.

The next day, a blogger known as Shahid Pradhan posted Mr. Amanullah's email on a Web site for Shiite Muslims -- "Hussaini Youth" -- under a headline, "upcoming book, 'Jewel of Medina': A new attempt to slander the Prophet of Islam." Two hours and 28 minutes after that, another person by the name of Ali Hemani proposed a seven-point strategy to ensure "the writer withdraws this book from the stores and apologise all the muslims across the world."

Meanwhile back in New York City, Jane Garrett, an editor at Random House's Knopf imprint, dispatched an email on May 1 to Knopf executives, telling them she got a phone call the evening before from Ms. Spellberg (who happens to be under contract with Knopf to write "Thomas Jefferson's Qur'an.")

"She thinks there is a very real possibility of major danger for the building and staff and widespread violence," Ms. Garrett wrote. "Denise says it is 'a declaration of war . . . explosive stuff . . . a national security issue.' Thinks it will be far more controversial than the satanic verses and the Danish cartoons. Does not know if the author and Ballantine folks are clueless or calculating, but thinks the book should be withdrawn ASAP." ("The Jewel of Medina" was to be published by Random House's Ballantine Books.) That day, the email spread like wildfire through Random House, which also received a letter from Ms. Spellberg and her attorney, saying she would sue the publisher if her name was associated with the novel. On May 2, a Ballantine editor told Ms. Jones's agent the company decided to possibly postpone publication of the book.

On a May 21 conference call, Random House executive Elizabeth McGuire told the author and her agent that the publishing house had decided to indefinitely postpone publication of the novel for "fear of a possible terrorist threat from extremist Muslims" and concern for "the safety and security of the Random House building and employees."

If this is true, I'd like to think the professor would be ostracized by her fellow instructors at UT. Last time I checked, colleges were supposed to be all about the exchange of ideas and information.

[molson]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

If this is true, I'd like to think the professor would be ostracized by her fellow instructors at UT. Last time I checked, colleges were supposed to be all about the exchange of ideas and information.

I don't know if it's like supposed to be like that in other fields, but I know that publishing a conservative-leaning law review article is a huge strike against one's chances of landing a job as a law professor.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by molson

I don't know if it's like supposed to be like that in other fields, but I know that publishing a conservative-leaning law review article is a huge strike against one's chances of landing a job as a law professor.

But it's a great way to land a job in the Justice Department, so it all evens out.

Justice Dept. Report on Hiring Finds Violations - NYTimes.com

[st.cronin]

Bizarre.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

If this is true, I'd like to think the professor would be ostracized by her fellow instructors at UT. Last time I checked, colleges were supposed to be all about the exchange of ideas and information.

I like how you take the actions of one person and extrapolate them to cover an entire profession. Bravo!

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I like how you take the actions of one person and extrapolate them to cover an entire profession. Bravo!

Your reading comprehension appears to be a lot worse than your MS Paint skills.

I am specifically NOT extrapolating her actions to cover an entire profession. In fact, I'm saying that her actions are in opposition to what I (and I assume a lot of college professors) believe... that freedom of speech is a good thing and debate is necessary in a free society. I would also hope that when college professors see something like this going on, they would speak out.

[flere-imsaho]

Your tone, especially "I'd like to think" suggests sarcasm. If that was not your intent, I apologize.

[CamEdwards]

Nope, no sarcasm. I really would like to think that. I'm taking sort of a wait-and-see approach to how the campus community reacts to this story. Apology accepted though, and thanks for offering it.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by molson

I don't know if it's like supposed to be like that in other fields, but I know that publishing a conservative-leaning law review article is a huge strike against one's chances of landing a job as a law professor.

That's simply not true. There are hundreds of conservative and/or libertarian law professors across the country many of whom published explicitly political work before being hired and before being given tenure. With the growth of Law and Economics as a field, in many ways candidates who have written conservative works actually have an advantage in the teaching market.

[John Galt]

As to the main story, I'm not sure I understand why the professor in question was against "free speech." Telling a publisher and others that the story is offensive to Muslims is an expression of her free speech. The only part of the story that seems somewhat anti-speech is the "danger" warning, but that seems to be a third hand (by the time it gets to the article writer) explanation of what the professor said. Maybe I'm missing something, though, in the original article.

I also don't trust the WSJ Opinion page much in these stories as similar stories have been riddled with errors. And since the author of the opinion piece is the author of the book in question, there are even more reasons to be suspicious that there was an objective portrayal of the facts.

[molson]

Originally Posted by John Galt

That's simply not true. There are hundreds of conservative and/or libertarian law professors across the country many of whom published explicitly political work before being hired and before being given tenure. With the growth of Law and Economics as a field, in many ways candidates who have written conservative works actually have an advantage in the teaching market.

I've never hired a professor or tried to become a professor so maybe it's just a perception. but it's a HUGE one, at least in the west.

And I know my own law school had one token conservative professor who was older, at the end of his career, and not interested in making any waves. (I should point out that the school has NOTHING to do with my current location).

[CamEdwards]

Actually John, the author of the piece is NOT the author of the book. The author of the book is Sherry Jones, the author of the piece in the WSJ is Asra Nomani.

And this isn't 3rd hand reporting:

In an interview, Ms. Spellberg told me the novel is a "very ugly, stupid piece of work." The novel, for example, includes a scene on the night when Muhammad consummated his marriage with Aisha: "the pain of consummation soon melted away. Muhammad was so gentle. I hardly felt the scorpion's sting. To be in his arms, skin to skin, was the bliss I had longed for all my life." Says Ms. Spellberg: "I walked through a metal detector to see 'Last Temptation of Christ,'" the controversial 1980s film adaptation of a novel that depicted a relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. "I don't have a problem with historical fiction. I do have a problem with the deliberate misinterpretation of history. You can't play with a sacred history and turn it into soft core pornography."

You also have a named source telling Nomani that the professor asked him to spread the word about this book on Muslim list-servs to "warn them" about this (and presumably to drum up outrage). No, it's not government censorship, but it's certainly not the tolerance of ideas that should be the hallmark of a good college campus.

[miked]

I'm all about tenure. Free speech is for hippies.

[Passacaglia]

Don't worry, Cam -- I'm sure the book will get leaked.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Actually John, the author of the piece is NOT the author of the book. The author of the book is Sherry Jones, the author of the piece in the WSJ is Asra Nomani.

Oops. I got confused between the books - my bad.

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

And this isn't 3rd hand reporting:

You also have a named source telling Nomani that the professor asked him to spread the word about this book on Muslim list-servs to "warn them" about this (and presumably to drum up outrage). No, it's not government censorship, but it's certainly not the tolerance of ideas that should be the hallmark of a good college campus.

These days, that is more free speech than anything else. [W]arn[ing] them" doesn't strike me as anything out of bounds. Even "drum[ming] up outrage" isn't anti-free speech. It seems especially odd for such a complaint to appear on WSJ Opinion page as that page has turned into a vehicle for outrage by anyone on the right who needs to vent against some perceived slight.

I don't know the contents of the book, but I do think, based upon the WSJ explanation of the facts, the professor went a bit overboard. I just don't think the story has much to do with free speech even if I accept the WSJ version at face value.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by molson

I've never hired a professor or tried to become a professor so maybe it's just a perception. but it's a HUGE one, at least in the west.

It is a very common perception, but it just isn't supported by the current hiring patterns. A large majority of law faculty are liberal. And even among new hires, the majority are most likely liberal. However, among the conservatives in the hiring pool (who are a minority), I would guess they do the same if not better than the average liberal in the pool. This trend is particularly true in the business law areas where Law and Economics is the predominant school of thought. And then there are some schools that pretty much hire no liberals at all (GMU, Pepperdine, and the newer religion-focused schools). There are certainly instances where some schools would consider being a conservative to be a black mark (although that usually has more to do with the personal opinions of who happens to be on the hiring committee that year), but I think that is a rarity these days.

[BrianD]

After he got the call from Ms. Spellberg, Mr. Amanullah dashed off an email to a listserv of Middle East and Islamic studies graduate students, acknowledging he didn't "know anything about it [the book]," but telling them, "Just got a frantic call from a professor who got an advance copy of the forthcoming novel, 'Jewel of Medina' -- she said she found it incredibly offensive." He added a write-up about the book from the Publishers Marketplace, an industry publication.

The next day, a blogger known as Shahid Pradhan posted Mr. Amanullah's email on a Web site for Shiite Muslims -- "Hussaini Youth" -- under a headline, "upcoming book, 'Jewel of Medina': A new attempt to slander the Prophet of Islam." Two hours and 28 minutes after that, another person by the name of Ali Hemani proposed a seven-point strategy to ensure "the writer withdraws this book from the stores and apologise all the muslims across the world."

This is the part I find most sad. One person read the book and was offended, and we end up with a strategy to ensure a withdrawal of the book and an apology...and the person was an American academic. What ever happened to people making their own decisions rather than protesting offense because they are told that they will be offended when they actually see something?

[JPhillips]

How is this different from the Ward Churchill outrage or the efforts to keep Juan Cole from being hired at Yale? Free speech doesn't mean free of any consequences. While I'd gladly support the publication of this book, a coordinated effort to keep something from being published has been standard practice for years for folks on all sides of the political spectrum.

It's also important to remember that every profession has it's share of idiots. I wouldn't dream of defending every professor, but the overwhelming majority do what the overwhelming majority of Americans do, work hard and try their best to excel at their job.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

How is this different from the Ward Churchill outrage or the efforts to keep Juan Cole from being hired at Yale? Free speech doesn't mean free of any consequences. While I'd gladly support the publication of this book, a coordinated effort to keep something from being published has been standard practice for years for folks on all sides of the political spectrum.

really?

Also, I thought the Ward Churchill thing was mostly because he lied about his background, not because of his politics.

[JPhillips]

The initial outrage over Churchill was absolutely about his comments and the first efforts made to get him fired were focused only on his political beliefs.

I probably should have made clear that "published" for me means more than just books. I am including movies, plays, music, etc. as well. If you add in book burnings, newspaper hoarding and the like you could argue that silencing expression is an American tradition.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Cam, sweetie. You're being sarcastic aren't you? You don't really think college professors are all about free speech. Do you? You're just trying to get a rise out of us.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

really?

Also, I thought the Ward Churchill thing was mostly because he lied about his background, not because of his politics.

The problem with the claim that he lied about his background was that his ethnicity was questioned before he was given tenure at Colorado (you can find several newspaper accounts from the 80's when he was involved with AIM). Even worse, some of his scholarship actually focused on the idea that American Indian culture should not be defined based upon someone's blood lineage (which Churchill argued had been a tool for dehumanizing Native Americans).

The bigger problem for Churchill was that he played fast and loose with some academic norms for citation and may have even made some stuff up. It's a close call on those charges, but I think the revocation of tenure was warranted. Of course, no one would have ever gone after Churchill for academic misconduct (or even heard of him) - it was the political backlash from his comments about 9/11.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

Cam, sweetie. You're being sarcastic aren't you? You don't really think college professors are all about free speech. Do you? You're just trying to get a rise out of us.

What can I say? I'm back in one of my "sunny optimist" phases.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Your tone, especially "I'd like to think" suggests sarcasm. If that was not your intent, I apologize.

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Nope, no sarcasm. I really would like to think that. I'm taking sort of a wait-and-see approach to how the campus community reacts to this story. Apology accepted though, and thanks for offering it.

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

Cam, sweetie. You're being sarcastic aren't you? You don't really think college professors are all about free speech. Do you? You're just trying to get a rise out of us.

I LOLed.

[flere-imsaho]

This thread has reminded me of the professor at Northwestern (of all places) who's a prominent Holocaust denier. I think he's on the engineering faculty or something.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by John Galt

The problem with the claim that he lied about his background was that his ethnicity was questioned before he was given tenure at Colorado (you can find several newspaper accounts from the 80's when he was involved with AIM). Even worse, some of his scholarship actually focused on the idea that American Indian culture should not be defined based upon someone's blood lineage (which Churchill argued had been a tool for dehumanizing Native Americans).

The bigger problem for Churchill was that he played fast and loose with some academic norms for citation and may have even made some stuff up. It's a close call on those charges, but I think the revocation of tenure was warranted. Of course, no one would have ever gone after Churchill for academic misconduct (or even heard of him) - it was the political backlash from his comments about 9/11.

Right, I agree. But if the other things weren't true, his political beliefs would ultimately have been inconsequential (imo).

[JPhillips]

I'm not arguing whether or not he should have lost tenure, my point is that the attempt to silence him was entirely because he offended a fairly small group of folks. Whether or not a group succeeds in silencing viewpoints it finds offensive isn't consequential. I would disagree with Prof. Spellberg's methods whether or not she succeeded in getting the book pulled.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'm not arguing whether or not he should have lost tenure, my point is that the attempt to silence him was entirely because he offended a fairly small group of folks. Whether or not a group succeeds in silencing viewpoints it finds offensive isn't consequential. I would disagree with Prof. Spellberg's methods whether or not she succeeded in getting the book pulled.

lolz

[JPhillips]

A very small group of talking heads and bloggers pushed the Churchill story. To this day I'd bet that 75% or more of the population wouldn't know who Churchill is.

[Marc Vaughan]

Sounds like simple PR for what will undoubtably be a very very boring book.

PR Recipe No.10:

* Alledge that item in question is being victimised by an oppressive minority
* Stir Up controversy until people wonder what the item is like to have caused such offense
* Release item
* Hope some people buy it out of intruige

(worked for Mr. Rushdie with his novel)


.... end cynicism ...

[ISiddiqui]

I don't think Rushdie needed to stir up controversy (and he sure didn't invite it). Not after "Midnight's Children" and all the praise it recieved.

[Shkspr]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Fascinating story from the Wall Street Journal today:

If this is true, I'd like to think the professor would be ostracized by her fellow instructors at UT. Last time I checked, colleges were supposed to be all about the exchange of ideas and information.

Well, since it's pretty safe to assume that the NRA is paying someone hush money under the table to rat out their liberal colleagues, we should get the rest of the facts fairly quickly.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Shkspr

Well, since it's pretty safe to assume that the NRA is paying someone hush money under the table to rat out their liberal colleagues, we should get the rest of the facts fairly quickly.

Quick, someone expressed an opinion I disagree with! Divert attention and attack the messenger, then sit back and wait for the flame war!

Seriously, this is most reasoned argument you could come up with? "Cam disagrees with something, therefore let me try to badmouth something Cam is involved with!"

That's awesome. I am so happy to see you're not contributing to the ignorance, stupidity, unreasonableness, and apathy in this country. Thank you for not being one of those people that make it impossible to talk with those we disagree with, because we're too busy shouting at them. I truly appreciate it.

(BTW, flere and farrah... THAT was sarcasm)

And, just for the record, you've got your allegations screwed up. A woman who served on the boards of several gun control organizations is alleged to have been a contractor in some way for the NRA. I, along with other reporters, have contacted the NRA for comment, but they're not releasing any statements. And just for the record, I'm not involved in any political or program activities for the NRA, I don't work at NRA headquarters, and they don't have any editorial control over the program that I produce.

So... care to comment on the WSJ story, or is tarring and feathering people you disagree with your only debate tactic?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

What can I say? I'm back in one of my "sunny optimist" phases.

Quick, read some major newspapers. That ought to cure it

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

That's awesome. I am so happy to see you're not contributing to the ignorance, stupidity, unreasonableness, and apathy in this country. Thank you for not being one of those people that make it impossible to talk with those we disagree with, because we're too busy shouting at them. I truly appreciate it.

(BTW, flere and farrah... THAT was sarcasm)

Oh, I thought you were serious this time.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Quick, someone expressed an opinion I disagree with! Divert attention and attack the messenger, then sit back and wait for the flame war!

Seriously, this is most reasoned argument you could come up with? "Cam disagrees with something, therefore let me try to badmouth something Cam is involved with!"

That's awesome. I am so happy to see you're not contributing to the ignorance, stupidity, unreasonableness, and apathy in this country. Thank you for not being one of those people that make it impossible to talk with those we disagree with, because we're too busy shouting at them. I truly appreciate it.

(BTW, flere and farrah... THAT was sarcasm)

And, just for the record, you've got your allegations screwed up. A woman who served on the boards of several gun control organizations is alleged to have been a contractor in some way for the NRA. I, along with other reporters, have contacted the NRA for comment, but they're not releasing any statements. And just for the record, I'm not involved in any political or program activities for the NRA, I don't work at NRA headquarters, and they don't have any editorial control over the program that I produce.

So... care to comment on the WSJ story, or is tarring and feathering people you disagree with your only debate tactic?

I get where you're coming from in general, but my reading of the above was a snarky reference to the NRA "spy" story.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I like how you take the actions of one person and extrapolate them to cover an entire profession. Bravo!

Wow, that might have been the furthest from me I have ever seen someone end up after the reading the same sentence.

[Maple Leafs]

You're way too smart to have actually thought college professors were about free speech.

[King of New York]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

You're way too smart to have actually thought college professors were about free speech.

Some of them are--more than most people think--but they are certainly a minority, and a quiet minority at that.

I think that in about ten to fifteen years, though, you'll find that college faculties are a lot more willing to accept the expression of diverse, and yes even conservative, viewpoints. The diehard radical lefties still hold the commanding positions and make the public pronouncements, but their numbers are dwindling fast, and in fewer than ten years they will be entirely gone.

Not that the old guard is being replaced by diehard right-wingers, but my impression is that most professors under the age of forty-five are realtively centrist, and focused on their careers and their scholarship.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by John Galt

The problem with the claim that he lied about his background was that his ethnicity was questioned before he was given tenure at Colorado (you can find several newspaper accounts from the 80's when he was involved with AIM). Even worse, some of his scholarship actually focused on the idea that American Indian culture should not be defined based upon someone's blood lineage (which Churchill argued had been a tool for dehumanizing Native Americans).

The bigger problem for Churchill was that he played fast and loose with some academic norms for citation and may have even made some stuff up. It's a close call on those charges, but I think the revocation of tenure was warranted. Of course, no one would have ever gone after Churchill for academic misconduct (or even heard of him) - it was the political backlash from his comments about 9/11.

I guess the moral of the story is...engage in free speech all you want...as long as there are no skeletons in your closet.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

(BTW, flere and farrah... THAT was sarcasm)

priceless inclusion there

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I am specifically NOT extrapolating her actions to cover an entire profession. In fact, I'm saying that her actions are in opposition to what I (and I assume a lot of college professors) believe... that freedom of speech is a good thing and debate is necessary in a free society. I would also hope that when college professors see something like this going on, they would speak out.

This post deserves, yes, kids, the dancing banana:

SI

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

This post deserves, yes, kids, the dancing banana:

SI

Is that a good thing or a bad thing? I've always been on the fence regarding the dancing banana.

[flere-imsaho]

Wishy-washy liberal. You can't be on the fence about the dancing banana.

[CamEdwards]

Well I'm fully supportive of the cha-chaing rutabaga.