On the Churchill issue, there are several things at stake that are not necessarily about academic freedom. That's why in all things Churchillian, folks on the right want to use the case. I don't think it fits very well.
As for the actual facts of the case, I've seen it argued both ways. And I know enough from having been on the inside in a couple of troubling cases, to know that everything is in the details and little of the details in the Churchill case are public now.
As for the more general issue of whether universities do well when students complain of faculty misteaching, it's not easy for the public to know and it may well be necessary to make those more public. During my stay, we had one case of faculty plagiarism in which a tenured faculty member was quietly let go; we had two cases of somewhat ambiguous faculty sexual harassment in which faculty members were severely reprimanded and allowed to quietly retire; we had one case of alcoholism with same result; and one case in which a department chair would only vote to hire new faculty members if, as a candidate, they would pray a very Christian prayer with him. He was quite powerful and long standing so appointments to his department were made over his objections.
You don't hear about these for the obvious reasons. But my guess is that the academy is better in dealing with its problem children than corporations.
As for "politicking" in class in unacceptable ways, it certainly happens. When students remarked about it, we made certain the Deans knew about, the faculty member was made known of it.
But, I repeat, that's not what bothers people like Pipes. It's folk who have views that are different from theirs. They want ideological conformity. |
