 |
 |
I find myself able to agree with you, Mark. But not with Fish. Mairead On 8/30/07, Mark Weiss <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > I read the article at the time, and perhaps misremember it, so bear > with me. He wasn't saying (selon moi) that academics shouldn't get > involved in public debate, but that they should do so as private > citizens, not as academics, and not on job time. An important > distinction, with which one can argue. > > The professoriate occupies a peculiar niche--in theory very focused > on the intellectual nurturing of the young, but often granted a > public voice because of the letters after their names. At issue is > the porous relationship between the two. One principled stand that > some faculty took at Columbia during the 1968 building occupations > was to surround the occupied buildings, separating the rival student > factions from each other, and then standing as a barrier to the > police when they were called in. One didn't have to be a genius to > figure out where those of us on that line fit in the political > spectrum or what we thought about the Vietnam War, but we gave no > speeches. Our role was to maintain a space for disagreement, and also > a space that had traditionally been free of governmental violence > (Columbia has a long-standing agreement with the city of New York > that police are only allowed on campus if invited). The result was of > course that a lot of us, caught in the middle, got beaten by the police. > > There was no shortage of political rhetoric at the time and in the > ensuing two years, but I think that principled stand was a good > thing, and part of the committment to education. > > There were a lot of boycotts of classes called by various factions in > those days. I always made my political positions clear to my students > when they came up, but I also made it clear to students that I would > be in class, despite boycotts, and that whether to attend was their > decision and wouldn't be held against them either way. Again, my > metier as educator, and my responsibility to my students, determined > my decision. > > I can easily imagine other scenarios--any number of revolutions > amidst appalling circumstances--Pinochet's Chile, etc. In the States, > at least, there was no shortage of venues for protest. Almost every > weekend in those days I was in Washington, as another anonymous > protester amidst the hundreds of thousands at the Pentagon of the > Lincoln Memorial. But that was separate from my job, as a servant of > the needs of my students. > > It's that porous relationship that creates the confusion. Nobody is > surprised that lawyers or plumbers to refrain from political > statements while on the job. What we commit to professionally > constrains our freedom of action. > > Mark > > At 11:32 AM 8/30/2007, Edmund Hardy wrote: > >Mairead wrote: > > > >>This is where I found the views of Stanley Fish, in the US, a few > >>years back, objectionable. In my memory, two of his arguments: "As > >>academics, we are powerless" (in relation to the war); and "As > >>academics, we should concentrate on academic work, not politics." > > > > > >But in the Fishian view, there is no public sphere in which to make > >interventions or extend principles. The idea of politics as a > >somehow a public form of discussion and debate in which those who > >can speak can take part would be an enlightenment fantasy to him? > > > >E > > > >_________________________________________________________________ > >Can you see your house from the sky? Try Live Search Maps > http://maps.live.com >