With Machiavelli still very much on his mind, Bryce returned to the apartment, and greeted his partner, Damon.
“Have you been brooding about being bawled out by Father Miller yesterday?” Damon demanded.
“No. First of all, I resent the word ‘brooding.’ I have been giving his comments due consideration,” Bryce quibbled. “Secondly, I did not come back right after class because I stopped at the house, where I put the latest news about our beloved University President on the agenda for tonight, and spoke with my pledge. How are you and your pledge getting along?” Bryce attempted to shift the focus.
“John Luke and I are getting along just fine,” Damon responded. “I saw him earlier today, after my Spanish class, and passed on the news from Annette,” Damon replied, just a might too smugly.
That, of course, led to a tussle between the partners, but it did not last long, as both were aware of their appointment to have tea with Dr. Caldwell. After straightening themselves up a bit, they descended to the ground level, and knocked on the door to Dr. Caldwell’s quarters. As in the past, they were immediately admitted and shown to the parlor, while their host went to collect the tea pot. It did not take long before all three were seated in companionable intercourse, with tea and light refreshments provided by their host.
After a few pleasantries, Dr. Caldwell said, “I am dying of curiosity. Do you know anything more than appears in the newspaper about the clash on campus between the Administration and the demonstrators?”
“Yes, I believe we do,” Damon replied, “But I’ll let Bryce tell the story, as he’s been chomping at the bit ever since this morning.”
“Damon exaggerates,” Bryce defended himself. “I attended Dr. Belzi’s class on the Italian Renaissance and took appropriate notes, so I was not totally absorbed in the latest news, although I must admit his topic today fit right in with what we learned earlier”
“And what was that?” Dr. Caldwell asked.
“Dr. Belzi lectured today on Machiavelli,” Bryce reported. “And, as far as fitting in, we learned a good deal about why Dr. Rodes gave in so completely Monday from your renter, Annette Rimbault, and other interesting facts about him, from Roland Lyle. I believe you met Roland, Dr. Caldwell. His grandfather is the franchise holder on the Cadillac and Chevrolet dealership in Clifton,” he reminded the Professor.
“Oh, yes. A very well-spoken young man,” Dr. Caldwell remembered. “Please go on.”
“Roland’s uncle is Mark Castleman, a lawyer here in Clifton, with whom you may be acquainted,” Bryce related. “He kind of spear-headed a drive to contact the Governor of the Commonwealth about the injustices being perpetrated on those who were demonstrating last Wednesday.”
“Yes, I am well acquainted with Mr. Castleman,” Dr. Caldwell noted. “When I needed to update my will, I met with him, as my previous attorney had retired. I found him most helpful, and most knowledgeable.”
“Well,” Bryce continued the story, clearly relishing his role as deliverer of hot news, “a friend of ours who has contacts in the Administration reported that the reason Dr. Rodes backed down so completely yesterday is that he had received a phone call early that morning from the Governor, threatening him with the loss of his job if he did not end the adverse publicity immediately.”
“How trustworthy is this friend of yours in the Administration?” Dr. Caldwell asked.
“Very,” Bryce replied. “It seems that a recording device was on during the phone call between President Rodes and Governor Buckner, and copies were made before the President thought to tell someone to destroy the original. I have not heard the conversation myself, but I have every confidence in my source. In fact, I think I can promise you a copy of that recording if you wish.”
“That would be most appreciated,” Dr. Caldwell said, rubbing his hands together. He looked like a toddler promised candy if he behaved. “Dr. Rodes and I have seldom been on the same side of an issue. It was reliably reported that he celebrated the news of my retirement with a real binge.” Dr. Caldwell chuckled. “I hope he had a severe hangover the next morning.”
“Our friend, Roland Lyle, told us something about the background of Dr. Rodes’ appointment to his present position,” Bryce laid out an enticement to further revelations from Dr. Caldwell.
“Oh, yes,” the emeritus professor responded, “that was under a previous administration in Frankfort. It was ... let me see ... thirteen years ago, now. The Faculty Senate was outraged that such an educational hack should be appointed as president. We adopted several resolutions, but to no avail. Legally speaking, the Governor has the authority to appoint the presidents of the institutions in the state system. He is required to ‘consult’ the Board of Trustees, but he is not required to take their advice. As I recall, even that bunch of blinkered devotees of Samuel Smiles were not all that enthusiastic about Rodes. Following the failure of our efforts to prevent his appointment, relations between him and the Faculty Senate were not cordial. At that time, I held the position of Secretary to the Faculty Senate, so I was involved in every step of the contretemps,” Dr. Caldwell, reminisced, savoring the tang of battle.
“We were not mistaken,” he continued. “From the very first, Dr. Rodes’ decisions showed a total disdain for matters of the mind, for the actual learning process. He made decisions based on what was politically acceptable, and on what presented an opportunity to obtain good publicity, pandering to the prejudices of the populace, and in particular to those of the well-heeled segments of the populace. He forced the resignation of a member of the Economics Department who offended that segment of the populace by questioning the dogma of the unfettered free market. The economist had the temerity to point out that during the Great Depression of the 1930s, the free market was working perfectly. The only problem was that about a quarter of the population were not part of it, but had been left by the wayside.” Dr. Caldwell bristled as he recalled past battles.
“Has public education always been hampered by political considerations?” Damon asked.
“As far as I know, yes,” Dr. Caldwell replied. “While I was active as a member of the faculty, I was also active as a member of the local AAUP chapter. At the state level, the AAUP organization is called a conference, and I served a term as conference president. In 1940, the AAUP adopted a statement on academic freedom and tenure which is accepted by the great majority of academics.”
“Excuse the interruption, Dr. Caldwell, but what is AAUP?” Damon wanted to know.
“Sorry. AAUP is so much a part of the academic scene I just take it for granted that everyone knows about it, but that is not necessarily true of undergraduates, of course. AAUP stands for the American Association of University Professors. Some people have described it as a union, but I reject that designation. I have nothing against unions in their proper place, and there is a teacher’s union called the American Federation of Teachers, or AFT, but AAUP is, in my opinion, more comparable to the American Medical Association or the American Bar Association. It is a professional organization which attempts to set standards for the profession and defend the interests of the faculty in higher education. Some critics have labeled it left-wing, and some of its decisions might seem to support that designation, but on the whole, I think it is a moderating voice in a very volatile arena. The conservative writer Russell Kirk, in his book Academic Freedom, which I have on my shelves, praises AAUP highly. He relates examples of political and public intervention in academic matters which completely justified the establishment of this organization in 1915 after a series of incidents in which members of the profession were harassed, and even fired, because of their political views, or because of unpopular professional stances. Here, hold on a minute,” Professor Caldwell said, as he jumped up, obviously excited by the topic, and disappeared. He returned in just a few minutes with a yellow jacketed volume.
“Here it is, on page 23. President Andrews of Brown University was compelled to resign by the governing board because of his views on the coinage of silver, a hot political issue in 1897. John M. Mecklin was compelled to resign from Loyola College in 1913 because of his support for Darwin’s theory of evolution. Although not mentioned by Mr. Kirk, there was an infamous case in 1903 where the internationally respected mathematician G. B. Halsted was fired from the University of Texas for criticizing what he believed to be a professionally unsound appointment made by the governing body. It was these incidents, and others like them, which led to the establishment of the AAUP. Basically, the 1940 statement on academic freedom and tenure says that it is the responsibility of the faculty to determine the content of instruction, not political or other extraneous forces. Tenure is not just job security as seen by the profession, but is the guarantor of academic freedom. The faculty member should be free to pursue truth wherever it leads, and to teach what he believes to be true within the bounds of his profession,” Dr. Caldwell concluded.
“That sounds very fine, but how does it work in practice,” a somewhat skeptical Bryce asked. “I ask, as I am hoping to become a member of the academic profession.”
“Well,” Dr. Caldwell admitted, “like all fine theories, there are difficulties in putting it into practice. There are political realities. Those of us who are, or were, members of faculties at public institutions were reminded frequently that it was the state government which provided the largest segment of the budget, so we could not alienate the legislature too very much. On the other hand, in many instances we have successfully resisted attempts of legislators to dictate the content of courses. This is particularly sensitive in areas such as my discipline of history, where the public thinks it knows what should be taught. I have personally been involved in efforts to deflect attempts to dictate unquestioning support for laissez faire economics and the interests of big business in the American History survey, as well as unthinking defenses of our Indian policies and our foreign policies. We even had, on one occasion, an effort by a legislator to write into legislation a defense of slavery and of the Confederacy. My colleagues in Economics and Political Science have similar experiences, and those in English are under pressure, and not only from politicians, but also from various interest groups, to include or exclude various works on ideological grounds. The sciences are less often targets of outside interest. After all, the general public has no idea what physicists or mathematicians do, and they see computer science as dealing with typewriters on steroids, so they don’t feel as threatened by those disciplines. But biologists are often the target of outside forces, just as are historians. At one time, it was defenders of the theory of evolution who were endangered, but now it is mostly the defenders of the theory of global warming.”
“What can AAUP do when such incidents occur?” Bryce wanted to know.
“The Association has limited resources, so it cannot jump in with huge support, but it has the same rights as any other interest group. It can lobby. There is a limited legal staff, which can offer advice to the abused party or to local chapters. And then, there is the censured list. If a violation of professional norms is sufficiently blatant, the case is voted on at the annual meeting, and then listed in the Association publications,” Dr. Caldwell explained.
“That does not seem like much. Wouldn’t the institution or the public or whoever is violating academic freedom simply ignore the censure?” Damon asked.
“Some do,” the Professor admitted. “But the censure is recognized by other professional organizations, like the American Historical Association or the Modern Language Association. This discourages individuals from accepting jobs at that institution if they have any options, although a tight job market can obviously affect that. But these professional organizations refuse to hold meetings on the campus of censured institutions and in other ways exert pressure. Perhaps most effectively, they lobby government agencies against funding projects on those campuses. We don’t always win, but we do have an impact, and, after all, as the recent situation on the U of C campus indicates, bad publicity is enough to put pressure on administrations, even if they do not accept the professional principles involved.”
“So this is an on-going issue,” Bryce concluded.
“Oh, yes,” Dr. Caldwell insisted. “Although I have been retired for quite a number of years, now, I keep up with many associates who are still active in the academy. The details are different, but the basic issue remains. Who is qualified to determine the content of education, the expert in the field, or outside interests?”
“Are there no arguments on the other side?” Damon asked.
“Well, perhaps there are practical considerations,” Dr. Caldwell allowed. “After all, the public, through taxation, does provide a significant part of the financial support for institutions such as the University of Clifton, either directly, through line items in the state budget, or indirectly, through grants from various federal agencies. We cannot simply ignore those interests, and some degree of discretion is called for. A degree which, I am sorry to say, some of my colleagues seem to lack.”
“Can you give us an example of such a lack of discretion?” Bryce asked.
Dr. Caldwell chuckled. “I can give you dozens of examples, but I think one quite egregious example will suffice. At the time of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001, a member of the Political Science Department stated in one of his classes that the attacks were the fault of the United States government, because of our policies favoring Israel and our support of authoritarian regimes in places like Saudi Arabia. That caused quite a stir, I can tell you.”
“What happened?” Bruce asked.
“Well, in that class, many of his students got up and walked out. If I remember correctly, it was somewhere in the range of 24 of 30 students. The Administration was deluged with complains from all directions, and of course called Dr. Hollister, the teacher involved, on the carpet. He claimed academic freedom, but the AAUP chapter refused to support him. The fact was, he was supposed to be teaching a class on state and local government, where comments on foreign policy were not germane. That is what he failed to take into consideration. While he as an individual has a right to his opinion, when he is acting as an agent of the University in his classroom, there are limitations which are professionally appropriate. He cannot, or should not, impose his opinions on his students, and he should stick to the subject of the class, not digress into political or economic matters not pertinent to that subject.”
“I see. I guess that makes sense,” Bryce considered. “I can see that the purpose of a history class, for example, is to teach what actually happened at a particular time and place, and not serve as a bully pulpit for the instructor’s personal views.”
“There must be room for interpretation,” Damon interjected.
“Yes, of course,” Dr. Caldwell replied. “Take the case of Dr. Hollister. If he had been teaching a class on foreign policy, he might have introduced his interpretation as one explanation for the violence of the Islamist actions, and provided examples of US actions to support that position, but even there, he is compelled by professional standards to present other interpretations as well, with similar supporting evidence if such exists. And above all, he cannot impose his interpretation on the students as some kind of requirement for a grade in the class. I believe I mentioned to you boys once before that, in the introductory class to each of my courses, I always said something to the effect that I would be presenting my interpretation of the history, whatever it was we were covering, but the student did not have to accept my interpretation. But if he disagreed, he had to have reasons for his disagreement. Just not liking my approach is not sufficient. Facts matter, and all opinions are not equal.”
“That,” Bryce immediately noted, “is a point I have made recently in conversations with some friends. Not everything is acceptable.”
“Quite so,” the professor agreed. That redneck back in 1956, I think it was, who wanted to require a defense of slavery and of the Confederacy, is not on the same level as the students who walked out of Dr. Hollister’s class. There is no professional defense for some positions.”
“Why do you suppose that so many people are critical of higher education these days?” Damon asked. “I saw an opinion poll recently which indicated that less than half the respondents had any respect for higher education.”
“In my opinion, the blame must be shared,” Dr. Caldwell replied. “There have always been those who are suspicious of the work of the mind. If one does not work with his hands, there is no physical evidence that he is working, and so he is regarded by some simple souls as wasting time, or as a parasite living off the labor of others. One legislator of my acquaintance referred to the faculty at state institutions as ‘feeding at the public trough.’ And then, the work of the mind often leads to a critique of some popularly held position. I might mention the role of the universities in undermining the credibility of the religious fundamentalists on such matters as the age of the earth. Along those same lines, moderate criticism of racism, backed by scientific research into racial differences, was partly responsible for legal decisions leading to dismantling the segregationist policies of many government agencies, not only in the very visible clashes in Alabama and Mississippi, but also in the Bureau of Indian Affairs, for example. Similar studies have led to the repeal of anti-sodomy laws and other decisions in favor of the homosexual community. That’s one side of the coin.
“But, in addition to this completely justifiable activity undermining irrational biases of the public, and thus irritating them, there have been actions of some academics which are not without blame, I must admit. The example of Professor Hollister may serve as an example of that. When we in the academy forget our responsibility to the profession and to the public to present a reasoned and responsible position on controversial topics, and to respect our own limitations, then we forfeit our claims to immunity from attack. Too many academics have lent themselves to political and social causes beyond their areas of competence. If John Doe wants to support a political agenda in his private capacity, that is his right. But he cannot do it as Professor John Doe, faculty member at State University. Just because one has a Ph.D. or similar degree does not make one an expert on everything. I am an historian. My views on the current government policy toward Israel may be more informed than that of the average public, but they are not professional, they are personal, and if I forget that, I am not doing the profession a service. Likewise, while I am both an historian and an Anglican, if I attempt to pronounce on matters of theology, my opinion should carry no more weight than that of any other educated member of the congregation. Some of my colleagues forget this, and present themselves as experts on all sorts of subjects beyond their competence when being interviewed by the press, or appearing in public forums. This tends, given the current atmosphere on most campuses, to convince the public that the universities are centers of left wing propaganda, and thus to justify, in their minds, the kind of intervention represented by the efforts of legislators to dictate the content of courses, and the lack of confidence of the public in the universities. This, in turn, results in more stringent educational budgets, and more frustrated faculty. It seems a vicious cycle.”
“I see what you are saying, Professor,” Damon replied. “The faculty have a responsibility to respect the reasonable opinions of their students and the public, and to make a distinction between what they might believe as individuals, and what they can support in their official capacity.”
“Exactly,” Dr. Caldwell agreed. “I recall that when Albert Einstein died in 1955, there were quite a few comments on his views on religion. I recall one editorial cartoon which depicted his soul leaving the body, and not knowing where to go. Well, Einstein was a brilliant man and a most influential physicist. I suppose his views on politics and religion deserve some attention, although they were largely misinterpreted at the time. Einstein was a socialist, and no one wanted to talk about that in 1955, when socialism was equated with support for the late Joe Stalin. And, if I am correct, Einstein described himself as an agnostic, but huge numbers of people declared that atheism was justified, or even proven true, because this physicist said so. No, in my opinion, no one is an expert in everything. While we must each make up our own minds on these important issues, we cannot take the easy way out, and say someone in an entirely different field of intellectual activity has proven this or that position true.”
“Your memory is impressive, Professor,” Bryce complimented their host, “and what you say makes sense to me, even with my much more limited acquaintance with the facts.”
“Facts are hard, intractable things,” Dr. Caldwell said. “They are a real annoyance when we want to be assertive of our own opinions. But they will not go away. We in the academy have a responsibility to respect facts, even if they cause us problems with our favorite causes.”
“Did you have anything specific in mind, Professor?” Bryce asked, having an intimation that this was the case.
“Well, not exactly,” Dr. Caldwell confessed. “But I am aware that you boys are gay. I have come across statements that gays are more creative, and more intelligent, than others. I hope you are not giving in to this form of self-aggrandizement based on very flimsy evidence.”
Damon laughed. “No one would believe me anyway.”
“I’m content to be who I am, and I’m encouraged by my spiritual advisor to keep in mind the limitations I have, and the rights of everyone else. In particular, I need to respect the fact that others, who do not share my sexual or religious position, might be even more qualified than I on some issues,” Bryce said.
“Bryce had been recently told to be a little more humble by his priest,” Damon informed their host, at which Bryce punched his partner pretty hard.
Dr. Caldwell chuckled. “I can identify with that. Living alone and retired, it is very easy to convince myself that whatever I imagine is real. But I counter that by getting out. I do attend church regularly. I do meet with those of my own generation who were my colleagues on the faculty, and believe me, they do not allow me to become complacent in my satisfaction with my own opinions. This is healthy.”
“Speaking of homosexuality, Dr. Caldwell, you did ask us to inform you should we become acquainted with the motivations of your renters in the carriage house,” Bryce noted. “I believe Damon has been told something of interest along those lines.”
“Oh, do tell,” the Professor said. “I have wracked my brains, and cannot fathom the motivations behind the attitudes of Mr. Rollins and Mr. Miller.”
“Well,” Damon took up the story, “as I believe we told you, Sean Rollins’ brother is a pledge in Sigma Alpha Tau. Now, I rely on your discretion, Dr. Caldwell, to respect the source of this information, but Tyler Rollins told me that Sean and Barry are convinced that you’re gay, and that’s why you accept such obviously lost souls as Bryce and myself as tenants. They are both quite homophobic, and thus want nothing to do with you or anyone associated with you, even while they like their quarters in the carriage house. It’s almost as if they thought homosexuality was infectious.”
Dr. Caldwell at that let out a great whoop and slapped his legs. “That is precious!” he proclaimed. “It only goes to show how biases work. Now, boys, I will tell you that I am definitely not gay, although I have several gay friends, including some very well respected members of the academic profession. I have long accepted the idea that being gay is simply a matter of who one is, not a matter of capricious indulgence. I am very glad to know the source of the peculiar actions of my renters, but it only confirms my opinion that they are gentlemen of limited abilities.”
“That’s a very nice way of putting it, Professor,” Bryce declared.