Blogging from the AHA Convention

Michael Burger - 1/9/2007

I don't think a mea cupla is in order, given that the point of protections for free speech is to protect speech we don't like. Your pointing out a case where someone who might be described as on the right was silenced may have lost some votes, but was also, I think, an exercise in truth in advertising. Of course, in my own rambling discourse at that meeting--a matter of nerves combined with an effort not to give offense--I probably lost votes in the same way by saying that dropping speech codes could well mean more hate speech.

Ralph E. Luker - 1/8/2007

In all candor, I suspect that the majority at the Business Meeting was persuaded that free speech zones were a bad thing only when one speaker cited two instances of anti-Bush demonstrations being relegated to far-off zones for Bush visits to campus during the campaign. I suspect that it didn't occur to anyone persuaded by that example that, without zones, college and university administrations would likely agree to exclude demonstrators from the campus altogether. Once you truncate the anti-speech code part of the resolution from the free speech zone part, the resolution really could become a vehicle for group-think. I have to confess that group-think was alive and well in the Business Meeting.

David T. Beito - 1/8/2007

The use of the constitutional language was highly selective as I pointed out at the meeting since speech codes per se have also been found to be unconstitutional by the courts. If the AHA wants to uphold the Constitution, why only do so for speech zones?

Hiram Hover - 1/8/2007

I look forward to seeing a text of the resolution that was passed, and I'm particularly curious about the "constitutional" part.

It would make sense, I suppose, on the argument that even state universities have a legally recognized right to regulate demonstrations that would otherwise unduly disrupt their academic activities. But it also sidesteps most of the complexities and difficulties of the problem--including what happens at private universities altogether.

Michael Burger - 1/8/2007

Many thanks for the point of information. I'd wondered. . . .

Jonathan Dresner - 1/8/2007

Rick Shenkman's reporting that the AHA council has refused to endorse the HAW resolution, which means that it will be put up to a full-bore vote of the entire membership.

Jonathan Dresner - 1/8/2007

I thought your presentation of the Hoppe case was on point, and presented as well as possible under the circumstances (I suppose, thinking about it now, we could have cited Kirstein as well), and if it lost us votes, then that illustrates the lack of imagination on the part of those who like the way speech codes. You know that, of course, but just in case anyone else reading this hasn't thought it through....

I think we might have had a chance if the meeting hadn't been packed with HAW radicals.

Jonathan Dresner - 1/8/2007

It was pointed out, by John Holmes, among others, that the resolution didn't really say very much. It was actually considered a point of honor by the supporters of the resolution that it was purely hortatory rather than proscriptive.

Unlike the speech codes examples, most of which have not recieved national or disciplinary attention, most of the issues in the HAW resolution are well-known enough -- several of them have been taken up already by the professional division and other executive offices of the AHA -- that nobody really thought to challenge its factual basis.

On the other hand, the fact that there are other organizations and venues for this sort of activism was raised repeatedly, but it the intention of HAW was to overwhelm the AHA business meeting and get a larger platform for their position. There's a video of Gettleman (I think) speaking in favor of the resolution which sums up pretty well the HAW position, stated repeatedly: they admit no distinction between our professional responsibilities and our non-professional opportunities; in their favor, it is true that the war does affect our students, their families, our families, etc., though it does not logically follow that everything that affects us is necessarily a professional issue (cancer, for example, regularly afflicts the families of our students, and sometimes even our students, not to mention our colleagues, our families and ourselves, but the AHA has never taken a stand in favor of an immediate solution to the cancer problem, nor has any other professional association that I'm aware of).

David T. Beito - 1/7/2007

As it reads now, this resolution could be read as a recommendation to place further restrictions on campus speech -- that is, do away with the "free speech zones," which were at least oases of free expression, and enforce speech codes everywhere on campus, with no loopholes or exceptions. The hypocrisy of HAW -- who demand free speech for themselves in one resolution and then deny it to others in a second resolution -- is crashingly obvious.

Perhaps we can at derive at least some poetic justice if the resolution it is read in this way! I agree that the "speech zone" resolution is a farce. Those historians who supported it fell into two main groups: some strongly favor speech codes while others turned to it as a safe "feel good" evasion. Unfortunately, I suspect that we probably lost votes after I brought up the obvious violation of Hans-Hermann Hoppe's academic freedom. Then again, I don't think we could have ever passed such a resolution at the AHA even under the best of circumstances.

Ralph E. Luker - 1/7/2007

I think that's correct. A number of people who supported the original version of the speech code resolution were people "of the left." No one voted against the amended version of it. Those who supported amending it simply wanted administrators to continue to hold a club that could be used on outspoken, unpopular minority opinion. Anyone who thinks that speech codes have done anything to civilize discourse on contemporary campuses hasn't been on one lately. But they will be invoked when it is popular to invoke them.

Jonathan Rose - 1/7/2007

Point well taken, Sherman. I don't think the issue of free campus speech breaks down along clean left-right lines. Those who support speech codes tend to be those who value "collegiality" (a code word for conformity), and those who oppose them tend to be just plain ornery.

Sherman Jay Dorn - 1/7/2007

I'll note that I'm left of center and am thoroughly disappointed that the AHA voted down a broader defense of campus free speech for the second year in a row. This is not a left-center-right issue, or it shouldn't be.

N.B. Then again, I haven't been an AHA member for a while (though for different reasons).

Michael Burger - 1/7/2007

I _had_ to leave the meeting after the vote on the speech code resolution--another commitment, in the form with a wife recovering from foot surgery, pressed. But I'm curious whether some of the same objections raised by that resolution were made regarding HAW's resolution. We were told that we should vote down the speech code resolution because, among other things 1) it was vague, because it did not give examples (cases) of speech codes and infractions thereof and 2) there are other organizations that protect academic freedom (e.g., the ACLU--which, I should note as a side point, in fact only sometimes opposes speech codes, sometimes not, depending on the chapter). Were the members urged to vote against the HAW resolution on these grounds? After all it did not, for example, name the scholars from abroad who have been refused entry to the U.S. and there certainly other organizations (MoveOn, anyone?) that work for the positions advocated by the resolution?

Jonathan Rose - 1/7/2007

It's disillusioning to hear that about McPherson, who I thought was sensible and centrist. At first I consoled myself with the thought that the amended resolution reflected only the biases of HAW -- but if a solidly mainstream guy like McPherson proposed it, it seems fair to conclude that it reflects mainstream opinion within the AHA. Maybe it was naive of me to think otherwise, but perhaps the majority of academics *want* to exclude discordant voices from campus.
I'm sorry I couldn't be there, Ralph, but I'm half of an academic couple, and this year it was my turn to mind the kids at home while my wife went to her convention. You fought a good fight, and if the AHA insists on embarrassing itself, there's nothing more you can do to stop them.

Ralph E. Luker - 1/7/2007

Professor Rose is exactly correct. The majority group in the AHA business meeting was all up in arms to defend the speech of people with whose speech it agreed. There was no indication of any willingness to defend the speech rights or tolerate the speech of people with whom the majority group disagreed. That the amended resolution spoke the mind of the leadership of the AHA is signaled, however, by the fact that James McPherson of Princeton, a recent AHA president, proposed the amendment that viscerated the original resolution.

Jonathan Rose - 1/7/2007

The amended resolution is complete nonsense. "Free speech zones" aren't unconstitutional: it's the "unfree speech zones" (ie, everywhere else on campus) that ought to be done away with. As it reads now, this resolution could be read as a recommendation to place further restrictions on campus speech -- that is, do away with the "free speech zones," which were at least oases of free expression, and enforce speech codes everywhere on campus, with no loopholes or exceptions. The hypocrisy of HAW -- who demand free speech for themselves in one resolution and then deny it to others in a second resolution -- is crashingly obvious.

Jonathan Dresner - 1/7/2007

Sherman: No, the vote wasn't even remotely close, either on the amendment or on the amended version. The presence of the mass of HAW members ensured that, I think.

Jonathan: I didn't write down the text of the amendment at the time, but the final version was something like

Whereas, the American Historical Association has already gone on record against the threat to academic freedom posed by the Academic Bill of Rights;
Whereas, Free and open discourse is essential to the success of research and learning on campus;
Resolved: That the American Historical Association opposes the use of unconstitutional "free speech zones" as a violation of academic freedom.

The 'whereas' preambles are what remained after the speech code sections of the preamble were amputated. The quotation marks around "free speech zones" was specified in the amendment, by the way; that part I know is right.

Jonathan Rose - 1/7/2007

What was the exact text of the resolution that did pass? I've read only that the meeting agreed to denounce "free-speech zones" but not speech codes, which sounds absurd. I don't want to abolish free-speech zones: I want to make square foot of every college campus a free-speech zone.

Sherman Jay Dorn - 1/7/2007

I'm sorry the stronger form of the speech-codes resolution failed. Was the vote close?