Blogs > Cliopatria > Prof. Robinson's Odd E-Mail

May 1, 2009

Prof. Robinson's Odd E-Mail




In Mark Bauerlein’s extraordinary “groupthink” article, the Emory professor detected three characteristics of the pattern. One of these is the false consensus effect, which “occurs when people think that the collective opinion of their own group matches that of the larger population. If the members of a group reach a consensus and rarely encounter those who dispute it, they tend to believe that everybody thinks the same way.”

It’s hard to come up with another explanation for why UCSB professor William Robinson would consider it appropriate to send students in his"Sociology of Globalization” class an e-mail headed “parallel images of Nazis and Israelis.” The e-mail, sent out on the class list-serv, included various photos from Gaza and Nazi death camps, and explained that"Gaza is Israel's Warsaw - a vast concentration camp that confined and blockaded Palestinians, subjecting them to the slow death of malnutrition, disease and despair, nearly two years before their subjection to the quick death of Israeli bombs . . .We are witness to a slow-motion process of genocide."

After receiving complaints from two students, the university has agreed to investigate Robinson’s actions. Predictably, a group has sprung up in Robinson’s defense claiming that his academic freedom is threatened, though it’s not clear to me how academic freedom applies to a professor sending his students extremist e-mails unrelated to his course. The fact that UCSB apparently has a policy prohibiting such behavior by professors doesn’t help Robinson’s case any. Unless UCSB wants to repeal its policy, it should at least issue a public statement condemning Robinson’s action.

The ADL has labeled Robinson’s email anti-Semitic; I think Volokh’s David Bernstein is more on target in writing that “while anti-Semites can be condemned as appalling ignoramuses, not all appalling ignoramuses are anti-Semites.” That said, I also agree with Bernstein that “there is a clear double standard at universities regarding material that makes Jewish students uncomfortable and that makes other minority students uncomfortable. Imagine, for example, that Prof. Robinson had sent out (a) an link to the Geert Wilders film criticizing Islam, along with a personal note stating that he thinks that Islam is the greatest threat to world peace and stability; (b) and article about homosexual sexual practices, criticizing them for spreading disease globally, along with a note that he personally finds such practices abhorrent; or (c) and perhaps most analogous, an article about crime in South Africa, juxtaposing images of white crime victims in South Africa with images of lynching victims in the American South, with a personal note that he thinks that the apartheid regime was better than the current South African regime. And let's assume that Muslim, gay, or black students similarly complained about Robinson's abuse of his authority. How many of Robinson's current defenders of his ‘academic freedom’ would publicly defend him in those circumstances?”

Indeed, given that the major pro-Robinson group describes itself as committed to defending “academic freedom through a coalition of progressive students and organizations on campus,” I suspect its members wouldn’t be too interested in taking up the cause for a racist or an anti-gay Prof. Robinson. But, of course, it’s hard to imagine that any professor would think it appropriate to send the type of hypothetical e-mails that Bernstein’s post offered.



comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:


David Silbey - 5/4/2009

Nor will it end with mine

Excellent. So I'll ask again if Dr. Johnson looked at the syllabus before pronouncing that the email could'nt have been on topic for the class?


Jonathan Dresner - 5/4/2009

Nor will it end with mine.


David Silbey - 5/4/2009

I know. But it's much more interesting to actually look at the evidence, than it is to ask people if they've looked at the evidence.

Then we can get on to the question of what the evidence means, instead of meaningless point-scoring exercises.


I think it is surely possible to do both, and my sense is that the point scoring didn’t start with my remark.


Jonathan Dresner - 5/4/2009

I know. But it's much more interesting to actually look at the evidence, than it is to ask people if they've looked at the evidence.

Then we can get on to the question of what the evidence means, instead of meaningless point-scoring exercises.

I think the syllabus supports the idea that Robinson was irresponsible, and suspect that the sections on debate and openness are boilerplate smokescreens.


David Silbey - 5/4/2009

Interesting. I was actually asking Dr. Johnson if he had done such research.


Jonathan Dresner - 5/4/2009

when your students take action against you, you have made some kind of mistake in the classroom

No.


Jonathan Dresner - 5/4/2009

There's nothing in the syllabus [PDF] to suggest that course readings would be distributed by email, that course readings would come along with predigested commentary by the professor, or that the Middle East is a topic of interest. There are a few weeks in which I could see the topic fitting, but not in the way it was framed.


David Silbey - 5/3/2009

I assume that you've looked at Prof. Robinson's syllabus to see if the topic would fit into the class?


Claire B. Potter - 5/3/2009

Well, I guess my question is, why do we live in a world where inappropriate or offensive behavior in the classroom must be punished by administratrors? I don;t know much about htis story, but when your students take action against you, you have made some kind of mistake in the classroom and it needs to be resolved. Why isn't there an ombudsperson who can get all the parties in the room together to hash out the issues involved? Froget the professor - it strikes me as better for the students, who will themselves be in a position of power some day, and need to understand their own actions and words in light of other people's differing values and sensibilities.


Chris Bray - 5/3/2009

I don't know enough about Robinson to assert that he presents a balanced view or doesn't present a balanced view to his students. But it seems to me that this whole discussion is framed around an idea of students as passive recipients of teaching -- if balance isn't given to them, they have no hope of receiving it.

ARGUE. Look for your own information, outside the classroom and the course reading. No class is ever long enough to cover everything worth saying on a topic, and the classroom isn't the end of a student's education in something. It should be the beginning.

Our professor only told us one side -- that's a statement that screams its laziness and passiveness. I agree that it's bad teaching to only present views that you agree with. I just add that it's bad learning to expect to be handed a full menu of ideas to examine while sitting there like a houseplant. Students have responsibility.


Robert KC Johnson - 5/2/2009

That's fine, of course, if UCSB wants to have such a standard--but the university has a policy "that bars professors from intimidating students and using campus resources for personal, political reasons unrelated to their classes."

Suppose Prof. Robinson had used his class email to send students links to racist literature. Clearly students would be "exposed to a point of view they found distasteful and extreme." It also would strike me as a decision that the university would not particularly like.

In general, I'm not persuaded by the "make-students-uncomfortable" line of defense--in part because I think it opens the door to a Horowitz-style ABOR approach. I teach at Brooklyn--a blue borough in a blue city in a blue state. If part of our goal is to "make students uncomfortable" (a phrase I hear a lot on campus from defenders of the faculty status quo), do we not have an obligation to make, say, pro-choice, or pro-gay rights, or liberal Democratic students "uncomfortable"? Yet there's little evidence that most colleges have any interest in hiring faculty or designing curricula that might make students who fit that profile "uncomfortable."

I agree completely with Jon's point on the oddness of the Warsaw Ghetto comparison, which is why I highlighted the groupthink analysis. In a perfect world, Prof. Robinson might very well have presented this point to colleague or other academic collaborators, who would have pointed out the problems with the analogy--and so he wouldn't have embarrassed himself by sending such an email to students.

But in a groupthink environment, that common-sense check is too often absent.


Les Baitzer - 5/2/2009

It is difficult to argue with Mr. Bray that there is any problem in presenting material to students that they might find distasteful or extreme.

It is likewise difficult to argue with Mr. Dresner's assertion that Robinson's example is an "ahistorical" comparison.

I recall having a political science professor who gave us so many differing views that none of in the class had a clue where he stood "personally" on issues ... to some in the class that was very troubling. I loved it and his teaching as a whole.

His professor's teaching caused us to become better critical thinkers which, if you read Robinson's syllabus for this course, you learn that this objective (and attendance in class), are VERY important to Robinson. He lists critical thinking in bold on his syllabus.

The IHE article that Mr. Dresner linked is very informative and the comment thread that follows it is excellent.

In all of this, there seems to be no argument presented by either Robinson or his supporters that this particular mailing to students was, in Mr. Dresner's words, "framed appropriately."

That is disturbing to me.

Robinson or his supporters also do not argue that he has presented alternative "pro-Israeli" views to the class. If the title of his course was "Sociology of Globalization From the Viewpoint of the Extreme Left," his very one-sided mailing might be understandable.

But, his course is "Sociology of Globalization.” It would seem that even the subject of his mailing is arguably tangential to the course.

That he would present an extreme, distasteful, or even ahistorical view really doesn't trouble me.

That he and others do not even remotely assert that he presents a balance of views is deeply disturbing to me.


Jonathan Dresner - 5/2/2009

"How many of Robinson's current defenders of his ‘academic freedom’ would publicly defend him in those circumstances?”

This is one of the hoariest, lamest rhetorical moves in partisan blogging: the hypocrisy straw man.

As I said before,

I really don't want to get into this discussion, for a lot of reasons, but two things jumped out at me. First is the ahistorical comparison between the Warsaw ghetto -- detention prior to premeditated mass murder -- and the Gaza, where the moral and legal situation is considerably more complicated. The Gaza situation is deeply problematic, but there are much better historical comparisons if you want to a real discussion (Indian relocation comes to mind). And this is the second thing that jumped out at me: there's nothing wrong with handling controversial material in the appropriate course, but it needs to be framed appropriately. Though Robinson claims to be open to discussion, the framing of the material and his open opinions on the subject create the strong impression that the goal is to reach a predetermined conclusion.


Chris Bray - 5/1/2009

Oh my goodness -- those students were exposed to a point of view they found distasteful and extreme! Clearly an administrative matter -- we can't have professors just going around saying things.