Academic Freedom

I think people should be able to say and think what they want, but academic institutions should not be used as a forum to express those opinions. Schools and universities should obviously have a right to protect their integrity and reputation by disavowing any such research and its author as well as take the necessary steps to prevent such incidents in the future (i.e. fire the employee).

This holds even more true for countries where academic institutions are not funded by the government and people's very livelihood depends on maintaining a good reputation. Using your tenure as a shield or a way to legitimize your claims is poor form and I don't see why such behavior should be enabled, much less encouraged.

 

Depends on your definition of freedom. I mean, you may be free from criminal prosecution or job loss, but you will never be free of people thinking you are being an idiot.

 

Silence is golden; Duct tape is silver.

 

Free speech is one thing, academic freedom is another. Whereas academic freedom does not include the right to be a moron, it requires wider protection than common free speech whenever it comes to such research subjects and research results as are valid in the light of science methodology. Hence, if the controversial academic has enough proof on which to base a viable hypothesis, then however offensive that hypothesis were to liberal sensibilities, it should be left alone. On the other hand, if the academic concerned is acting like an idiot spreading unfounded lies and products of sheer imagination with no support for them, then it shouldn't matter what the conclusions were. Even verifiably true conclusions would be accidental in such a case, and such an academic should be removed for failure to apply the scientific method.

Bottom line, the method matters, not however offensive or not the conclusions are. People who ignore the method and arrive at inoffensive, even true conclusions, should be kicked out. People who arrive at unpopular conclusions, notably ones that offend political correctness, should be protected.

Once again, the contents of the conclusions don't matter, the method does. And anybody who doesn't realize this is probably not qualified due to insufficient knowledge/understanding.

 

Unfortunately academic peer review isn't quite what it used to be. You can get all kinds of crap published these days, especially in the more nebulous "science" areas, such as social studies.

And it only further contributes to the dissemination of misinformation which liberals are all too happy to jump on and even further misconstrue.

I agree that popular opinions shouldn't factor into academic freedom, but on the other hand, if you've legitimately come to some contentious conclusions or have every intention of testing a hypothesis based on a premise that goes counter to popular opinion, it shouldn't be a problem to gain the backing of your peers and the institution you work for beforehand, rather than using your tenure as a shield after the fact. That's just poor form.

 

The problem is, your peers can be liberals who don't care about methods or anything to do with science when popular opinions are at stake.

 

That certainly presents quite the dilemma, but if there's no one to support you to begin with, putting those around you in a position where they have to choose between their standing and yours isn't gonna win you any favors.

 

Any time I hear something about peer-review from those in a position to know they always say the same things about how lackluster it's become. That's concerning, to say the least.