Comments on: Spooks in the Academy

By: Matt Weiner

Matt Weiner — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 17:57:06 +0000

James, this sentence of yours:
For some reason accepting funds from the US government or other US institutions threatens academic freedom.
is falsified, as I said, by the most cursory reading of the material.

You may have meant, “Accepting funds that come with strings attached from US government or other US institutions threatens academic freedom.” You didn’t say that, but let’s assume you meant that. Then you need to prove that the funding from Middle East etc. that universities have accepted comes with strings attached. A thesis for which you haven’t presented a scintilla of evidence (and which wasn’t in your original post, if you read it closely).

If Columbia accepted funding with strings attached, then that is improper and inimical to academic freedom and I condemn it. I reckon that it’s also something that has happened on both sides of the political spectrum. You might want to look at recent doings at Utah Valley State College to see how governmental funding can be used to threaten academic freedom from the right. (And since you didn’t provide a link, you don’t get one.)

As to “Why bother to respond,” I don’t know really. I won’t be responding to the next one.

By: james

james — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 17:08:17 +0000

matt – My comment was that universities are willing to overlook the strings as long as the entity attaching the strings has a compatible political view with the university (example Columbia University. If the best response you can come up with is to suggest that I haven’t read the material, why bother posting a response at all?

By: Matt Weiner

Matt Weiner — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 16:23:59 +0000

James, if you would read one single thing about the controversy—say, Dan’s post about title VI funding earlier in the thread—you would realize that universities and academics are quite happy to accept funding from the US government. [And many universities are funded and run by state governments.] They are in many cases not happy about accepting those funds when they have strings attached, because allowing your funders to dictate the content of your research and teaching threatens academic freedom and integrity. They are also unhappy, as far as I know, about accepting money from Middle East groups when those Middle East groups attach strings, because allowing your funders to dictate the content of your research and teaching threatens academic freedom and integrity. There’s no inconsistency here.

By: james

james — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 14:59:34 +0000

The US universities feel free to accept large sums from Middle Eastern nations, charities, religious institutions, and individuals. Even though these entities have stated political and social goals, the universities feel academically secure enough to accept these donations. For some reason accepting funds from the US government or other US institutions threatens academic freedom. The only difference in the strings attached is the political leaning of the groups behind them.

By: Tom T.

Tom T. — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 04:56:32 +0000

Couldn’t something be arranged so that the appropriate courses for these CIA analysts are taught at someplace like the National Defense University, which is federally-run, respected in its fields of study, and presumably fully on board with the government’s national-security mission? It seems that such an arrangement would eliminate many of the potential problems mentioned.

By: Matt Weiner

Matt Weiner — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 03:14:51 +0000

I found the online chat thoroughly dispiriting. Professor Moos used the phrase “The United States is at war” in literally the first four straight answers as well has his opening statement. Admittedly the first two questions were fairly rude but then there’s this:

What specific safeguards are in place to prevent the CIA from using the Pat Roberts program to run more covert ops on our campuses? What is you understanding of the ethics of anthropologists conducting secret research?

Felix Moos:
The United States is at war and that pertains as well to U.S. institutions of higher learning. Nevertheless, every campus has a number of safeguards and a great many vigilant faculty members and students who would counteract any CIA covert ops. Have you contacted your own administration about such safeguards on your campus?

So, someone expresses concern that this program will lead to covert operations on campus, and Moos says that the war includes those campuses, and that it’s the responsibility of the universities to prevent covert operations. In other words, it sounds like he’s saying “Yes we will be conducting operations on campus because that’s the home front; whatcha gonna do about it, huh?”

I share Henry’s thoughts about the considerations in favor of these proposals (CIA, if you want to know about the epistemology of testimony, feel free to call me!) But if the program is run as Prof. Moos wishes I fear it will realize none of the potential goods and all of the potential harms. (Nor does Pat Roberts’ imprimatur inspire confidence; he’s been a prominent advocate of burying inconvenient facts.)

By: Dan Simon

Dan Simon — Wed, 23 Mar 2005 20:36:56 +0000

The bitterness of the dispute has less to do with the pragmatic issues at stake than with starkly different answers to the underlying question of why academics should be studying other countries.
Is that really the question in dispute? Surely everyone on all sides of the question would concede that academics should be studying other countries for the same reasons they study anything else—to add to the world’s store of knowledge and understanding.
The question I thought was in dispute is, “why should the US government set up a multimillion-dollar special funding program (Title VI) to pay academics specifically to study other countries?” My understanding is that the original justification for this extra funding was that the availability in America of additional academic expertise in foreign countries and their languages would benefit America’s national security in a number of direct ways. It’s therefore worth asking whether that money is accomplishing its purpose.
If not, then the obvious next question is whether the assigned government funds are best spent to promote some other kind of scholarship—or perhaps on something else entirely. Academics who study foreign countries without desiring to contribute in any way to America’s national security would still be free to pursue their pure mission of intellectual inquiry, of course—but on somebody else’s dime.

By: Kevin Donoghue

Kevin Donoghue — Wed, 23 Mar 2005 17:43:24 +0000

J.K. Galbraith remarked on the Prussian policemen who hounded Karl Marx (I am quoting from memory): One longs, in our own day, for policemen capable of being moved to anger by such prose.

Of course there are risks but on balance educated spooks are preferable.