Indiana University’s Kelley School of Business Durin at the English language Wikipedia [CC BY-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/)]
Another professor, this time an Eric Rasmusen who teaches business and economics at the Indiana University Kelley School of Business, is being raked over the coals for a Tweet.
This one was particularly stupid (in my view—and certainly for a teacher with classroom responsibilities for a diverse body of students). Rasmusen is tenured and probably protected from consequences, but the furor has even reached The Washington Post. He Tweeted:
“geniuses are overwhelmingly male because they combine outlier high IQ with moderately low Agreeableness and moderately low Conscientiousness.” https://t.co/cyfBX1ECSc
— Eric Rasmusen (@erasmuse) November 7, 2019
The article the quote Rasmusen Tweeted comes from appeared November 2, 2019 on The Unz Review and is by Lance Welton, apparently the pseudonym (according to another site) of “a freelance journalist living in New York.” Quite frankly, it a great deal more absurd than the line Rasmusen picked indicates. Here’s a typical bit:
[O]nce you allow females into academia, they will be promoted over genius males because they come across as better people to work with—more conscientious, easier to be around and more socially skilled. But this will tend to deny geniuses the place of nurture they need.
This is no attitude for a faculty member to hold or even to read approvingly—not simply because of possible problems with colleagues but because it casts into doubt the ability of the professor to treat all students equally—which is what is happening in Rasmusen’s case.
Thank goodness.
Rasmusen’s defense? The uproar “seems strange to me because I didn’t say anything myself—I just quoted something.”
It’s true, one can quote something one does not agree with. Generally, however, one provides a context showing personal disagreement, something Rasmusen did not do. Rasmusen is trying to be a little too coy in his attempt to evade responsibility for what he Tweeted. He might simply have apologized. That wouldn’t be enough, but it would be better.
The question bothering the IU community, quite naturally, is not whether Rasmusen has the right to Tweet such nonsense (he does, under both Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom concepts) but whether his attitude toward women (and minorities—he apparently carries racist attitudes with his sexist ones) can set up an unacceptable classroom dynamic. IU Provost Lauren Robel, in a statement to the university community, said:
[T]he Kelley school is taking a number of steps to ensure that students not add the baggage of bigotry to their learning experience:
-
No student will be forced to take a class from Professor Rasmusen. The Kelley school will provide alternatives to Professor Rasmusen’s classes;
-
Professor Rasmusen will use double-blind grading on assignments; if there are components of grading that cannot be subject to a double-blind procedure, the Kelley school will have another faculty member ensure that the grades are not subject to Professor Rasmusen’s prejudices.
In an email to The Washington Post, Rasmusen responded that:
“Indiana University is not discouraging bias, but encouraging it, even requiring it, as a condition of teaching,” he wrote. “There are views you’re not supposed to express, even outside of class, and God help the conservative student whose professor checks Facebook and Twitter before grading term papers. In the past I’ve had Christian and conservative students shyly approach me to say how happy they were to finally find a professor who was open in his beliefs. I hope to encourage them as much as I can.”
This last attempt at defense, turning the situation on its head to attack critics for the same ‘crime’ you have committed, has been a long-standing right-wing strategy.
Even so, Rasmusen is right: there certainly are “views you’re not supposed to express” but they are views no American (and certainly no teacher) should even have. Racism and sexism (like other related ‘isms’) should have no place in our society and certainly not in our universities, where all students are supposed to have equal chances and the expectation of being judged by equal standards. Someone who cannot accept that has no business teaching, certainly.
But, in Rasmusen’s case, that train long ago left the station. He is a tenured IU Foundation Professor. The fault lies in the hiring, re-appointment, tenure, and promotion process that allowed the current impasse to develop. That has put the university in a ticklish position, one that Robel is trying to negotiate as best she can.
More generally, we need to start positing more emphatically than ever certain beliefs as foundational in American academic settings. One is that any student of any sort deserves the same treatment as any other—even if that means providing the variety of assistance needed by some students so that their base platform can equal that of others. Another is that faculty need to be judged for hiring, re-appointment, tenure, and promotion much more broadly than they have been, sometimes even discounting their scholarly achievements in light of deficiencies in teaching.
Over the past decades, we academics have been battered by anti-intellectual forces so effectively that we either over-react, becoming ridiculous ourselves, or run for cover. What we should be doing is simply standing for what we believe—even if it means standing against a colleague.
Rasmusen should not be shunned, but he should not be where he is. That should be made abundantly clear to him—and that, apparently, is what is happening.
So, good for IU for trying to address a bad situation as honorably as it can.
Tweet away, Rasmusen. You’ve brought to light what long ago should have ended the teaching part of your career.
I agree that “all students are supposed to have equal chances and the expectation of being judged by equal standards. Someone who cannot accept that has no business teaching, certainly.” But I suspect Rasmusen would also say that he agrees, and there is no evidence of discriminatory grading by him, despite his embrace of appalling ideas.
Professors don’t necessarily teach the way they tweet. It’s very dangerous to say that any professor who expresses a controversial view is incapable of teaching students who might be (rightly) insulted by that view. If a professor claims (as some have) that the lack of conservatives (or fundamentalist Christians) in academia is because conservatives (or Christians) are lacking in intelligence, that is not a reason to fire the professor or ban them from teaching. This same logic about an “unacceptable classroom dynamic” was used by the University of Illinois to fire Steven Salaita, claiming that Jewish students might read his attacks on Israel and feel that they wouldn’t be treated fairly in his classes.
For those of you with a short memory, or of a selective one, Professor Rasmussen is guilty of the same sin that cost Larry Summer his post as President of Harvard, namely, expressing a view that left wing liberals consider antithetical to their belief that all people, sexes and races are created equal in every way. This is nonsense. The idea expressed by the author of this article: “…we need to start positing more emphatically than ever certain beliefs as foundational in American academic settings”, without qualification and determined to be foundational by presumably the author and friends, is the essence of fascistic thinking. So, without defining “foundational” beliefs, without refuting Larry Summers’s and Professor Rasmussen’s points of view, left wing liberals like the author of this article, condemn these views as appalling, or as not acceptable. How about giving us your arguments why these views are appalling or unacceptable other than simply because you tell us they are.
Oh, but that’s simple. That is, one doesn’t have to even argue it. There’s an either/or. Either you believe in democracy, in which case you need to assume a foundational human equality, or you don’t. Our nation is based in a struggle to implement the former and we need to operate on that assumption if we are to stay true to American ideals. Views like Rasmusen’s are inherently un-American and, to me, that makes them appalling and unacceptable. I don’t need to refute anything to believe that.
“Either you believe in democracy, in which case you need to assume a foundational human equality”?
Er… what? Where did that come from?
The tweet was obnoxious, to be sure. It was also wrong (as a single example, it entirely ignores the selection effect of “getting into academia”) But in what possible sense does it require a rejection of democracy?
Good democracy is specifically designed to allow for significant variances in both individual preferences, positions, and abilities. It’s quite far from perfect, of course, but better than most other systems. So there’s no per se conflict between “adherence to democracy” and “beliefs that human groups A and B exist which differ on X trait”
I mean, must one really reject democracy if you think that women are, on average:
-more nurturing
-better able to resist starvation, though not dehydration
-less likely to become psychopathic killers
-more likely to live longer
-shorter
-generally have some mental traits which make them superior to men for that trait in some situations?
We are talking, in the comments, about how people are treated in law and society, and about adherence to the basic beliefs that have held this country together. What you are doing is inflicting an entirely different and, to this particular, irrelevant argument on the discussion. Whatever truth there may or may not be in your claims, we have to assume a basic equality or we are rejecting the equality of the vote. We have enough trouble with this now, with an Electoral College that weights rural votes more that urban ones. We don’t want to move toward a system that makes the value of your vote dependent on other things as well.
My recollection of the Summers case was that it was more complicated than you imply. I don’t recall Summers taking the kind of hard misogynist position that Rasmussen seems to espouse, but rather raising the question about the distribution of men and women in STEM and speculating about neurophysical differences that might lead to that. But more to the point, I suspect that Summers would have weathered the minor storm that his comment created, had he not had a series of run-ins with faculty, including, and arguably more seriously, his dispute with Cornell West — that issue dealt with really fundamental questions about academic freedom, and represented Summers’ failure to appreciate the fact that, from the faculty perspective, at Harvard at least, the president works for and serves at the pleasure of the faculty, not the reverse. Even conservative faculty were troubled by his behavior.
Even so, Rasmusen is right: there certainly are “views you’re not supposed to express” but they are views no American (and certainly no teacher) should even have.
By all means, let’s let “progressive” professors to tell us what views we should or should not have and report any one who has them to the House UnAmerican Activities Committee.
The IHE article on this gave no indication of any evidence that Professor Rasmussen had or has actually ever graded with extraneous bias.
“Progressive professors”? You may be forgetting this: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…. ” And you might want to check your history: It has always been the right that used HUAC.
Til now. And Americans aren’t required to hold any “truths” as self-evident.
You are twisting Thomas Jefferson’s words. If you want a conversation on this issue, listen and don’t try to deliberately warp things to what you think might be your advantage. If you do stop the silliness, I will do the same. Instead of trying to score points, we can look at the issue. And that is, are there fundamental beliefs that, to be an American, one must buy into?
No, there are not. There is no “belief” test for citizenship in the United States.
“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.” Methinks you will find belief therein… but that’s not really the question, is it? We’re not talking about tests but about the beliefs that allow for communal interaction in support of a governmental structure, one we all believe in, supposedly.
The claim that “all men are created equal” is a claim of equal human rights, which can be extended to include all persons and justified morally and philosophically as the basis for democracy. The case for democracy does not assume that all persons are equal in intellectual or other abilities, an empirical claim that has been overwhelmingly disconfirmed by more than a century of psychological research on individual differences. As for Rasmusen, he has a right to believe whatever he believes. His teaching should be evaluated on what he does in class and how he treats his students.
What it does contain implicitly is the idea that all students should be placed on, and evaluated from, an equal starting point. I know of no one who would claim that all people “are equal in intellectual or other abilities” but, in a one-person-one-vote context, we have to assume that all adults (at least) have the capacity to make intelligent choices–else, why have democracy at all?
Rasmusen, as an individual, may have a right to believe however he will, but should a TEACHER in a democracy predicated by a belief in basic equality have that right? As his beliefs fly in the face of our evolving consensus on equality, I do not think he should be in an American classroom–though I must admit to a bit of ambivalence on that (see below).
David Horowitz would disagree with your last point, for his condemnation of “The Professors” stems from very little of what goes on in those teachers’ classroom but on what they do outside. However, you do make an important point and it is one reason I would not agitate for Rasmusen’s ouster (though I think he never should have been hired in the first place). That said, I think great care needs to be taken in monitoring such a professor once he or she is in place, making sure that students are treated fairly. As a matter of fact, we should all be monitored for that–and are (though I have never really been comfortable with how it is done). What IU is doing is nothing more than a closer monitoring of Rasmusenthan the rest of the faculty but not really different in kind.
I presume Rasmusen was hired on the basis of his competence and record in teaching and research. Are you suggesting hiring committees should also check for unAmerican ideas before making an offer?
Of course not. But I do find our hiring practices wanting. Here, Horowitz and I would agree: there’s more needing examination than scholarship and a cursory glance (that’s all it usually is) at teaching. How to do that without falling into ideological traps, well, that is the question. What beyond scholarship and teaching should be considered? We already take morals into account–supposedly–but we can’t even define that well. This is a ticklish topic, however, and it needs to be addressed but rarely is. So, thanks for bringing it up.
The oath you quote is for naturalization. You know that. Native born citizens do not take it. There is no belief test for a native born citizen to retain or exercise their citizenship.
Yours was a blanket statement, now qualified. I simply showed its untruth in its initial manifestation. And I never wrote of a belief test.
I simply argue that common belief in the efficacy of a system, in our case, the US constitutional system long established but always evolving, is necessary to our continued existence as a country. Our schools and our communities have promoted that belief for centuries–to good effect. Yes, that may be falling apart, now, but so is our country.
If you want to discuss the role of belief in the maintaining of a nation, fine. So far, you are still simply trying to score points.
“Freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order.” That’s from the Supreme Court decision in West Virginia v. Barnette (1943), forbidding mandatory flag ceremonies in public schools. In my view this strict protection of freedom of belief should apply as a matter of academic freedom to students and teachers in all schools at all levels of education.
I’m not sure I agree with such an expansive reading of academic freedom (Horowitz, to bring him up again, probably would). The limits of academic freedom are certainly worthy of debate–but I think I am trying to get at something even more fundamental here.
Just what makes a society cohere if it is not a set of common beliefs? I understand the danger of codifying such beliefs but I am also witnessing our country fall apart for their lack. The question for me today is not one of freedom to differ but willingness to agree. Or, at least, to attempt to find agreement or, at the very least, compromise.
Pingback: Getting Back to Consensus | ACADEME BLOG
In my view, an underlying problem here, which the AAUP has yet to take a stance on (as far as I know), is how we see the so-called extramural utterances that faculty are presumably free to make–now, increasingly, and with wider reach, on social media sites like Twitter. Are we going to say that faculty members enjoy free speech rights in their extramural utterances, or are we going to examine (and act on) those utterances as “signs” that the professor must make students, or colleagues, or their neighbors, feel bad and maybe even treated in ways those people would regard as unfair? As someone who was in women’s studies for years, I know that not only are a professor’s extramural utterances taken as signs of their political positions and conduct in the classroom but so, also, are their extramural shoe choices, take-out orders, and concert attendance. Seriously, think about it. My feminist students could take issue with my liking the band AC/DC (“misogynist lyrics”), my ordering meat (“animals are oppressed just like women are– and to participate in the oppression of one is to participate in the oppression of the other”), and my wearing pink high heels (“you must believe women should be objectified”). So I, even as a feminist woman, would ignore this guy’s tweet. Otherwise it will have a chilling effect on speech. Why not just debate this guy– can’t his views evolve? Also, otherwise, aren’t you suggesting that anyone’s extramural utterances, even those that express an opinion or interpretation of research outside one’s academic area of expertise, are in fact NOT protected speech? What I _thought_ I learned from the AAUP and specifically from the late, great Robert O’Neil, is that we ought not to censor or reprimand professors who express their opinions as regular citizens.
All That said, I think we still have the problem of the way social media can make it unclear whether a professor is speaking as an expert in their field or as a regular citizen, especially when we Tweet about both our latest book and about how we stood in line for too long at Starbucks using the same Twitter account. We faculty members probably need to take greater care in this participatory media environment to distinguish our citizen opinions from our professional academic ones.