Column: University should not pressure faculty to alter their research

Wednesday, October, 14, 2009; 9:57 PM | 2 | | Print

Share


TOPICS: diversity charles steger clahs mark mcnamee board of visitors principals of community

"The value we place upon equity obliges us to challenge systems of oppression and privilege. ... Service is not just a path we choose but a perspective we consciously adopt."

The problem is not specific to CLAHS, however; it is university-wide. In May 2008, Provost Mark McNamee sent an official memo to to all department heads, to Chairs of Departmental Promotion and Tenure Committees, and to Chairs of Collegiate Promotion and Tenure Committees. He wrote:

"... candidates must do a better job of participating in and documenting their involvement in diversity initiatives. Diversity accomplishments are especially important for candidates seeking promotion to full professor."

No faculty member can read this memorandum and believe that "diversity accomplishments" are optional.

The problem has not been resolved in the latest guidelines for faculty members' promotion and tenure dossiers. The 2009-10 guidelines still require "(d)iversity initiatives or contributions." In addition, on April 30 of this year, President Charles Steger and McNamee sent an open letter to the university community reaffirming that faculty members have an "individual" responsibility to conform their thinking to fit Tech's ideology and agenda:

"We also affirm individual and collective responsibility for helping to eliminate bias and discrimination and for increasing our own understanding of these issues through education, training and interaction with others."

In the landmark case of West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette in 1943, the U.S. Supreme Court made clear the importance of freedom of conscience in our liberal democracy: "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."

Tech seems to believe otherwise. By requiring active involvement in "diversity initiatives," Tech impermissibly forces faculty members to confess both by word and by act their faith in the university's model and ideals of "diversity." Let Tech aspire to these ideals, but don't make them mandatory.

Adam Kissel is the director of FIRE's Individual Rights Defense Program

Continue Reading:  « Previous12

Leave a comment 2 Comments Write a letter to the editor

William Squalus | # October 16, 2009 @ 12:48 AM — Flag Comment

I'm not quite sure what Tech's forced racism is supposed to accomplish. What we see here is a clear indication of where cost-cutting can occur. Tax revenue is going down and tuition rates need to come down as well. Tech obviously has too many administrators and diversity czars who do not add anything to the university and as such their employment should be terminated.

Reply to this Top


Just some teacher | # October 19, 2009 @ 11:54 AM — Flag Comment

A strict adherence to academic freedom is not the same as having no responsibility to VT, my employer. We have a problem at VT, worst than most schools. Faculty can easily show "diversity" by attending activities and the free sandwich luncheon without involving teaching or research. Let us also remember that diversity is, or should, be defined loosely enough to allow for a variety of foci.

Reply to this Top