I am still unclear as to the particulars. Did Mary Daly refuse to
desegregate her class and therebe put the administration in the position of
having to fire her or risk not only an individual liability suit but also
loss of federal funds? (call it de-tenure or whatever-- from the original
message it isn't that clear what happened). Did she simply resign in
protest because she wouldn't follow the law concerning segregation on the
basis of gender thereby putting at risk the entire university? The original
message at least implies that the latter happened since it states that this
is what the university is saying. Losing federal funds would be a lot more
than just a "sticky situation" for any educational institution in the land
insofar as it doesn't just threaten faculty grants and institutional grants,
but also financial aid programs; in short a very large percentage of the
institution's operating budget.
In any event, tenure is not the issue here. What is at issue are the limits
of academic freedom. Does academic freedom include the right to organize
classes or teach material that are in violation of the law and jeopardize
the institution that employs the individual who insists upon doing their own
thing? Thoreau recognized that civil disobedience required that the
individual following his or her conscience and breaking the law also accept
the punishment that the society metes out, as did Socrates, and the moral
authority of the position followed from that acceptance. Thoreau didn't
whine about going to jail, Ghandi didn't whine about being beaten, they
accepted that the immorality of the jailers and the beaters would be
revealed in this way.
Here, however, I don't think we have the issue of an immoral administration
rather one that is protecting itself from law suit and possible loss of
federal funds. Is this supposed claim to academic freedom sufficient
grounds to allow the possible loss of institutional viability.
The limits of academic freedom are the only possible issue here; tenure
isn't the question. People lose tenure all the time for a variety of
activities that happen inside and outside the classroom and lecture hall The
question here is whether any instructor has the right to teach segregated
classes. From the responses, it seems that most people don't think so. If
the tendency for male discourse patterns to dominate in mixed settings is
the problem, the solution is to devise ways to ensure that this doesn't
happen. I would think that is a more important goal in any event.
Why not write a letter to Daly asking her to reconsider her decision not to
allow males in the classroom and to try harder to work on a solution to the
dominance of male discourse patterns in the mixed setting? Is it the case
that men can't learn the rules of female discourse patterns? How many would
deny the opposite possibility? After all, they don't let people into the
orchestra who don't know all the scales.
Paul H. Dillon
-----Original Message-----
From: nate <schmolze who-is-at students.wisc.edu>
To: xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Date: Tuesday, August 03, 1999 10:15 AM
Subject: Re: FW: "Daly De-Tenured"
>Paul,
>
>I must say that what is of issue here is the notion of tenure. The intent
>that there will be those whose ideology or practices are out of touch with
>current political winds must be protected. My understanding of tenure is
>its intent is to protect those just like Daly whose practices may be seen
>as offensive by contemporary standards. Daly being an "historical icon"
>that should be preserved and defended no matter how much it goes against
>contemporary sensibilities.
>
>I took a botany course awhile back and the Professor was out of tune with
>much political correctness and was taken to task because of his refusal to
>change the title of his course *Plants and Man*. There was a level of
>uncomfortableness in his class because he spent of could deal of time
>attacking political correct (the conservative kind too) ideology that is
>popular on college campuses. Even with all his attacks he spent more time
>on feminist and class perspectives than other classes that were seen as
>more inclusive.
>
>Tenure must be protected for both Daly and Allen because we need those
>uncomformists no matter how much they threaten the conforming tendencies
>that are so common on college campuses today.
>
>Nate
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Paul Dillon <dillonph who-is-at northcoast.com>
>To: <xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu>
>Sent: Monday, August 02, 1999 10:39 PM
>Subject: Re: FW: "Daly De-Tenured"
>
>
>> Jane,
>>
>> Whatever anyone's position may or may not be concerning "feminism and
>> women's studies" I have two problems with the argument you presented to
>> support your call for support of Daly.
>>
>> First, the question of academic freedom is very hazy here. What are
>the
>> grounds for allowing women, but not other groups, to have segregated
>> classes. If you adopt a genetic definition of women, then many male
>> phenotypes who consider themselves to have female genotypes, should be
>> admitted. If the determination that individuals who share genetic
>> similarites should be permitted to have their own segregated classes to
>> discuss their specific problems, say Jews, Celts, individuals with blue
>eyes
>> and blond hair, etc. Is this the case? I haven't heard it to be. Where
>> does one draw the genotypical line? If it isn't a question of genetic
>> distinction at all then any group, on the basis of any socially
>recognized
>> distinction, should be allowed the prerogative to do this. As history
>has
>> shown, however, this allows those individuals with greater power to
>> eventually corner privilege. Really it's the same in either direction.
>One
>> distinction of the "objective" from whatever direction one takes on it,
>is
>> that it is potentially accessible to all. Or is there an implied notion
>> that there is in fact "male knowledge" and "female knowledge" or
>knowledge
>> that is otherwise accessible, in principle, to only specific groups,
>> genetic or social or both?
>>
>> Whereas one can recognize the need for confidentiality for the discussion
>of
>> some issues, is this an element of post-secondary education (or even
>> education in lower grades)? Isn't it rather an issue of therapy or
>> religious confession? I'm not presuming to know where issues of therapy
>> flow over into issues of education but I've recently seen several very
>> powerful critiques of "liberation epistemology" (I'll post the web
>addresses
>> separtely) that might be of interest to those who aren't already
>> dogmatically committed to the politically correct position here.
>>
>> Second, your grounds for justifying support of "reinstalling Daly" (which
>I
>> interpret to mean allowing her back in to teach her segregated classes)
>are
>> not convincing but appeal to the fact that the student in question had
>the
>> support of an organization that "led attacks on affirmative action".
>This
>> innuendo apparently purports to undermine the validity of the student's
>> complaint that he was being discriminated against. This rhetorical
>device
>> doesn't prove anything in this case which must be judged on its own
>merits.
>>
>> I hesitated to write this and am sure that it will incite automatic dog
>> juices (I'm hoping there are some joyceans out there) but I also hope
>that
>> for those not already frozen into the politically correct position, the
>> issue of "liberation epistemology" be put up for question, since the
>> relation between "therapy" and education bears more closely to the topic
>of
>> the list; i.e., cultural historical activity and learning.
>>
>> Paul H. Dillon
>>
>>
>