This case isn’t very recent, but I thought it was interesting. In 2006, Brigham Young University (which happens to be my alma mater) placed Physics professor Steven Jones on paid administrative leave after he made statements supporting the 9/11 truth movement. Dr. Jones published a paper and gave several speeches asserting that the World Trade Center towers collapsed because of demolition charges and suggesting that the US government may have been involved. At the time Dr. Jones was placed on leave, the university made this statement:
Physics professor Steven Jones has made numerous statements about the collapse of the World Trade Center. BYU has repeatedly said that it does not endorse assertions made by individual faculty. We are, however, concerned about the increasingly speculative and accusatory nature of these statements by Dr. Jones. Furthermore, BYU remains concerned that Dr. Jones' work on this topic has not been published in appropriate scientific venues. Owing to these issues, as well as others, the university has placed Dr. Jones on leave while we continue to review these matters.
Dr. Jones, who had taught at BYU for twenty years, ended up retiring shortly after being placed on leave. You can read more about this story here and here. The American Association of University Professors and The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education were quick to criticize BYU's actions as a violation of intellecutal freedom. What do you guys think? Should Dr. Jones have been free to speak and write about his theory without facing repercussions from BYU?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Well, in a way, yes, he should be able to express himself without having to worry about losing his job or anything. On the other hand, it sort of depends on the context. Dr. Jones IS (or was) associated with the university, and at times represents the university. If he made these statements as a representative, then he should not be surpised that the university is protecting its reputation. However, if he was to make these statements on his own, then perhaps he should have the freedom to do that. It disturbs me to think that people can't have lives outside of work, without worrying that whatever they say or do WILL in fact affect them in the workplace.
ReplyDelete...something that George (on "Seinfeld") said about keeping the worlds separate comes to mind. ;)
One of the main ideas behind freedom of speech in a democracy is that people should be able to discuss all ideas, even different kinds of governments. If the existing government is good and represents the interests of the People, it should not be threatened by claims otherwise, because most people will dismiss them. When a government or those in powerful positions seek to silence dissidents, doesn't it make things look more suspicious?
ReplyDeleteAs a physics professor, Dr. Jones has a resonsibility to back up his claims through empirical scientific evidence. He is certainly entitled to express his opinions as private citizen but he also represents the university and he needs to make it clear that he not speaking for BYU. My concern is that the some unsuspecting people might see his credentials and assume his theory is valid.
ReplyDeleteWilliam -
ReplyDeleteI think you make an excellent point about Dr. Jones being clear that he wasn't speaking for BYU. I don't think that he was clear about that. He posted an article about his 9/11 theory on the Physics department website, and he used Physics research that had been conducted at BYU to support his claims.
This is very interesting. I think that individuals are free to speak what they believe to be true. However as an academician there is a certain burden of proof implied by his position. Did anyone in the school administration look at his findings or debate him on his views. Forcing individuals out because their views are unpopular is not the way to handle those views. Bring them out into the open, debate them and let them see the light of day. Allow individuals to choose whether the thoughts are valid or invalid.
ReplyDeleteI'm curious about what was in his contract. Some institutions have it written in that their research professors can't publish anything at all without permission. We may not like it, but if this was in the contract, and Dr. Jones had gone against his contract....
ReplyDeleteI agree with Tonya's point regarding whether his employment contract included any clauses about permission to publish. That being said...
ReplyDeleteRight or wrong, many universities have taken similar action against professors and researchers following unpopular paths of research. I do not think such research should cost these people their jobs if they are following the scientific process and utilizing empirical facts. Dr. Jones used empirically gathered evidence, and drew logical conclusions from that evidence. BYU had no cause to question his scientific process in this case, even if university administrators (and the government) disagree with his findings. Frankly, any logical person who looks at ALL the available evidence for all aspects of the 9/11 attacks will have enough reasonable doubt to consider Dr. Jones' conclusion a viable alternative.
~Lynn
A US News & World Report article about this case points out something interesting.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060911/11conspiracy.htm
It says that college professors are often only punished for "bizarre claims" when they are made in their area of expertise and indicate that they are incompetent. If the claims are about something outside their expertise, then they aren't punished. They cite an engineering professor at Northwestern who was not punished for his "vocal Holocaust denial" as an example.