People might protest that of course they would fight Nazis to the death if they tried anything like that, and maybe people actually believe that of themselves. And I bet they would fight if shamed into it by strong leaders (who would come from where?). But if someone isn't willing to stick out his neck to correct an isolated case of injustice, one on a small enough scale that his intervention could actually tip the balance, why do we think that person is going to be brave enough to fight the entire power of the state when the injustice is multiplied by a thousand?
Here is an example from a weblog. Michael Berube writes
But most of the people who've commented thus far on Gerard don't
have much more than instinct, either. ...
...
And we also know this: this isn't a case like the one at the University
of Southern Mississippi, where university president Shelby Thames
allegedly locked two professors out of their offices (I hear their
computers have been confiscated as well) before initiating dismissal
procedures.
...
Last but not least: I am not interested in protecting my employer on this one. My
instincts continue to tell me to regard all revocations of tenure with deep suspicion,
and besides, I have a long history of denouncing my employers (the University of
Illinois, 1989-2001, and Penn State, 2001-present) when the need arises, especially with
regard to their dealings with graduate students. But I think there's a world of
difference between a questionable decision and a manifest outrage. The Penn State
decision should be pursued, and the grounds for Gerard's dismissal made available for
broader review. And the USM decision should be simply and unambiguously denounced.
At one point, in fact, I expressed those sympathies, saying, more or
less, "my instincts tell me that my sympathies should be with Nona
Gerard on this." Whereupon a couple of my colleagues-- not senior
faculty, not administrators, just friends (one of whom teaches at
Altoona)-- pulled me aside and said, with all due respect, "Michael,
with all due respect, you don't have the faintest idea what you're
talking about on this one." And they were right; I didn't. All I had
were my instincts. University Administration vs. out lesbian leftist
theater professor? Ordinarily, I'd bet the house on the underdog.
Professor Berube's posting can teach us a lot. First, note that he accepts the
argument from authority, hook, line, and sinker. In principle, there are two
differences between the Southern Mississippi and Penn State cases.
(1) Southern Mississippi shut down the professors' activities before going through the tenure-stripping procedure rather than after. How much do you want to bet that after Southern Mississippi does go through the procedure, the professors will win? Procedure is just a hoop to jump through-- it won't change the result.
(2) Southern Mississippi neglected to make the Penn State argument of "Yes, we know we condemned the professor for criticizing administration policy, but actually we have other, much better, reasons for firing them. Please trust us."
Apparently, if they had made the Argument from Secret Evidence and followed proper procedures, Professor Berube would have had no problem with the University of Southern Mississippi. (Or is there a bit of prejudice against Southern colleges here, or against teacher's colleges that pretend to be universities?)
Second, note how an outrage of magnitude 2X can make an outrage of magnitude X acceptable. This phenomenon has wide application. A professor at Harvard Law once told me that it was intersting how the presence of one outspoken conservative in his class changed the dynamic completely, because other students then felt comfortable taking moderately conservative positions. Homosexuals push gay marriage because then people accept gay bars with relief. The lesson for an administrator is to wait for another institution to do something extremely bad before doing something moderately bad himself.
As I've said before, I'm quite willing to change my mind on the Nona Gerard case if actual new evidence against her appears. But since things seem pretty clear now, I don't think there's any reason to defer strong condemnation of Penn State on the off chance that something new will come up. Also, so doing gives bad incentives to institutions, since it would give complete success to the strategy of lying to delay outrage.
I've collected a number of other items on this case.
The AAUP has finally gotten involved.
There are interesting comments at Crooked Timber (more interesting than the weblog entries)
Erin O'Connor posted more on Gerard on March 14, with interesting comments by others.
Professor O'Connor's view is different from mine. She thinks there are procedural problems worth mentioning, and that Professor Berube's post is "long and thoughtful".
A leading Penn State Donor was unhappy about Professor Gerard's work:
In a memo dated Aug. 29, 2002, and written on Wolf Furniture stationery, CEO John Wolf
expressed concern over a play Gerard was directing titled "Sexual Perversity in
Chicago." The play was performed at the Paul R. and Margery Wolf Kuhn Theatre, and John
Wolf said he was expressing concern in the name of his "Aunt Marge and family."
"Aunt Marge had a very strong sense of values and gave generously to support those
interests which she felt would build family and community," John Wolf wrote.
He then requested more background on the play so he "could be aware of the process as to
how programs are selected."
Gerard said the committee also did not consider the complaint against her by one of the
Altoona campus' biggest donors.
Such a letter is completely proper. It's amazing how willing universities are to take
money and use it in ways the donor would clearly hate. Mr. Wolf's objection, though, was
to the play, not to its director. I don't know if she chose the play, or how bad the
play is. It's amazing that somebody--especially a rich person with, one would hope,
good advisors even if not high intelligence--- would donate money for a theatre without
realizing that a university would probably use it to promote obscenity, anti-
Americanism, and immorality. Did Aunt Marge never go to university productions? It would
be easy enough for donors to reform universities by imposing conditions on their
donations, but for some reason they don't. And it's not that universities refuse to
accept strings. If I were donating a theatre building, for example, I'd do it by
creating a charitable trust that would own the building and donate use of it to the
university on a play-by-play basis. I'd also put in the charter of the nonprofit that it
was never to produce plays with obscenity and nudity, and I'd put that in my will, too,
perhaps with a provision that if the clause were violated, the assets were to go to a
particularly ruthless law firm. (The reason for this is you have to give somebody an
incentive to enforce the terms of your will, so you have to give somebody a monetary
payoff if they catch someone else cheating.)
Aunt Marge's lawyers should have told her about that possibility. But there is a lot of bad lawyering out there.
As far as Nona Gerard goes, I don't know that Mr. Wolf's outrage would have much influence. He isn't out to get any particular professor-- his target is really university policy. It would be easy enough for the university to take choice of which plays to present away from Professor Gerard if she currently has that power (which may not be the case). Her academic freedom is involved in being a director, not a producer, of plays. So the only way this would enter the affair is if the University is trying to make Professor the fall guy for the drama program. If that is what is happening, she would be well advised to contact Mr. Wolf and get him on her side by pointing out the subterfuge. I don't know if she's temperamentally capable of that, but that's what a game theorist like me would do.
In some future post, perhaps I'll return to the issue of whether Penn State would be justified in firing Professor Gerard for moral turpitude with regard to her plays and personal life. That is a theoretical matter, though, because nobody seriously thinks that Penn State objects to lesbianism or obscenity. What universities dislike much more is a professor who calls her colleagues "talentless".
[in full at 04.03.15d.htm . Erasmusen@yahoo.com. ]
To return to Eric Rasmusen's weblog, click http://php.indiana.edu/~erasmuse/w/0.rasmusen.htm.