One expects heated public rhetoric in times of war. But evidence is increasing that American politics is indeed itself war by other means. From Web sites to blogs to television talk shows people are castigated—and even threatened—for the views they hold. This trend undermines the character of our public life and leaves some citizens frightened to speak their minds. Because faculty members have long contributed to democratic debate by expressing their views in the public sphere, it is especially notable and worrisome when they become targets of what nearly amount to an American Fatwa—public suggestions that they merit violent retribution in punishment for their comments on issues of concern. The virulent attacks on Frances Fox Piven are a particularly disturbing example.
Dr. Piven is a Distinguished Professor of Political Science and Sociology at the Graduate Center, City University of New York. In recent weeks she has been subjected to an onslaught of denunciations, including death threats posted on theblaze.com, a website maintained by a company owned by radio and television commentator Glenn Beck.
In his television programs, Mr. Beck has referred to Professor Piven dozens of times, describing her as “an enemy of the Constitution” intent on bringing about the “collapse of our economic system.” Responding to an article that Professor Piven published in the January 10 issue of The Nation saying that unemployed people should be staging mass protests, Mr. Beck asked in his January 17 television show, “Is that not inciting violence? Is that not asking for violence?” Public demonstrations can of course be entirely peaceful. Even civil disobedience is typically nonviolent. Mr. Beck’s remarks are unjustified.
Mr. Beck has—even more outrageously—linked Professor Piven’s support for social movements to terrorism, and a December 31, 2010, headline in theblaze.com declared, “Frances Fox Piven Rings in the New Year by Advocating Violent Revolution.”
Amid these relentless tirades, Professor Piven has herself begun to receive threats of violence.
The American Association of University Professors, since our founding in 1915, has championed the vigorous exchange of ideas both within and outside the academic community. We do not dispute the right of individuals and commentators to strenuously question or protest the writings of academics. Nor can any professor claim immunity from criticism, however acid and from whatever quarter. But it is despicable to threaten physical harm to Professor Piven for expressing her views.
No news organization or commentator can justify or should tolerate threats to do physical harm to a professor or to any author. We join others in strongly urging those who are critical of Professor Piven’s writings to advance their positions in ways that foster responsible criticism and debate.
—Cary Nelson
AAUP President
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
An American Fatwa? Or just old fashioned McCarthyism?
Thursday, September 2, 2010
The Two-Body Problem
Do you have a “two-body” problem? Are you and your partner or spouse searching for academic positions in the same area, or even at the same institution? Or are you an administrator or department chair seeking guidance on sound policies and procedures for appointing an academic couple? Would you like to know what kinds of dual-career accommodation programs might be available to assist you, or what procedures an institution should follow to best accommodate your partner? If so, the AAUP’s newly released “Recommendations on Partner Accommodation and Dual Career Appointments” is a must read.
The new recommendations were formulated by the AAUP’s Committee on Women in the Academic Profession in view of the increasing likelihood that faculty, especially women faculty, will have domestic partners or spouses who are also academics. The recommendations provide critical guidance on developing sound, equitable policies. In addition, they provide a comprehensive review of the types of partner accommodation programs already available to dual-career academic couples at many colleges and universities.
The recommendations recognize the diversity of academic institutions and their needs, rather than endorse a particular partner accommodation program or policy as appropriate for all institutions. Research universities, for example, may have a particular interest in accommodating partners to remedy the consistent underrepresentation of women among their tenure-track and tenured faculty. Smaller institutions or those with collective bargaining agreements, because they may have more difficulty accommodating dual career couples, may be less inclined to do so. Whatever their needs, colleges and universities can benefit from well-developed policies that, according to the recommendations, “meet the strictest tests for transparency and good governance practices.”
Included among the recommendations:
- Accommodation policies should be developed by appropriate faculty bodies.
- The policies should take into account local conditions and institutional particularities, departmental hiring priorities, and programmatic and budgetary needs.
- Any faculty appointments made as a result of their implementation should be driven by considerations of merit, and, whenever possible, appointments should be made to tenure-track positions.
- Dual career appointments should not be the occasion for increasing the number of contingent faculty members at an institution.
Balancing the needs of departments and institutions with the needs of faculty members is of paramount importance to successful partner accommodation appointments.
We hope these recommendations will prove a useful tool to faculty and administrators seeking to harmonize sensitivity to the needs of academic couples with due attention to good governance and the protections of tenure long recommended by the AAUP.
Ann Higginbotham, Chair
Ann E. Green, Chair
Committee on Women in the Academic Profession
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
BP and Academic Freedom
"On Friday, July 16, Ben Raines, a reporter for Mobile, Alabama’s Press-Register, published a story detailing extensive efforts by BP to employ scientists engaged in (or likely to engage in) research about the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Inside Higher Ed has since conducted independent interviews for its own coverage. The contracts offered by the giant company, according to both sources, restrict the scientists from publishing research results, sharing them with other scientists, or even talking about them for as long as three years, a serious restraint in the midst of an ongoing crisis. . . ."
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Journal of Academic Freedom
Thursday, August 27, 2009
No Pictures, Please: Studying Visual Rhetoric

The Yale University Press removed all the images from a new scholarly book, The Cartoons That Shook the World, by Jytte Klausen. The Press announced, when its action was revealed in a New York Times article, that it had taken the step to forestall possibly violent reactions to any attempt to publish images of the Prophet Muhammad. Cary Nelson, president of the American Association of University Professors quickly issued a statement condemning the Press action as a threat to academic freedom.
Jennifer Howard, "Hot Type: Yale U. Press's Attempt to Avoid Risks Has Risks of Its Own," Chronicle of Higher Education, 26 August 2009.
