His theories on reader response have been self-contradictory for a very long time, and this seems to be yet another attempt of his to have it both ways without saying anything.

I would appreciate it if anyone could parse for me this argument, because yet again, there's the inherent contradiction of saying, "It's a necessary part of the profession, but not a moral right," when in fact the so-called safeguards that would encourage new research and new subjects would, by their very instantiation, delimit the borders of the possible new from the exotic new.

That has been the problem all along. No law could codify the frontiers of research. And that's precisely why academic freedom has been elevated to a generalized concept rather than a site specific concept to be circumscribed legally by universities or others.

Fish says, "In short, academic freedom, rather than being a philosophical or moral imperative, is a piece of policy that makes practical sense in the context of the specific task academics are charged to perform. It follows that the scope of academic freedom is determined first by specifying what that task is and then by figuring out what degree of latitude those who are engaged in it require in order to do their jobs."

But then who takes responsibility for charging faculty with specific tasks? Who determines the degrees of latitude? The fact is, this is a regular part of the job for academics when we set curricula, hire new professors, etc. We always configure and reconfigure ourselves accordingly.

God forbid that Fish make these decisions for us, because he is dismissive of many forms of academic inquiry. And the sad history of, say, Literature Departments (of which Fish is a part) in the USA would bring us back to some rather embarrassing periods (philology, reinstitution of classical languages to thwart the effects of the GI Bill, etc.)

Published on Sunday, September 16, 2007 by CommonDreams.org

Erwin Chemerinsky and the Post-9/11 Attack on Academic Freedom

by Marjorie Cohn

One week after renowned legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky was offered the position of dean of the new law school at the University of California at Irvine, Chancellor Michael Drake withdrew the offer, informing Duke Law Professor Chemerinsky he had proved to be "too politically controversial." Chemerinsky is one of the most eminent law teachers and constitutional law scholars in the country. Author of a leading treatise on constitutional law, he has written four books and more than 100 law review articles. In 2005, he was named by Legal Affairs as one of "the top 20 legal thinkers in America."

This is the latest chapter in the post September 11 attack on academic freedom under the guise of protecting security. Two weeks after 9/11, former White House spokeman Ari Fleischer cautioned Americans "they need to watch what they say, watch what they do." The American Council of Trustees and Alumni, a group founded by Lynne Cheney and Senator Joe Lieberman, accused universities of being the weak link in the war on terror; it included the names of 117 "un-American" professors, students and staff members. A few months later, a blacklisting Internet cite called Campus Watch was launched. It publishes dossiers on scholars who criticize U.S. Middle East policy and Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. Earlier this year, the Bruin Alumni Association at UCLA offered students $100 to tape left-wing professors.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/16/3877

Since September 11, 2001--again, for obvious reasons--many forms of mainstream liberalism have been denounced as anti-American. A cottage industry of popular right-wing books has equated liberalism with treason (Ann Coulter), with mental disorders (Michael Savage), and with fascism ( Jonah Goldberg). Coulter's book also mounts a vigorous defense of Joe McCarthy, and columnist Michelle Malkin has written a book defending the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. In such a climate, it is not surprising to see attacks on one of the few remaining institutions [universities] in American life that is often -- though not completely -- dominated by liberals.

http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2006/ND/Feat/beru.htm

There are many other things wrong with Horowitz's [a right-winger] Academic Bill of Rights but time doesn't permit a full explication. Among the more obvious: If our colleges and universities are the breeding ground for leftist ideologues, where did the conservatives who are ruling our country come from? How about Harvard, Yale and Princeton, to name the more obvious suspects.

And what about the proliferation of right-wing think tanks such as the Manhattan Institute, the Cato Institute, the American Enterprise Institute, the Hoover Institute, and so on almost ad infinitum? The preponderance of scholars at these institutions were trained at American colleges and universities. How did they all manage to escape the clutches of all their radical left-wing professors?

Hey, wasn't Newt Gingrich a history professor before writing the Contract with America?

Forget the catchy title. The Academic Bill of Rights is nothing more than a quota system for political extremists so they can deliver their right-wing political sermons in the classroom. In case you think this version of McCarthyism has no place in the United States, think again. Several state legislatures are actually considering a bill to implement it. Closer to home, right here in New York State, SUNY trustee Candace de Russy recently asked SUNY's board of trustees to adopt the Academic Bill of Rights.

But this is just the start. Legislative enactment of the Academic Bill of Rights is beside the point.  Horowitz's real goal is to scare college administrators and faculty so they are less likely to raise tough questions or discuss controversial issues in the classroom.  And that's exactly what's happening.

http://www.aft.org/topics/academic-freedom/billofrights.htm