Atmosphere, he said, encompasses norms of civility, how free people feel they are to think and say what they want, how much inhibition exists.

The wide-ranging discussion touched on curriculum reform, climate and the challenges facing faculty members teaching sensitive subjects.

History Prof. James Turner noted that “contention has an important role in universities and is a constant, especially in creative universities. You have contention when you are pushing the envelope, expanding, opening a new field.”

Turner, whose research focuses on the development of curriculum, said that today’s efforts to improve curriculum here and at other universities are nothing new. In the 19th century, he explained, we moved from a religiously based culture to one in which religion is an option. This eventually brought about a focus on Western civilization. “This same thing is happening now,” he said.

The crucial point in teaching in a research university,” Turner said, “is to get students willing to talk, to challenge orthodoxy. We need to promote contention. The question is how. Faculty should serve as role models, creating an atmosphere in which people are willing to talk in a relaxed and comfortable manner.

“This is a standard problem in teaching we are talking about. It’s not race, ethnicity or gender issues. It’s an across-the-board issue we work with every day in the terrain of classrooms.”

History Prof. Rebecca J. Scott cited two aspects of curriculum innovation—the relationship between research and curriculum changes, and the ways in which courses are taught.

She said that in the field of history there have been changes in evidence, offering an “opportunity to expand the range of historical discovery,” adding that “curriculum change is driven as much by demand as it is by research changes.”

“New fields in disciplines don’t emerge in isolation,” Turner noted. “The key is ‘Will I learn anything new? Will I understand anything differently? Do others see it as exciting? Will it contribute to knowledge?’”

The underlying concept in teaching is “intellectual excitement. We must work with students in a pedagogically responsible way. Multiculturalism and examinations of race and ethnicity are not intellectual spinach. We must draw students into discussion and help them work on an informed examination of the past, we must push them beyond initial knowledge.”

“Political correctness,” Scott noted, “originally was a joke among the left, an awareness that actual values could be trivialized. In a classroom context, what we call P.C. is a lack of respect. Trust has to be re-established to make sure people can keep on learning. If students feel disregarded, their voices are silenced in the classroom.”

Terms such as political correctness and racism have a “terrific charge,” noted Elizabeth Anderson, making it difficult to get beyond them to reach a consensus on values.

“Old methods and understandings are being challenged,” explained Anderson, who is assistant professor of philosophy. “This puts professors in difficult positions. Every classroom has certain norms of discourse. For instance, professors are no longer free to make comments about women’s breasts. Some speech has no cognitive value. It doesn’t advance discussion.

“I would like to see a norm against speech that silences others. My freedom to articulate my point of view doesn’t free me from others’ criticism.”

The term racism, for example, “raises alarm and is used in different ways. It could be based on hatred and used as a personal invective. Research programs may be accused of being racist because attention is not paid to certain points of view.”

One has trust, Scott explained, “when a perceived offense is not in and of itself a bar to discussion. This comes down to respect. A good teacher thinks about and validates students’ contributions to debate.”

The climate of the University will improve “only if we can develop a common definition of terms and concepts,” thereby building the trust necessary to make productive progress, she added.

Social psychologist James Jackson noted that the University exists in a larger social milieu that is undergoing economic and political changes, and reflects the difficult challenges inherent in those changes.

“We often pose our difficulties as a conflict between values,” he said, “and this is wrong. We are all seeking values we can agree on as well as representation, the free participation of all.”

The challenge, he added, is “instilling trust among different actors. We have a responsibility as administrators to guarantee an environment where people can comfortably seek an education.”

The question, Jackson said, is “Is the person really able to teach, are people learning in that environment? That is the central issue.”

A central value of our society, Bollinger noted, is equality. We are participating in a modern civil rights movement, and “it is not surprising to have disputes within the University.

“In the 1960s we got rid of laws that discriminated, but the problems of discrimination and inequality have not disappeared.

“We must be careful not to politicize the University,” he said. “Universities have to make choices, such as who comes here and what they teach. We are constantly engaged in making content and viewpoint decisions, and we have to be careful to not be ‘clubby.’ Challengers,” he added, “must be given room to do so.”

Bollinger suggested that when “significant issues come up,” the University should appoint a committee to look at the problem and issue a public statement.

“The controversy should be investigated and values related to it articulated. We will then gain experience over time,” he noted, adding that “it was a mistake to handle the incident last year involving David Goldberg at the lowest level. Incidents of this type should provide an opportunity for discussion, asking members of the University community for their thoughts.”