Recent measures to impede campus protests around the country are a threat to academic freedom and extramural speech, said Judith Butler, a philosopher and gender studies scholar who delivered the 34th annual Davis, Markert, and Nickerson Lecture on Academic and Intellectual Freedom.
Butler, a professor in the University of California, Berkeley’s Department of Comparative Literature and the Program of Critical Theory, addressed more than 300 faculty, staff and students Nov. 14 at Honigman Auditorium in Hutchins Hall and via livestream.
“Academic freedom is under attack, and so, too, are constitutional rights,” Butler said. “My task today is to think about the relationship between the two. I hope to do this in a way that demonstrates the importance of academic freedom to living in a constitutional democracy.”
The annual lecture, presented by U-M’s Faculty Senate, is named for three U-M faculty members who were punished in the 1950s for refusing to testify before a congressional committee about their political beliefs.
Butler’s speech, “Academic Freedom in a Time of Destruction: Reconsidering Extra-Mural Speech,” explored the evolving role of universities in public debate, the complexity of differentiating between intramural and extramural speech, and who and what academic freedom protects.
To begin, Butler cited the consequences of the U.S. presidential election.
“The American people have, by a clear majority, voted against democracy … electing someone who has promised to destroy the balance of powers, to initiate mass deportation, and to undo constitutional protections,” they said.
The attitudes revealed by the election results, Butler said, are part of a larger suppressive trend that is also attacking open inquiry in higher education. To protect this value, they said, shared governance between administrations and faculty is paramount.
“Governance and decisions that affect academic life should be made through consultation with faculty,” Butler said. “No matter where we may stand on issues of the day, we should all stand for the principles (of academic freedom). Without them, there are no protections against illegitimate intervention and eventual control of matters of academic concern by state powers, donors, administrators, corporations and other external powers.”
Another challenge is the ambiguity of the term “extramural,” which means “outside the wall. But what constitutes the wall within the contemporary university or college?” Butler asked. “And what is the distinction between intramural and extramural?’
One must assume, they said, that what a faculty member says in a classroom or research setting is distinct from speech uttered in a non-academic space. But the same thing can be said in both places, which confuses the issue.
The conventions of academic freedom, Butler said, are also endangered by university administrations that are in a constant state of risk management, are swayed by donor funds, or that align themselves with elected officials to earn favor.
“When the main questions become whether faculty speech — speech on campus and public speech — jeopardizes the reputational standing of the university, offends donors, or activate zealous right-wing politicians, then academic freedom is at risk,” they said.
Butler also pointed to the dangers of dismantling educational institutions, citing Gaza, where 85 percent of educational institutions and 100 percent of the universities have been destroyed, something the United Nations refers to as “scholasticide.”
While the United States may not be experiencing scholasticide, Butler said the country faces a disassembling of ethnic studies programs, Africana studies and gender studies, as well as attacks on the legitimacy of diversity, equity and inclusion programs.
Butler acknowledged that allegations of anti-Semitism should be taken seriously, and expressed empathy for those who say they feel unsafe on campus. They shared their own experience when, at age 21, they first heard a critique of Zionism: “I couldn’t believe anyone was talking that way. I wanted to throw a bottle. I wanted to leave the room. I wanted that person to leave the room.”
But rather than closing themselves off, Butler did something they called “brave — or maybe slightly unhinged. I started to read lots of books … by Israeli historians and by Palestinian scholars, poets and novelists.
“I read and read, and my views changed slowly. I do understand the students who say, ‘I feel unsafe.’ But you know what? Sometimes the safety we take in a point of view that has become the consensus, when that consensus is now being challenged, we have to be rattled.
“We thought everyone agreed with us, but actually whole parts of the world do not agree with us and have different histories to tell. So, we listen. We learn. We sit through conversations that are really hard, and we do not leave.”
In the same way, Butler concluded, educational institutions are obligated to bear criticism of their own conduct. And “however paradoxical it may seem,” Butler said, “the universities must also protect those who protest the university’s investment policies as unjust.”
Silke-Maria Weineck
The woman’s name is Butler, not “Baker,” this is an embarrassment, please fix this asap.
University Record
The typo has been corrected. Thank you for alerting us.