CHAPTER 1

ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND SOCIOLOGY'S CREDIBILITY

One of my major concerns in the three decades I have been active in Sociology has been the lack of media interest in what we do. When was the last time we saw media represented at our national or regional meetings? I believe this state of affairs has a great deal to do with the fact that as sociologists we do not successfully address issues with which the public can either identify or utilize.

We should be in the business of analyzing institutions in society so that substantive social and even individual problems can be addressed that can better the lives of people. We have largely failed in this charge, and we are paying a heavy price for this failure. Sociology departments lack esteem and credibility within and outside the universities of our country.

Frequently, these departments are used by students to facilitate their graduation. Sociology majors frequently choose our discipline because it is perceived, frequently correctly so, as easy. Many of our students lack significant motivation and are frequently rewarded despite poor academic performance so that enrollments are assured for purposes of funding and allocation of resources.

If we really taught our students a respect for data concerning issues with which they could identify, we would likely attract better, more motivated people to major in our discipline. Moreover, once we base our pronouncements upon reliable data in addressing substantive, concrete social problems with which lay people can identify, we will then find great media interest in what we do and increase our respect within and outside the academy.

Academic freedom means our freedom to follow the data wherever they lead us. When we engage in ideology, it is imperative that we tell our students that we have no data to confirm or deny this point of view, but we are presenting this ideology to them for discussion purposes. Whatever we say in the classroom, in our writings, in our utterances as sociologists must be supported by data. Unfortunately, this is not frequently the case. Much of what we do is ideological, and frequently it is ideology that is presumed to be fluff by students, colleagues in other disciplines, and lay people; ideology antithetical to many of the values of lay people.

Most of the 19th century sociologists addressed themselves to concrete social problems and phenomena with which lay people could identify. Some 20th century sociologists have done the same. Some examples are Marx, who addressed the problems of hunger and class polarization; Comte and LePlay who sought to remedy what they felt to be the social dislocations in France due to the Industrial Revolution. People like Veblen, Mills, and Domhoff have been exemplars in our century in dealing with economic and political inequities in our time.

However, much of our work is ideological and is not relevant to academic freedom. Academic freedom does not mean that one can say anything he or she feels like saying. It does not include portraying ideology as fact or applying questionable assumptions in a therapeutic or classroom situation.

For example, in psychotherapy, in which some applied sociologists are engaging, it is stated as fact that high self esteem is desirable and low self esteem is undesirable. Where is the data for this assumption? I know many people with low self-esteem who lead very effective, productive lives and many people with high self esteem who are unmitigated jerks. (A good book in this area is by R.M. Dawes, HOUSE OF CARDS PSYCHOLOGY AND PSYCHOTHERAPY BUILT ON MYTH, NEW YORK: FREE PRESS.)

Some other questionable assumptions frequently put forth as fact for which there is little or questionable data is that child-care is an equivalent alternative to parenting or that gay parenting has no deleterious effects upon the child. These assumptions may be so, but where is a reliable body of data to support them? One can envision that lack of bonding with one or both parents can lead to personality disorders. (See, for example, Ken Magid, etal, HIGH RISK: CHILDREN WITHOUT A CONSCIENCE, CDR DISTRIBUTORS,LAKEWOOD, COLORADO.)

One can also imagine the victimization of a child who is raised by gay parents who is forced to suffer shame by his or her school-mates and how that victimization can lead to extreme withdrawal and/or great anger. Moreover, many have been involved in "empowering gays in the classroom." Perhaps by doing such a thing we are labelling people who may be unsure about their sexual orientation, and thereby consolidating a label that would otherwise have not existed. Perhaps if such empowerment were not done, many impressionable undergraduates would drift into heterosexuality, rather than be confirmed as "homosexual," a label and identity that may stick for the rest of their lives.

Sophisticated studies that are replicated have to be done to propound these ideologies as fact to our students and the larger society. In so doing, we may be able to show, for example, that gay couples can raise just as effective children as can straight couples, by presenting unequivocal data to lay people, Governors, Congress, etc. We are not to be ideological, but have our academic freedom be directed by the valid and reliable data we obtain and share with others.

In a professional meeting I attended some sociologists insisted that it was acceptable for a faculty member to seek an intimate relationship with a student in his or her class. Where is the data for this allegation? Have studies been done to delineate what consequences may ensue from such action? What was propounded was belief, value, ideology, even a weltanschauung, but not data, and not sociology, although this statement was made at a sociological conference. As sociologists, our values, particularly the values we espouse, must flow from reliable data. To do otherwise, diminishes us in the eyes of university colleagues and the larger society, and misleads our students. To make oracular pronouncements based upon even deeply held beliefs and values, for which there is no reliable supporting data, is to seriously mislead our students; all this being done in the name of sociology.

The correct understanding of academic freedom should arouse media interest in our findings, particularly when we address ourselves to substantive social problems with which the layperson can identify and care deeply about. Most of the articles we write and papers we deliver at meetings are written to each other. If we are to interest the media and laypeople in our work, we must present data that are compelling to them. In so doing, ideology is translated into individual and group problem solving, and new or expanded paradigms of thought can be grasped by the layperson to perhaps liberate his or her consciousness in understanding him/herself and the institutions in society; thereby suggesting ways he or she can live a more effective life.

In Mills' words we must study individual troubles and public issues and translate the former into the latter. This is academic freedom that should enhance our esteem, attract better, more highly motivated students, and thereby encourage media to cover our national and regional meetings.