After all this week’s fuss, I still disagree with scholar-activism

This week on Twitter/X, there has been lively debate about the role of activism in academia. A post from the music academic Alexandra Wilson initiated this,

Following this, a week-long debate about the relationship between academia and activism has ensued. Many disagreed profoundly with Wilson’s position, asserting that everything is political and that the refusal to acknowledge this is a political position itself, most likely reflecting privilege.  Some of the responses to Wilson were ferocious and ad hominem.

I have written previously about my concerns with the blending of academia and activism – beyond problems with objectivity, the intertwining of research, politics and person makes scholar-activism prone to unravelling – but this week’s debate sheds new light on the topic. The extent of the reaction to Wilson’s post surprised me and the wide-ranging nature of this week’s debate offers an opportunity to become better acquainted with the arguments of those who support scholar-activism. This position is a comparatively new one and, like other new positions, risks being misunderstood and mischaracterized. Some discussion concerned bias in STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics), yet I will focus on the humanities and social sciences, i.e. the subjects in which political content is more overt.

Advocates of scholar-activism have always made valid points about the impossibility of complete neutrality and the tendency of dominant approaches to self-present as impartial, thus dismissing new and/or marginal positions as partial. Building on this, critics of Wilson pointed out the ways in which traditional approaches might have blind spots on race and class. Some of this commentary is fair.

Yet this draws an obvious response; the impossibility of complete objectivity scarcely justifies its abandonment. As one wit put it, ‘It is as if we were to discover that it is impossible to render an operating-room perfectly sterile and conclude that therefore one might as well do surgery in a sewer’. Let us call this the extent problem. Relatedly, others wondered whether scholar-activists would be so open to conservative scholars using activist approaches.

In fairness to scholar-activists, there is a risk of mischaracterizing their position. As some asserted, being political is different from being partisan, i.e. urging students to vote against Trump. In other words, the scholar-activist position has limits and the operating-room metaphor is inappropriate. One scholar-activist welcomed conservatives being honest about their priors, asserting that this made for better research and teaching.

Ostensibly, such points allay worries about the wholesale abandonment of impartiality and equal treatment of conservatives. But reviewing the discussion, I would have liked to have seen greater engagement with the extent problem. Whilst conservative (and many other) academics do not deny their biases and the impossibility of pure neutrality, such academics tend to attempt to minimize biases. When teaching, they present rival theories in as fair a manner as possible and encourage students to reach their own conclusions. When researching, they use falsifiable hypotheses and/or sober language.

Scholar-activists do not seem to be taking such steps. I could be better acquainted with scholar-activist teaching practices – in the comments, I welcome dialogue with such academics – yet my impression is that less effort is made to minimize the extent of potential bias. Paulo Freire, one of the founders of this pedagogical approach, was explicit about this ('There is no such thing as neutral education. Education either functions as an instrument to bring about conformity or freedom.') and some contemporary advocates dismiss alternative approaches as perpetuating prejudice.

In journals, articles appear for which it is difficult to conceive a conservative equal. One cannot imagine the publication of an article entitled ‘Fuck socialism’. Yet the equivalent, an article called ‘Fuck neoliberalism’, was published in 2016 and is well-cited.  

This week’s debate also impresses upon me the acutely stratified conditions of academia. The paucity of conservative scholars seems to be a precondition to the success of scholar-activism. Immediate co-existence fosters compromise. If several colleagues disagree with your approach, one tends to become more moderate; after all, few relish conflict. Contrastingly, stratification encourages hostility towards outgroups and moves away from moderation.     

Of course, society is different from academia, many citizens being conservative and/or not having coherent values (an aside for political scientists; what does the ‘everything is political’ hypothesis imply for Conversian arguments about the non-ideological voter?). Whilst much of the public is unaware of the turn towards scholar-activism, some people are beginning to notice. Increasingly, conservative parties exploit such awareness to justify attacks on universities. The lamentable banning of critical race theory in certain US states reflects such awareness.

Scholar-activists would respond (correctly) that these are conservative voters, yet I am unconvinced that less ideological voters look favourably on such approaches; reflecting their pragmatism, these voters tend to dislike tribalism. Sometimes, the stratified conditions of academia can lead to misunderstanding of public opinion.

Academia (and particularly the arts and humanities subjects in which scholar-activism is prominent) needs the sympathies of voters more than ever. Across the West, universities are under financial pressure. In Britain, considerable restructuring is underway and departments have already closed. Increasingly, universities are asking governments for extra financial help.

The principles of obligation and accountability underpin large-scale public funding. To receive it, any industry must demonstrate that it will serve the interests of a wide range of citizens.

If academia is predicated on approaches which are avowedly partial and demonstrably misrepresentative of public opinion, how can such a case be made?

---

If you enjoyed reading this, do think about subscribing! Subscription is free – all it means is that you’ll receive a weekly email. But every new subscriber makes me very happy 😊 😊 😊