DON'T EXPRESS IMPURE THOUGHTS.

Current Harvard dean of social sciences Lawrence Bobo recently offered advice somewhere along those lines to his colleagues who have public forums, or something.

Vigorous debate is to be expected and encouraged at any University interested in promoting freedom of expression. But here is the rub: As the events of the past year evidence, sharply critical speech from faculty, prominent ones especially, can attract outside attention that directly impedes the University’s function.

A faculty member’s right to free speech does not amount to a blank check to engage in behaviors that plainly incite external actors — be it the media, alumni, donors, federal agencies, or the government — to intervene in Harvard’s affairs. Along with freedom of expression and the protection of tenure comes a responsibility to exercise good professional judgment and to refrain from conscious action that would seriously harm the University and its independence.

Internal discussion on key policy matters can occasion sharp differences of opinion. The expression of diverse, conflicting positions, especially those advanced with passion and conviction, is the stuff of a healthy intellectual community. Academic departments, faculty meetings, town halls, and campus publications should be regular forums for participation in University governance.

But many faculty at Harvard enjoy an external stature that also opens to them much broader platforms for potential advocacy.

Well, yes, and, well, using your stature as a scholar in one field to spout off about something unrelated has long been one of the fringe benefits of the job.  As ... which the dean seems to be objecting to now ... is the opportunity to participate in rallies or serve as court intellectual to a political party.  No, seriously.  Only, it appears he is suggesting, don't suggest university complicity in the Vietnam War.

Would it simply be an ordinary act of free speech for those faculty to repeatedly denounce the University, its students, fellow faculty, or leadership? The truth is that free speech has limits — it’s why you can’t escape sanction for shouting “fire” in a crowded theater.

Following similar logic: Is it acceptable professional conduct for a faculty member to encourage civil disobedience on the part of students that violates University policies? Faculty advocacy for actions clearly identified as in violation of student conduct rules is extremely problematic. Doing so after students have received official notification of a potential serious infraction is not acceptable. Such behavior should have sanctionable limits as well.

That's "falsely" shouting fire, but between that caveat and my invocation of the Vietnam War I'm showing my age.  The dean's closing paragraphs, though, sound more like the archbishop reminding the priests and seminarians that Satan always lurks, tempting the unwary with false doctrine.

As Harvard has moved to limit its opining on salient public issues, we must use our voices as faculty responsibly. Do we allow individual faculty with large external platforms to invite external interference and encourage student misconduct without consequence?

With unprecedented freedom comes great responsibility. These are matters the leadership of this university must address directly if we are to avert a troubling recurrence of the historic challenges that have unsettled life on our campus over the past nine months.

I don't require much persuasion to see a failure of stewardship on the part of higher education's adminstrators and faculty, nor am I surprised when public officials get tired of being poked in the eye. "Where the faculty refuse to exercise proper stewardship, the trustees, and, where applicable, the legislators, must throw the challenge flag."

As did Minding the Campus contributors Samuel J. Abrams and Steven McGuire.

Even though Bobo has indicated he would not respect the academic freedom of his colleagues, he still enjoys its protections and has a right to make his opinions known. At the same time, a university needs to be led by people who believe in and are ready to defend its core principles and purposes. Bobo’s op-ed should not affect his position as a faculty member at Harvard, but it is unclear how faculty can trust a dean who thinks faculty should be punished for publicly criticizing the university; Bobo’s standing is now completely compromised, and faculty cannot trust him in a position of such powerful authority and influence.

Some might also wonder whether his students can trust him. Bobo is a “Harvard College Professor,” an honor given to those who show a “commitment to undergraduate teaching,” but he profoundly misunderstands how open inquiry works. If Bobo believes that ideas should not be openly expressed and criticisms should be suppressed or sanctioned, how free will his students be to express themselves? What will they do if they disagree with him or feel unfairly treated in one of his classes?

Their conclusion?  Harvard has not yet fallen so far that faculty and students will leave it rather than love it, and their criticisms might be understood as change it or lose it.  But managing Harvard, in the sense of an organization with some sort of ongoing mission and management, is hard, and pushing the faculty around isn't going to make managing any easier.

While college presidents are not always full-time academics, almost all provosts, deans and chairs are professors promoted up the food chain. And the dirty secret of being a professor is that we are trained in our discipline and the methodologies needed to perform our research and pretty much nothing else. Sure, we pick up teaching skills through osmosis. Some of us might learn how to write for a lay audience. How to manage, to lead, to delegate? The polite way to describe how this happens is learning-by-doing. The more blunt way to put it is that students, professors, and staff must hope that academia’s middle management cares enough to put in the work and learn on their own.

That is, there are a lot of things being imposed on universities that go beyond the hiring, promotion, and tenure, and that more than one dean or provost has characterized as unfunded mandates.  There's also a lot of make-work.

The growing bureaucratization of the academy has been a cognitive drag. In order to appease every university directive, my course syllabi are beginning to resemble the terms-of-service agreements that folks never read when they are updated. The push for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), while well-intentioned, has been institutionalized in such a way as to make it seem more like an exercise in performativity than anything else.

Both of those excerpts come from Dan Drezner, who has apparently been thinking about organizational failure in higher education in addition to the stuff more closely related to the day job, and his "terms-of-service" surely is a more contemporary description than "conditions of carriage," although the administrative bloat behind the bloated course outlines might be a consequence of the faculty abdicating its responsibility because the Diversity Weenies were carrying out policies much of the faculty wanted.  Harvard's dean of liberal arts is now telling his faculty to shut up and leave the High Policy to others.  "And now you are in the position, former colleagues, where the best thing to do might be to close your eyes and think of England."