Zinn was a different kind of an academic historian, of working class roots, having served in the Second World War in a particular position that illustrated the monstrous actions that could be taken by the good guys, his own country, something he spent his entire career exploring. John K Fairbank, Zinn's adversary and the President of the academic group is a name I just came across reading his book, "The Great Chinese Revolution." that shows his amazing ability to turn the broad convoluted scope of this empire's long history into an intriguing conversation. His vibrant humorous personality must have inspired generations of students and opened many doors to exploring his area of study.
I admire Fairbank even more as he expressed then, in what has become known as the "battle of the mike" what I feel is paramount in this day, that however important one's political position, protection of the idea of academic freedom by divorcing it from active political action is paramount. We reach this conclusion for different reasons as I will describe at the end of this essay
Here's is Fairbank's central argument:
This distinction lies at the heart of the pluralism that gives the AHA its legal freedom from interference, intimidation, or coercion by the government or other political forces. “Politicization” is no joke. It can cut both ways. If we today could use AHA to support a worthy nonprofessional cause, others tomorrow could manipulate it for an evil cause. In other words, academic freedom has a distinct institutional basis that we should not act to destroy.Zinn, who was an early activist against racial segregation among other causes conveyed his position in a longer paper (linked above). It is really an argument for academic activism, dismissing the power of the state to squelch such if it varies from the dominant political values. In some ways he has won, as todays academics do express values, but in ways so subtle that conflicts such as this do not take place. From Zinn's response:
What can democracy possibly mean if not that people assembled whenever and wherever they can, for whatever reason, may express their preferences on the important issues of the day? If they may not, democracy is a fraud, because it means that the political leaders have effectively isolated the citizenry by taking up their time in various jobs, while the leaders make the policies, and the citizens, in 99 per cent of their life, remain silent, reserving moments of expression to biennial gestures in the voting booth, comments to friends over lunch, and mutterings to oneself from time to time.As a historian he brings in the most recent and emotional example of a passive professoriate:
It’s no wonder that the war goes on, because all those concerned for the sanctity of their “profession” have surrendered their rights as citizens to speak out wherever they are, whatever they are doing, on matters of life and death. If you were at a meeting of historians in Germany in 1936 would you take the same position in the midst of the killing of Jews? If you were at a meeting of historians in Mississippi in the midst of the lynching of blacks, would you also insist you could not speak “as historians”? If you want to invoke prudence and profit, that is one thing. But there is no moral principle in a position that allocates a small portion of our spare time for moral indignation and the largest part of our lives for immoral silence.
Next is a part of his response where I take issue with him. He makes his point about the reluctance of various professions to challenge political authority:
If all Americans, in all the thousands of assemblies that take place through the year, insist on keeping out of politics because neither war nor racial persecution nor poisonous vapors coming in through the library window, affect them as historians, chiropodists, clerks, or carpenters—then “pluralist” democracy is a facade for oligarchical rule.Without refuting his argument, he misses the more central value at stake, even transcending Fairbank's concern over political reaction to activism or the continuation of a tragic and immoral war. Among the occupations of the organizations that Zinn describes above, only those constituted of tenured professors have the protected province of articulating positions irrespective of public receptivity. Historians especially are charged with not only the privilege, but the obligation to transcend the momentary zeitgeist.
It is for this very reason that both Zinn and Fairbank missed the essential element, that an aggregation of professors who vote as a majority for a given position is actually a diminution of their individual influence. It is a professor's mandate to express his or her convictions-- whether garnering fame or infamy-- irrespective of what others may think, not only in their classroom but to the public. This is a unique privilege that is so fragile, so little understood by society, that it must be protected even at the cost of avoiding a unified stand against egregious social harm.
Academic Freedom is an odd concept, as it does not exist in law but rather in traditions that coincide with the growth of enlightenment mentality. It means that to be a history professor one must be both a Howard Zinn and a John K. Fairbank. And for this to happen there must be no consensus, no official joint resolutions that define what is orthodox in a particular intellectual community.
It is odd that one such as myself who is outside of the academic world can have a fuller appreciation of the institutional protection of academic freedom than many possessing this privilege.
-----------------------
American Historical Associatoin, February 20, 2010 Forty Years On: Looking Back at the 1969 Annual Meeting
No comments:
Post a Comment