Liberal, Libertario, Libertino

Professores universitários dispõem de uma série de proteções para poder exercer sua liberdade de pensamento sem medo de represálias. Mas qual é o limite dessa liberdade? Ou melhor, essa liberdade deve ter limites?
(Esse post vai ficar no topo do blog por alguns dias. Meus acréscimos ficarão lá embaixo, na forma de updates.)

* * *

A Estabilidade no Emprego

Nos Estados Unidos, professores universitários com carreira bem-sucedida, muitos livros e artigos publicados e um bom histórico de serviços às suas instituições podem receber "tenure", ou seja, estabilidade no emprego. A não ser em casos extremos, os "tenured professors" não podem ser demitidos. Para nós, brasileiros, isso soa relativamente comum, conhecemos várias carreiras e profissões com "tenure", a começar por todo o funcionalismo público, mas no contexto americano, a instituição do tenure é uma exceção ao senso-comum liberal e vive sendo questionada/defendida.

A justificativa: o tenure seria a proteção do intelectual contra as pressões econômicas e políticas. Não fosse o tenure, intelectuais de humanas teriam receio de falar contra o status quo, o governo, etc, e os intelectuais de ciências acabariam limitados somente à pesquisas que dessem retorno financeiro no curto prazo.

O ataque: já outras pessoas dizem que os professores autenticamente iconoclastas simplesmente nunca chegam ao ponto de receber tenure: a maioria dos professores com tenure seria pró-establishment e não faria nenhuma pesquisa de ponta. Muito pelo contrário, afirmam que o tenure na verdade mata o dinamismo intelectual da universidade, ao fazer os indíviduos trabalharem feito loucos por pouco tempo e, depois do tenure, incentivando-os a não fazer nada pelo resto da vida. E, por fim, muitos liberais afirmam que é simplesmente injusto alguém não poder ser demitido.

(O verbete da Wikipedia sobre tenure explica melhor todo o processo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenure)

* * *

Ponto Contraponto

Três artigos, um contra, um a favor, e um mais ou menos:

- In Defense of Academic Tenure - http://www.merage.uci.edu/~mckenzie/tenure.html
- The Economics of the Tenure System - http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/Mirontenure.html
- The Hidden Costs of Tenure - http://thehiddencostsoftenure.com

* * *

Quem É Protegido pelo Tenure?

Por um lado, concordo que tenure (teoricamente) protege o intelecual de represálias políticas - mas protege mesmo? E, por outro, eu sei o suficiente de economia para saber que, quando alguém não tem mais incentivo para produzir, a pessoa (teoricamente) não produz - mas será que não produz mesmo?

Os opositores do tenure desafiam: me mostrem um caso de professor iconoclasta e vanguardista que teria sido demitido se não fosse o tenure! (E eu gostaria de conhecer esses casos!)

Os defensores do tenure desafiam: me mostrem esses números que indicam que os professores com tenure viram um bando de inúteis coçadores-de-saco depois de conseguir a estabilidade! (E eu realmente gostaria de conhecer esses números!)

Existem alguns casos clássicos.

John Edward Mack era professor de medicina de Harvard e começou a estudar abduções extra-terrestres. A universidade analisou cuidadosamente sua pesquisa e acabou reafirmando "Dr. Mack's academic freedom to study what he wishes and to state his opinions without impediment. ... Dr. Mack remains a member in good standing of the Harvard Faculty of Medicine." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_E._Mack)

Jeffrey Meldrum é professor de anatomia de Idaho State University e tornou-se um dos maiores experts no Pé-Grande/Sasquatch. Seu tenure nunca foi oficialmente "investigado", como no caso de Mack, mas ele é uma figura polêmica: pra alguns, ele ridiculariza a universidade; para outros, enfatiza a diversidade e liberdade acadêmica da instituição. (http://cbs5.com/watercooler/water.cooler.Jeffrey.2.274282.html)

Esses casos são geralmente apontados pelos opositores do tenure como um exemplo do fracasso do sistema: teoricamente, só serve para manter o emprego de malucos que já teriam sido despedidos. Por outro lado, defensores argumentam que o objetivo do tenure é justamente manter o emprego desses e de outros "malucos", especialmente considerando que a maluquice é relativa. Eppur si muove, já diria o outro.

Mas, afinal, onde estão os acadêmicos de verdade que teriam sido despedidos se não fosse pelo tenure?

* * *

Demissão com Justa ou Injusta Causa?

A Universidade de Ottawa está abrindo um processo interno para poder demitir Denis Rancourt, professor do Departamento de Física.

Entre seus muitos crimes: discutir política numa aula de ciência (afinal, todos sabemos que a ciência é politicamente neutra!), avisar no começo do semestre que todos os alunos vão ganhar A (quebrando a perfeita e inquestionável meritocracia que vigora nas universidades), criticar Israel (faux-pas ao quadrado) e afirmar que a universidade faz parte de um sistema de dominação e opressão (e eu que achei que isso já era um truísmo althusseriano!).

No final do semestre passado, ele foi proibido de entrar no campus. Quando participou de uma reunião de um grupo de cinema nesse semestre, foi retirado do campus algemado.

Abaixo, alguns trechos de matérias sobre o assunto na imprensa.

* * *

O Professor Provocador

A melhor é do The Globe and Mail, de 11 de fevereiro. Vou citar inteira, pois o artigo logo vai sair do ar.

The provocative professor: A physics teacher who refuses to grade his students sparks a debate over the meaning of academic freedom
(http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090211.wsuspend11/BNStory/National/home)

A University of Ottawa physics professor who was suspended after awarding automatic A's to his students to protest against the tyranny of tests and grades is receiving mixed marks from academics across North America - some offering high scores, others flunking him.

His case has become a talking point for academic freedom: When does a tenured professor cross the line from exercising intellectual independence - a tenet of university life - to failing to live up to his job description?

The University of Ottawa administration has decided the latter, recommending to its board of governors, in a rare move, that senior physicist Denis Rancourt be dismissed from the school, in addition to banning him from campus. A statement from the university said the reasons include Prof. Rancourt's refusal to follow a grading system, which challenged the "credibility" of a degree from the school and ignored the fact that students need marks to win graduate positions and scholarships.

The decision, however, follows years of conflict with Prof. Rancourt over course curriculum - in particular his practice of discussing politics in science classes - and complaints from many of his faculty colleagues about his conduct. Prof. Rancourt, who describes himself as an "anarchist," insists that properly teaching science requires a consideration of social issues, and that eliminating the pressure of grades allows students to focus on learning.

But while supporters say the university has been heavy-handed in its treatment of the veteran professor, they also acknowledge that his combative stand with colleagues, and claims that his suspension is linked to his political views - in particular his criticism of Israel - have only fuelled the dispute. Most recently, an editorial in a campus student newspaper, The Fulcrum, sided with the university, criticizing Prof. Rancourt's ongoing "harassment" of the administration.

At the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, general counsel Alan Borovoy said that "universities should always err on the side of professorial freedom." But in that context, the professor is still required to do his job, he said. If grading is required, he suggested, then "even though the professor may think this is a reactionary and Neanderthal practice, that professor would nevertheless be obliged to grade his students."

A more openly critical position was taken by Stanley Fish, a professor of law at Florida International University, who wrote in his blog for The New York Times that Prof. Rancourt is an example of turning "serial irresponsibility into a form of heroism under the banner of academic freedom." There is a difference "between wanting to teach a better physics course and wanting to save the world," said Prof. Fish, who has written a book arguing that professors overreach when they instruct students on ethics and morality.

"That's nonsense," said Robert Gaucher, a recently retired law professor at the University of Ottawa. "Of course we bring our political views; how do we leave them aside? Professors spout off in all directions during their lectures."

Dr. Gaucher, who wrote a letter of support for Prof. Rancourt, suggests that the broader issues at stake have been obscured by the rancour between the two sides - citing in particular a January incident that saw the professor escorted off campus in handcuffs when he attended a film society meeting.

"What happens in the classroom has to be discussed more broadly," he said. As for the suggestion that professors should strictly follow curriculum, he asked, "Well, what is the curriculum, who created it, and what was their point of view?"

Aruna Srivastava, an associate professor of English at the University of Calgary who has also written a letter backing Prof. Rancourt, said that while she may not support all his actions or politics, she believes he raises important questions about accepted teaching practices at universities.

Like Prof. Rancourt, Prof. Srivastava prefers to allow students to guide the format of classes, and participate in their own grading process. While the concept is more commonly accepted in humanities than science faculties, she says she has also experienced disapproval for her approach. Of Prof. Rancourt's case, she says: "The university shouldn't be setting up a fort mentality against people it doesn't like. In fact, academic freedom says the university should protect people it doesn't like."

Until the university's board of governors rules on the case, Prof. Rancourt has been suspended with pay.

* * *

Stanley Fish ao Ataque

Stanly Fish, respeitadíssimo intelectual e autor do recente "Save the World on Your Own Time", justamente sobre "professores ativistas que tentam salvar o mundo na sala de aula e não ensinam o que tem que ensinar", pegou pesado contra Rancourt em seu blog no New York Times, em 8 de fevereiro. Alguns trechos:

The Two Languages of Academic Freedom
(http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/the-two-languages-of-academic-freedom)

Last week we came to the section on academic freedom in my course on the law of higher education and I posed this hypothetical to the students: Suppose you were a member of a law firm or a mid-level executive in a corporation and you skipped meetings or came late, blew off assignments or altered them according to your whims, abused your colleagues and were habitually rude to clients. What would happen to you?

The chorus of answers cascaded immediately: “I’d be fired.” Now, I continued, imagine the same scenario and the same set of behaviors, but this time you’re a tenured professor in a North American university. What then?

I answered this one myself: “You’d be celebrated as a brave nonconformist, a tilter against orthodoxies, a pedagogical visionary and an exemplar of academic freedom.” ...

Rancourt is a self-described anarchist and an advocate of “critical pedagogy,” a style of teaching derived from the assumption (these are Rancourt’s words) “that our societal structures . . . represent the most formidable instrument of oppression and exploitation ever to occupy the planet” (Activist Teacher.blogspot.com, April 13, 2007).

Among those structures is the university in which Rancourt works and by which he is paid. But the fact of his position and compensation does not insulate the institution from his strictures and assaults; for, he insists, “schools and universities supply the obedient workers and managers and professionals that adopt and apply [the] system’s doctrine — knowingly or unknowingly.” It is this belief that higher education as we know it is simply a delivery system for a regime of oppressors and exploiters that underlies Rancourt’s refusal to grade his students. Grading, he says, “is a tool of coercion in order to make obedient people” (rabble.ca., Jan. 12, 2009).

It turns out that another tool of coercion is the requirement that professors actually teach the course described in the college catalogue, the course students think they are signing up for. Rancourt battles against this form of coercion by employing a strategy he calls “squatting” – “where one openly takes an existing course and does with it something different.” That is, you take a currently unoccupied structure, move in and make it the home for whatever activities you wish to engage in. “Academic squatting is needed,” he says, “because universities are dictatorships . . . run by self-appointed executives who serve capital interests.”

* * *

Economia das Notas

Um editorial do The Journal, da Queen's University, explora a questão do ponto de vista da "economia das notas". Eu mesmo tenho refletido muito sobre isso: afinal, pensando economicamente, quais são os incentivos que um professor tem para dar notas justas (ou seja, meritocráticas), ao invés de simplesmente dar A pra todos e se poupar aporrinhações (sem fazer a burrada de avisar antes, claro)? Alguns trechos:

Reform Grading System
(http://www.queensjournal.ca/story/2009-02-09/editorials/reform-grading-system)

It’s disappointing that universities, which claim to be pillars of intellectual freedom, seem to accept all types of academic criticism except when it’s directed at their organizational structure. Tenure is meant to protect academics from being unreasonably punished for pushing academic boundaries and, if the University is prepared to treat Rancourt’s tenure lightly, perhaps it should reconsider its process of granting tenure. ...

In theory, relieving students of the pressure to get good grades allows them to explore abstract and radical ideas in their assignments without the fear they won’t conform to the expectations of the course. But it’s idealistic to believe all students will pursue this learning style. Students who use the marking scheme as an excuse to skip class shouldn’t be treated the same way as students who try to engage with the material.

Rancourt could have organized a group of educators to talk to the University about teaching reform rather than embarking on a one-man effort that garnered him media attention but little change.

It’s time for universities to explore grading reform.

For the University’s lack of imagination in grading schema and shameful overreaction to Rancourt’s action, we give it an F.

* * *

Três Últimos Links Importantes

- A página de Denis Rancourt na Universidade de Ottawa - http://www.science.uottawa.ca/~dgr
- O blog de Denis Rancourt, Activist Teacher - http://activistteacher.blogspot.com
- AcademicFreedom, cobrindo as últimas novidades do caso - http://academicfreedom.ca

* * *

Final Aberto, Anti-Climático e Previsível

Eu pergunto:

E vocês? O que fariam? Em princípio, são contra ou favor do academic tenure? Já tiveram professores malucões que quebraram todas as regras? Vocês se sentiram inspirados ou roubados? Um professor que dá A pra todos merece ser despedido? Isso é uma tática pedagógica válida ou uma perversão do sistema?

O que VOCÊS acham?

* * *

Esse post ficará no topo do blog por alguns dias. Meus acréscimos ficarão aqui embaixo, na forma de updates. Desculpem os links esquisitios, o sistema do InterneyBlogs não está aceitando meus links normais.

* * *

Já que estamos falando nisso, aqui vai a recomendação de um dos livros mais lindos, humanos, abertos, libertários, grandes!, que eu já tive o privilégio de ler: