The purpose of this commentary is to explore the focal article’s push to define, promote, and reward civility within academia (Cortina, Cortina, & Cortina, Reference Cortina, Cortina and Cortina2019). First, I will establish that the “public concern” of the Pickering (1968) test, when applied to academic spaces, is the students. Second, I will define acceptable academic free speech. Then, I will discuss violations to academic free speech. Finally, I offer recommendations for successful civil discourse.
An academic institution is nothing without the students. The supporting personnel are the faculty and staff. Indeed, without the students, faculty and staff serve no purpose. Academics give meaning to scholarship, but the scholarship holds no meaning if it is not consumed. Thus, a faculty member’s official duties, such as teaching and writing, are of public concern and therefore public speech. Public speech is entitled to protection under the First Amendment. While constitutional freedom of teaching and writing must be protected, this protection should not be at the expense of student safety.
In general, speech is free until it incites violence. Legal precedence of the physical act of violence as consequence of speech is from the court case Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). The court chose to defend White supremacy by upholding the free speech rights of a KKK member. Every time free speech is decried, it has an echo of White supremacy and has no place in academia. What, then, is violence in academia? Legal precedence delineating free speech is necessary but not sufficient when applied to academic free speech. As psychologists, we know harm is caused by much more than physical acts of violence. Specifically, the academic institution is riddled with epistemic violence. Epistemic violence is a breach in psychological safety that was established in the psychological contract between academics.
The focal article discusses one such form of epistemic violence: incivility. The examples of incivility as outlined in Cortina and siblings (Reference Cortina, Cortina and Cortina2019) were in the form of general rude behavior (i.e., uncivil audience member) and anti-Semitic comments. Although these are clearly wrong, there are many more subtle forms of epistemic violence. We must increase the bubble of incivility to explicitly include, but not be limited to, sexism, racism, microinsults, microinvalidations, and microaggressions. These micro incivilities are important to note, as they have been documented to transcend all social identities (Portman, Bui, Ogaz, & Treviño, Reference Portman, Bui, Ogaz and Treviño2009).
In response to the question, “Should we defend faculty jackassery in the name of academic freedom?” (Cortina et al., Reference Cortina, Cortina and Cortina2019, p. 373), the answer is no. Because the students are the main body of public concern, any Title IX complaints or complaints of unlawful discrimination or harassment should be a fireable offense, even if the perpetrator is a tenured faculty member. The reason why tenure is seen as a protection is because the culture of the academic institution does not reflect this call for civil discourse. The reason why we study concepts such as incivility in the laboratory while assholery runs rampant within even our last email chain is because the culture of the academic institution is not ready to hold those accountable. Why does incivility only matter when one of tenure or leadership is offended? Civil discourse, and a true take on academic free speech, is not sustainable in the current academic culture.
How can we begin a cultural reformation within public academic institutions? We can start by explicitly defining criteria, or a code of conduct, of successful academic discourse. To do so, one must first understand the linguistic, philosophical, and psychological underpinnings of the linguistic exchanges within academia that lead to epistemic violence. Defining criteria through a linguistic and philosophical approach of illocution allows us to extend an olive branch to the offender by recognizing that we come from a deficit in understanding every identity in the room. We therefore would have no knowledge of the harm we are committing. This is known by the neutral term, reliable ignorance (Dotson, Reference Dotson2011). When we fail to acknowledge this ignorance overtime, it becomes pernicious. This lack in linguistic exchange, or civil discourse, leads to an act of epistemic violence that infringes academic free speech. Instead of the two-pronged Pickering test, academic free speech should adopt the two-pronged illocutionary test. Does the speech of the academic commit epistemic violence? If so, the academic speech is in violation of freedom of speech.
Who is responsible for establishing the code of conduct? This responsibility rests on Q&A facilitators, thesis/dissertation committee chairs, department chairs, institutional leadership, and most importantly, tenured faculty. Those who do bristle at a code of conduct among the academic community should introspect on their personal code of conduct in their classrooms. This “code of conduct” should be placed among ourselves as academics. If we are proud of the way we conduct our classrooms, we should take pride in extending this framework to our colleagues. Perhaps those who balk at such a suggestion are in fact policing, censoring, and silencing instead of focusing on transparent and inclusive pedagogy. I am tired of listening to the stories of marginalized students and tenure track faculty getting called out, stepped on, and/or ignored. I am tired of being fearful of speaking up to a tenured faculty member who has continuously committed egregious acts of epistemic violence.
I am tired of this culture of violent speech being normalized. I am tired of having to convince others this is a problem. Perhaps I too must wait until the seemingly magical stamp of tenure comes to speak my piece. I am ready. As for actionable items, perhaps just start with the basics: “Hi, my name is ______. My pronouns are ___/___/___ and I am a first-generation American and student at _______”.
You have
Access
The purpose of this commentary is to explore the focal article’s push to define, promote, and reward civility within academia (Cortina, Cortina, & Cortina, Reference Cortina, Cortina and Cortina2019). First, I will establish that the “public concern” of the Pickering (1968) test, when applied to academic spaces, is the students. Second, I will define acceptable academic free speech. Then, I will discuss violations to academic free speech. Finally, I offer recommendations for successful civil discourse.
An academic institution is nothing without the students. The supporting personnel are the faculty and staff. Indeed, without the students, faculty and staff serve no purpose. Academics give meaning to scholarship, but the scholarship holds no meaning if it is not consumed. Thus, a faculty member’s official duties, such as teaching and writing, are of public concern and therefore public speech. Public speech is entitled to protection under the First Amendment. While constitutional freedom of teaching and writing must be protected, this protection should not be at the expense of student safety.
In general, speech is free until it incites violence. Legal precedence of the physical act of violence as consequence of speech is from the court case Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). The court chose to defend White supremacy by upholding the free speech rights of a KKK member. Every time free speech is decried, it has an echo of White supremacy and has no place in academia. What, then, is violence in academia? Legal precedence delineating free speech is necessary but not sufficient when applied to academic free speech. As psychologists, we know harm is caused by much more than physical acts of violence. Specifically, the academic institution is riddled with epistemic violence. Epistemic violence is a breach in psychological safety that was established in the psychological contract between academics.
The focal article discusses one such form of epistemic violence: incivility. The examples of incivility as outlined in Cortina and siblings (Reference Cortina, Cortina and Cortina2019) were in the form of general rude behavior (i.e., uncivil audience member) and anti-Semitic comments. Although these are clearly wrong, there are many more subtle forms of epistemic violence. We must increase the bubble of incivility to explicitly include, but not be limited to, sexism, racism, microinsults, microinvalidations, and microaggressions. These micro incivilities are important to note, as they have been documented to transcend all social identities (Portman, Bui, Ogaz, & Treviño, Reference Portman, Bui, Ogaz and Treviño2009).
In response to the question, “Should we defend faculty jackassery in the name of academic freedom?” (Cortina et al., Reference Cortina, Cortina and Cortina2019, p. 373), the answer is no. Because the students are the main body of public concern, any Title IX complaints or complaints of unlawful discrimination or harassment should be a fireable offense, even if the perpetrator is a tenured faculty member. The reason why tenure is seen as a protection is because the culture of the academic institution does not reflect this call for civil discourse. The reason why we study concepts such as incivility in the laboratory while assholery runs rampant within even our last email chain is because the culture of the academic institution is not ready to hold those accountable. Why does incivility only matter when one of tenure or leadership is offended? Civil discourse, and a true take on academic free speech, is not sustainable in the current academic culture.
How can we begin a cultural reformation within public academic institutions? We can start by explicitly defining criteria, or a code of conduct, of successful academic discourse. To do so, one must first understand the linguistic, philosophical, and psychological underpinnings of the linguistic exchanges within academia that lead to epistemic violence. Defining criteria through a linguistic and philosophical approach of illocution allows us to extend an olive branch to the offender by recognizing that we come from a deficit in understanding every identity in the room. We therefore would have no knowledge of the harm we are committing. This is known by the neutral term, reliable ignorance (Dotson, Reference Dotson2011). When we fail to acknowledge this ignorance overtime, it becomes pernicious. This lack in linguistic exchange, or civil discourse, leads to an act of epistemic violence that infringes academic free speech. Instead of the two-pronged Pickering test, academic free speech should adopt the two-pronged illocutionary test. Does the speech of the academic commit epistemic violence? If so, the academic speech is in violation of freedom of speech.
Who is responsible for establishing the code of conduct? This responsibility rests on Q&A facilitators, thesis/dissertation committee chairs, department chairs, institutional leadership, and most importantly, tenured faculty. Those who do bristle at a code of conduct among the academic community should introspect on their personal code of conduct in their classrooms. This “code of conduct” should be placed among ourselves as academics. If we are proud of the way we conduct our classrooms, we should take pride in extending this framework to our colleagues. Perhaps those who balk at such a suggestion are in fact policing, censoring, and silencing instead of focusing on transparent and inclusive pedagogy. I am tired of listening to the stories of marginalized students and tenure track faculty getting called out, stepped on, and/or ignored. I am tired of being fearful of speaking up to a tenured faculty member who has continuously committed egregious acts of epistemic violence.
I am tired of this culture of violent speech being normalized. I am tired of having to convince others this is a problem. Perhaps I too must wait until the seemingly magical stamp of tenure comes to speak my piece. I am ready. As for actionable items, perhaps just start with the basics: “Hi, my name is ______. My pronouns are ___/___/___ and I am a first-generation American and student at _______”.