Guest columnist
Another federal threat to academic freedom

By Floyd J. McKay
Special to The Times

E-mail this article Print this article Search archive

Professors at the University of Washington's respected Jackson School of International Studies are worried about federal legislation that would create an advisory board for the nation's international studies centers, seeing this as an extension of inroads on academic freedom and research on the part of the Bush administration and its Republican allies in Congress.

The advisory panel, approved by the House and now in the Senate, would make recommendations to the secretary of education and to Congress; sponsors promote it as a way to "balance" academic discussion of American foreign policy. Seven members would be appointed by the secretary and leaders of the House and Senate, all Republicans at present.

While this proposal seems on the surface to be innocuous — the panel would not control funds — it raises concerns in the academic-research community because of the climate of anti-scientific policies pursued by the Bush administration.

Prominent scientists last month issued a lengthy report criticizing the White House for distorting scientific evidence, stacking scientific committees on the basis of politics, and suppressing or altering reports to fit a political position. Several Nobel laureates were among the signers of the report, by the Union of Concerned Scientists (www.ucsusa.org).

While none of these cases by itself would create a firestorm in the scientific community, they are like small streams that, joined together, amount to a substantial river of disconnect between the nation's scientific community and the Republican leadership in Washington.

This has been going on since George W. Bush took office and turned his back on the Kyoto treaty on global warming.

In scientific circles, there is an overwhelming consensus that global warming is significant and that its major causes are industrial pollution and automobiles. In 2001, some 1,000 scientists from around the world, under auspices of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, issued a strong report on the serious nature of global warming. Bush rejected on economic grounds any immediate response, calling for more studies of a subject that has been intensely studied for at least a decade.

Ironically, hope may be on the way because warming is so severe in Alaska's oil patch that the permissible days of drilling (when ground is frozen) have been cut in half in the past 30 years. That should get Bush's attention.

Another recent case is that of the World Health Organization, which last year published recommendations to deal with the worldwide problem of obesity. Thirty leading scientists contributed to the research. They called for reduction of sugar in food processing, and regulations to control advertising of sugar-laden products to children. The Bush administration rejected the report as bad science.

Now, just last week, obesity is cited as the second-leading cause of death in America, behind smoking.

In both the global warming and obesity warnings, the recommendations would be potentially damaging to industries that have contributed heavily to Bush's campaigns, the petroleum and auto industries and the food-processing industry.

There are a couple of important issues at stake here.

Most obvious is an intrusion of politics into the field of hard science. Even intensely partisan administrations such as those of Richard M. Nixon and Lyndon B. Johnson were not accused of playing politics with research science.

The other less-obvious but equally disturbing issue is that political oversight committees can produce what might be called a "chilling effect" on public discussion of important issues, because often federal funds are involved.

Professors and scientists are frequently called upon by the media, whether to comment on developments in Haiti or Iran, or to discuss a new research finding. They often appear in the op-ed pages of leading newspapers.

Because they enjoy academic freedom and tenure, they normally feel free to voice views contrary to any sitting administration. Certainly, no president has been immune from academic criticism in foreign affairs.

In a country where the White House, Congress and (arguably) the Supreme Court are controlled by one party and huge corporations are gobbling up independent media right and left, the academy stands out as one institution that can provide checks and balances.

The University of Washington has every reason to be leery of partisan oversight. In 1948, a legislative committee savaged the careers of several faculty members accused of being communist sympathizers, and the university leadership and Board of Regents caved in to the pressure.

A similar scenario in 2004 is extremely unlikely and no one suggests a wholesale assault on academic freedom or scientific inquiry. But small streams do make a mighty river over time.

Floyd J. McKay, a journalism professor at Western Washington University, is a regular contributor to Times editorial pages. E-mail him at floydmckay@yahoo.com

Copyright © 2004 The Seattle Times Company