Freedom Is It Really Attainable Essay, Research Paper

Freedom Is it really attainable?

Here we are. The end of another century is upon us. It is a time of reflection for most. A time to review our achievements and create new goals to attain. We can individualize these ideas and expand them out to incorporate our society as a whole. If we look at them both we will find a correlation between them. Our country has grown and multiplied in every sense. We have taken the original constitution our forefathers wrote and expanded on it to fit society s ever changing technology and economy. Freedom of speech has acquired new bounds to include the Internet. This freedom which all Americans take for granted is challenged and scrutinized often. Public works, ideas and the ability to share them with society are constantly threatened. Is the idea of something being public (in any sense) protected under the freedom of speech umbrella? And what do these depictions contribute to cultural literacy of our society? To illustrate all sides, we will look at the notion of tenure in academia and a controversial art exhibit.

The Brooklyn Museum of Art (BMA) has been serving society various works since 1823. In addition, it is worth mentioning the American Association of Museums accredits the museum. This honor is only awarded to only ten percent of museums in the country and is earned by performing on all levels according to the highest professional standards and practices and fulfills its obligations to its community and its many publics. The Sensation exhibit, which opened at BMA in late September, caused a rift in society. The exhibit is made up of a large variety of works done by various British artists. The focal point of the debate is a piece done by Chris Ofili, a Brit. of Nigerian decent. The piece is of a black Madonna enhanced with elephant droppings. The question has been raised in every circle, should BMA, which is a publicly funded institution, be allowed to show this and other works deemed offensive? Should items of this nature only be allowed at private exhibitions? People are still pondering the answers and how the outcome affects one s ability to speak and create ideas freely. Can this ideal of freedom of art be open to anything and everything in the public arena?

Before looking into the various viewpoints let s look at another issue. The idea of tenure at our countries learning institutions. In 1940 the Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure was established. The 1940 Statement not only recognized the need for tenure, it secured it as a buttress for freedom to dissent from authority, even to criticize one s employer. To obtain tenure a professor must exhibit good teaching skills, publish at least three articles or books in their field. This is to be done all in a period of six or so years. After that time period, their University may offer him tenure. Employed with tenure permits a teacher a protected public arena in which to share and express controversial and unique ideas, without the fear of losing one s job. Tenure also grants health insurance and other benefits. Professors strive to attain tenure to safeguard all aspects of their professional independence. Recently, however, a massive assault on tenure has been mounted.

Now let us take a look at the similar opposing views of the BMA art exhibit and academia s tenure practices. Again, both topics have the thread of the word protection running through their veins. In some sense both are sitting on the First Amendment. The museum is a public institution receiving millions of public funding dollars annually. In receiving these monies they are upheld to have a large variety of works of art for public viewing. This idea of public also provides the museum protection in the sense they can show whatever they deem valuable to today s society. The Sensation exhibit exploded into the forefront of the media. The escalation of the political and cultural conflict over the art exhibit, the Brooklyn Museum of Art filed a lawsuit in Federal court. The suit accused NYC Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani of violating the First Amendment by threatening to withdraw city funds from the museum because he finds some of the artworks offensive and insulting to religion.

Giuliani would be considered a person with views of those on the academic right. The right is conservative and feels exhibits, such as this, is a type of popular culture. The vulgar use of elephant dung in conjunction with a religious figure is an integral part of our society s current use for shock value . A work of this nature would never have been created let alone publicly shown fifty years ago. The conservatives feel work of this type is another source of the decline in cultural literacy. Pieces of this nature have no value and do not encourage traditional views of art or religion. The traditional views are offended by the BMA s umbrella of protection. They feel the institution should not be shielded and the public should be protected from presentations such as Sensation . The folks on the academic right feel art in the traditional sense is a valuable tool and can enrich one s life. BMA s exhibit however, does not promote critical thinking and makes no contribution toward the increase in cultural literacy.

These conservatives have a similar position regarding the issue of tenure. Critics reply that tenure creates excessive social, as well as individual, costs because unproductive

tenured faculty limit opportunities for new faculty. This view draws support from many, especially younger, faculty. Richard Chait, a critic of tenure, cites a Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching survey finding in 1989 that “29 percent of all faculty, 32 percent of women faculty, and 39 percent of faculty under age 39 agreed that ‘abolition of tenure would, on the whole, improve the quality of American higher education.’” A more recent survey by the Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA has found that 38% of faculty (35% of men and 46% of women) agreed that “tenure is an outmoded concept.” Tenure is intended to make the profession attractive, in part, through the promise of economic security. But for many prospective faculty this promise is contradicted by the security provided those who already hold tenure. Of course, it is the occupied position, not tenure, which creates the obstacle. Abolishing tenure would not create vacancies. Nonetheless, abolishing tenure might increase turnover and thereby increase opportunities for new faculty. It is for these reasons that the academic right feels tenure should be abolished. In addition, some critics believe that once the professor has acquired tenure, they no longer do research to keep abreast of new ideas. Thus creating professors that are lazy and are unable to stimulate the young minds they are molding. The academic right feels we as humans are individuals and should allow the cream to rise to the top . Allow us to strive to be the best and to remain the best. The notion of the protection in the public arena of tenured professors is furthered questioned as an added feature . Everyone in society is afforded the right to freedom of speech and expression, so is it not redundant?

The opposing view of the academic left is based on the individual s right to choose. For both the BMA show and the issue of academic tenure the left feel freedom of expression is the issue. Keep in mind with the issue of tenure, it is only attained after professors complete a long probationary period. Advocates for tenure emphasize the contributions of tenure to professional excellence and the social quest for truth. They deem these common benefits more important than either the individual benefits or the costs to those who do not achieve tenure. Tenure is a commitment to the necessity to be able to criticize the system. It is this criticism the liberals feel is the only way to allow expansion and progress in a field. It is the continued research and freedom of critical thinking and questioning current standards that can propel us as humans to the next level. This is the freedom that tenure protects.

Society as a whole will never be in agreement on all issues. Here in the United States it is the idea of freedom and all it s aspects we almost take for granted. I feel everyone should have the right to speak and criticize at will. This of course if this prejudice is not harming in any way to others. With the two issues raised here, I feel people are able to make the decision to attend or not attend an art show they feel is offensive. It is an individual right to choose that I feel was threatened during the debate. On the issue of tenure, I feel the opposing view. The idea of absolute protection at all extremes is damaging to those professors who strive to accomplish their ultimate goal of promoting cultural literacy. The way to that is through critical thinking amongst everyone involved.

348