Fostering Dissensus in Academia

Accuracy in Academia ^ | January 26, 2010 | Bethany Stotts

[bs9021]

Fostering Dissensus In Academia

Bethany Stotts, January 26, 2010

At a recent Modern Language Association (MLA) panel on “The Future of Critical Exchange in Academe,” two professors discussed how to overcome conformism within the academic profession and foster critical conversations within the Humanities.

In his speech, “Critical Affiliations,” Professor Jeffrey Di Leo described two types of professors,

- a female “Professor Jones,” who adheres to the critical credo “if you don’t have anything positive to say about a student or colleague [then] it’s best not to say anything at all, at least not in public,” and

- a male “Professor Smith” who “has made a career out of telling people that they’re wrong, in particular, everyone that does not believe the same thing he believes.”

“In this presentation I’d like to maintain that if a compassionate caring form of critical exchange entails removing the critical from critical exchange, then I’d rather see our profession move toward a more combative, confrontational style of critical exchange, even if it means ruffling a few feathers,” asserted the University of Houston-Victoria professor.

He also argued that the Humanities are plagued by two problems: “faint praise” and “shroud[ing] negative commentary in anonymity.” “From letters of recommendation for students and colleagues to peer review of colleagues’ performances in manuscripts, faint praise runs rampant in our profession,” he said. As for anonymous criticism, Prof. Di Leo argues that “Anonymity deflates critical exchange, for it does not allow the recipient of anonymous comments to respond to the true source” and said this was hypocritical.

For example, if a professor receives anonymous criticism, he or she lacks the capacity to rebut these criticisms, and therefore to construct a better argument or manuscript for future publication....