I did not have the luxury of hearing the interview but did read the written piece here. Geher is on the right track on most of this subject with one glaring exception. He is completely incorrect on the legal role of professional societies vis-a-vis academic freedom. Geher argues that professional societies, as non-governmental organizations, have no obligation to academic freedom because their own right to free speech allows them to promote or silence any speaker, publication or person. Forcing professional societies to afford academic freedom would be to force them to assimilate with those who chose to censure or give a platform to speech with which they disagree. Sadly, Geher is flat wrong because most, if not all, of our professional societies aren't really non-governmental
organizations.
Most people incorrectly believe that professional societies are non-partisan organizations made of members of a particular discipline who focus their efforts on the best interests of the profession and its members raising private funds from the membership to support their activities. They believe that these organizations are democratic in terms of not only determining their leadership but also in adopting policies and policy statements. Sadly, none of this is true of most organizations. The reality is most professional societies are run by a small number of professional staff overseen by an "elected" board whose membership is only voted on from candidates the existing board and leadership choose. It is the ultimate mechanism for insiders to maintain control of the organization without regard to what the actual membership believes or wants. As in elections in communist eastern Europe during the Cold War....only candidates approved by the Central Committee of the party actually get to stand for election and thus the election results serve merely to affirm the continuity of the people in power. As bad as insider nepotism is in universities, it is far, far worse in professional societies.
Sadly, this same group of insiders are the people who actually choose, develop and approve the policies and policy statements made by the professional society. When an organization like AGU or GSA speaks for the society and the profession, that is a ruse. They are using the royal We to speak for a tiny group of self selected people who have appointed themselves to speak for the rest of us. While some of them may seek input from the wider membership when developing policies, the policies themselves are crafted behind closed doors, the feedback from the community is NOT shared or openly discussed and the final policies are imposed without consideration or approval by the membership. So, it is wrong to say that a professional society speaks for anyone but its own leadership.
Imposing censorship on individuals presenting at a meeting or publishing in a journal based on policies developed by such a cabal is not the professional community making a decision on what is in bounds or not. It is censorship from the top without input from the community. By comparison, while a university administration retains the right to speak on behalf of the university, it does NOT have the right to censor or punish the speech of faculty, staff or students speaking as part of their work in their profession.
Lastly, we must address the fallacy that professional societies are non-governmental organizations. In reality, professional societies are more akin to utilities such as the electric company or an internet service provider. They hold a quasi-monopoly status maintained in great part by governmental policies and funds. A citizen living in City A is obliged to buy their electricity from Big Power X because the GOVERNMENT has given Big Power X the monopoly over that service area. Short of buying a gas powered generator, the citizens of City A have no other option to obtain power. As such, the private Big Power is REQUIRED to provide power to ALL the citizens of City A regardless of their public statements with which the management of Big Power may not agree with. Big Power can only cut off a customer via the legal system for commission of crimes or nonpayment of services.
A professional society is no different vis-a-vis the members of a profession. Within any given field there are only a handful of relevant organizations for sharing of research by journals or conferences. If professional societies are allowed to impose the will of their leadership on members by locking them out of the professional society for simple disagreement on a policy or research question that is expressed within legal bounds, then the leadership now have a defacto veto right over the profession. One might argue, that one society censuring a person or opinion does not bar the person from the profession but the reality is that the leadership of these organizations within a field all tend to be the same small group of people who work more closely with each other ACROSS societies than they do with the rank and file of their own societies. This is why these organizations increasingly impose outright reciprocity for censorious decisions made by other societies. If Society X takes offense at something Scientist A presented, claiming it violates their Code of Conduct (i.e. policy opinion), Society Y will say their own Code of Conduct was violated by the action and exclude Scientist A even if they were not even a MEMBER of Society Y. Such collusion is how cancel culture functions because even the rank and file fear being cancelled across their profession for even speaking with the censored person let alone standing up for their right to speak. It should be noted that such conduct is patently unlawful even for a private organizations that provide services to the public as it is unlawful collusion more typically associated with price fixing. One might argue that these are still all PRIVATE organizations and that a cancelled academic should simply form their own organization with like minded people. Again, as with the gas powered generator that is not a practical option and it is unlawful for organizations in a quasi-monopoly to engage in such conduct.
Lastly, it is important to debunk the fallacy that these are non-government organizations. In reality, professional societies are heavily subsidized by government funds and their leadership move back and forth between the private sector and government all the time. Just as the leadership of the societies collude more with each other than with their own rank and file members, the leadership also colludes with and plays musical chairs with government funding agencies in the same fashion. A review of the DEI initiatives of our professional societies will show that the same people who work for Society A, B and C have served time working on these same issues as employees for NSF, NIH, NOAA, NASA etc as the field requires. They often rise to leadership in professional societies because of the funding that the government agency has provided them to support the very policy goals that they then impose on the professional society and its members as an "elected" leader. If you doubt this is true, here is a concrete example:
The American Geophysical Union's (AGU) Code of Conduct used to censor geoscientists without due process protections was developed with grant funds from NSF specifically given to build a Code of Conduct aligned with the reigning Obama Administration's Title IX policies. Both are designed to censor "offensive ideas" and remove due process protections from those whose speech the complainant and "leadership" disagree with. Both use the single investigator method to prevent transparent evaluation of the situation in question. The administrator of the AGU DEI committee that oversees the code came from the National Academy of Sciences where he was working on the same DEI/Advancement of Women issues as NSF funded his grants for. The Geological Society of America (GSA) built its Code of Conduct on the AGU version. The leadership at GSA that imposed this Code of Conduct on GSA members is similarly involved as collaborators on the AGU grants from within universities and through service in governmental positions. The irony is that WITHOUT the push from government agencies and the massive amount of funding from government to create these abusive, censorious Codes of Conduct, the professional societies would never have gone down this road. These societies functioned well for over a century serving their professions without such mechanisms for censorship. They have been coopted and corrupted by government in much the same way that fascist governments corrupt the "private" businesses with which they collaborate.
So Geher needs to revise his thinking about professional societies. Fortunately, the courts are somewhat ahead of us on these issues...and it is very likely within the next decade a good many professional societies are going to find themselves losing major lawsuits for violating academic freedom of their members. Hope this helps advance the discussion.
You know, truly, I believe that Plato had entered his own Cave in dreams, and saw there a vision of you which then he used to imagine the philosopher-kings of Kallipolis.
Out of jest, I am aware that there are hundred of thousands of reasonable, balanced people in the world, who can search for truth without clinging to the first glimpse that they found and hold to it for dear life no matter what. I know that there are hundred of thousands of people who can be honest, passionate and humorous and watch out for their own biases as well.
Still, it is so heartening to listen to one of them speak.
I did not have the luxury of hearing the interview but did read the written piece here. Geher is on the right track on most of this subject with one glaring exception. He is completely incorrect on the legal role of professional societies vis-a-vis academic freedom. Geher argues that professional societies, as non-governmental organizations, have no obligation to academic freedom because their own right to free speech allows them to promote or silence any speaker, publication or person. Forcing professional societies to afford academic freedom would be to force them to assimilate with those who chose to censure or give a platform to speech with which they disagree. Sadly, Geher is flat wrong because most, if not all, of our professional societies aren't really non-governmental
organizations.
Most people incorrectly believe that professional societies are non-partisan organizations made of members of a particular discipline who focus their efforts on the best interests of the profession and its members raising private funds from the membership to support their activities. They believe that these organizations are democratic in terms of not only determining their leadership but also in adopting policies and policy statements. Sadly, none of this is true of most organizations. The reality is most professional societies are run by a small number of professional staff overseen by an "elected" board whose membership is only voted on from candidates the existing board and leadership choose. It is the ultimate mechanism for insiders to maintain control of the organization without regard to what the actual membership believes or wants. As in elections in communist eastern Europe during the Cold War....only candidates approved by the Central Committee of the party actually get to stand for election and thus the election results serve merely to affirm the continuity of the people in power. As bad as insider nepotism is in universities, it is far, far worse in professional societies.
Sadly, this same group of insiders are the people who actually choose, develop and approve the policies and policy statements made by the professional society. When an organization like AGU or GSA speaks for the society and the profession, that is a ruse. They are using the royal We to speak for a tiny group of self selected people who have appointed themselves to speak for the rest of us. While some of them may seek input from the wider membership when developing policies, the policies themselves are crafted behind closed doors, the feedback from the community is NOT shared or openly discussed and the final policies are imposed without consideration or approval by the membership. So, it is wrong to say that a professional society speaks for anyone but its own leadership.
Imposing censorship on individuals presenting at a meeting or publishing in a journal based on policies developed by such a cabal is not the professional community making a decision on what is in bounds or not. It is censorship from the top without input from the community. By comparison, while a university administration retains the right to speak on behalf of the university, it does NOT have the right to censor or punish the speech of faculty, staff or students speaking as part of their work in their profession.
Lastly, we must address the fallacy that professional societies are non-governmental organizations. In reality, professional societies are more akin to utilities such as the electric company or an internet service provider. They hold a quasi-monopoly status maintained in great part by governmental policies and funds. A citizen living in City A is obliged to buy their electricity from Big Power X because the GOVERNMENT has given Big Power X the monopoly over that service area. Short of buying a gas powered generator, the citizens of City A have no other option to obtain power. As such, the private Big Power is REQUIRED to provide power to ALL the citizens of City A regardless of their public statements with which the management of Big Power may not agree with. Big Power can only cut off a customer via the legal system for commission of crimes or nonpayment of services.
A professional society is no different vis-a-vis the members of a profession. Within any given field there are only a handful of relevant organizations for sharing of research by journals or conferences. If professional societies are allowed to impose the will of their leadership on members by locking them out of the professional society for simple disagreement on a policy or research question that is expressed within legal bounds, then the leadership now have a defacto veto right over the profession. One might argue, that one society censuring a person or opinion does not bar the person from the profession but the reality is that the leadership of these organizations within a field all tend to be the same small group of people who work more closely with each other ACROSS societies than they do with the rank and file of their own societies. This is why these organizations increasingly impose outright reciprocity for censorious decisions made by other societies. If Society X takes offense at something Scientist A presented, claiming it violates their Code of Conduct (i.e. policy opinion), Society Y will say their own Code of Conduct was violated by the action and exclude Scientist A even if they were not even a MEMBER of Society Y. Such collusion is how cancel culture functions because even the rank and file fear being cancelled across their profession for even speaking with the censored person let alone standing up for their right to speak. It should be noted that such conduct is patently unlawful even for a private organizations that provide services to the public as it is unlawful collusion more typically associated with price fixing. One might argue that these are still all PRIVATE organizations and that a cancelled academic should simply form their own organization with like minded people. Again, as with the gas powered generator that is not a practical option and it is unlawful for organizations in a quasi-monopoly to engage in such conduct.
Lastly, it is important to debunk the fallacy that these are non-government organizations. In reality, professional societies are heavily subsidized by government funds and their leadership move back and forth between the private sector and government all the time. Just as the leadership of the societies collude more with each other than with their own rank and file members, the leadership also colludes with and plays musical chairs with government funding agencies in the same fashion. A review of the DEI initiatives of our professional societies will show that the same people who work for Society A, B and C have served time working on these same issues as employees for NSF, NIH, NOAA, NASA etc as the field requires. They often rise to leadership in professional societies because of the funding that the government agency has provided them to support the very policy goals that they then impose on the professional society and its members as an "elected" leader. If you doubt this is true, here is a concrete example:
The American Geophysical Union's (AGU) Code of Conduct used to censor geoscientists without due process protections was developed with grant funds from NSF specifically given to build a Code of Conduct aligned with the reigning Obama Administration's Title IX policies. Both are designed to censor "offensive ideas" and remove due process protections from those whose speech the complainant and "leadership" disagree with. Both use the single investigator method to prevent transparent evaluation of the situation in question. The administrator of the AGU DEI committee that oversees the code came from the National Academy of Sciences where he was working on the same DEI/Advancement of Women issues as NSF funded his grants for. The Geological Society of America (GSA) built its Code of Conduct on the AGU version. The leadership at GSA that imposed this Code of Conduct on GSA members is similarly involved as collaborators on the AGU grants from within universities and through service in governmental positions. The irony is that WITHOUT the push from government agencies and the massive amount of funding from government to create these abusive, censorious Codes of Conduct, the professional societies would never have gone down this road. These societies functioned well for over a century serving their professions without such mechanisms for censorship. They have been coopted and corrupted by government in much the same way that fascist governments corrupt the "private" businesses with which they collaborate.
So Geher needs to revise his thinking about professional societies. Fortunately, the courts are somewhat ahead of us on these issues...and it is very likely within the next decade a good many professional societies are going to find themselves losing major lawsuits for violating academic freedom of their members. Hope this helps advance the discussion.
You know, truly, I believe that Plato had entered his own Cave in dreams, and saw there a vision of you which then he used to imagine the philosopher-kings of Kallipolis.
Out of jest, I am aware that there are hundred of thousands of reasonable, balanced people in the world, who can search for truth without clinging to the first glimpse that they found and hold to it for dear life no matter what. I know that there are hundred of thousands of people who can be honest, passionate and humorous and watch out for their own biases as well.
Still, it is so heartening to listen to one of them speak.