Assembly LX: Free Speech, Free Expression and Free Inquiry at Yale
Friday, April 26 through Saturday, April 27, 2002
Third Assembly Session

Hard Cases: Faculty and Issues of Inquiry
Delegates had their choice of one of three breakout sessions on specific issues concerning free inquiry and the Yale faculty. At a short plenary, each faculty member introduced his or her topic. The delegates then broke out into groups led by the faculty presenters to discuss particular cases that highlighted issues of free speech in an academic environment.

Risk vs. Gain: Faculty Research and Institutional Review Boards
Peter Salovey '86 PhD is the Chris Argyris Professor and Chairman of Psychology, Professor of Epidemiology and Public Health, and Deputy Director of the Center for Interdisciplinary Research on AIDS. Salovey examined the constraints on research on human subjects as administered by Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) and asked if regulations concerning research with human participants have overly constrained topics that faculty may examine.

Salovey began the session with a short film clip documenting one of Yale professor Stanley Milgram's experiments on obedience to authority. As a result of experiments such as these and abusive cases such as the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, an Institutional Review Board must now approve any experiments involving human subjects. In addition, scientists must fully disclose all details of an experiment to participants, unless it can be shown that the benefits of compromising subject knowledge outweigh the risks to the subjects. While none of the participants in Milgram's experiments appeared to suffer any long-term effects, the true nature of the experiment was not explained, and the participants were denied information. However, if the real purpose of the experiment had been revealed, the experiment would not have succeeded, and we would have lost valuable knowledge about social conditioning and the nature of obedience to authority.

Salovey and the alumni delegates then engaged in a lively and extended discussion of the questions raised for free inquiry by restrictions on research. What do such restrictions mean for academic freedom? What is gained and/or lost by the restrictions? Which risks are acceptable and which are not acceptable? How free are Yale professors in their own laboratories and classrooms?

Tacit Constraints: Faculty and the Culture of Academia
Hazel Carby, Professor and Chairman of African American Studies and Professor of American Studies, explored questions about how the academic culture at Yale places certain tacit constraints on speech and expression, particularly with respect to junior faculty of color as they seek to establish their careers. Carby contended that junior faculty of color at Yale are subject to greater pressure than their white male junior colleagues. In particular junior faculty of color often feel that they are being used to demonstrate the University's commitment to a diverse faculty and a diverse curriculum, but not granted the power or the resources to make such a commitment effective.

Faculty who are minorities not only have to teach and publish in the ordinary ways, they are also charged with building programs or fields of knowledge that are not well established at Yale. There are few among the overwhelmingly white senior faculty who are willing to build or administer these programs, placing an unusual burden on minority junior faculty. At the same time, the University expects minority junior faculty to be "good citizens" and to represent Yale's commitment to diversity by serving on a wide array of committees and task forces. Saying "no" to greater and greater demands then becomes a culturally forbidden form of speech.

Collaboration and Cooperation: Academics and the World of Commerce
Dr. Robert Levine is a Professor of Medicine and Director of the Law, Policy and Ethics Core of Yale University's Center for Interdisciplinary Research on AIDS. Levine introduced his session by asking if we should treat all collaborations of academics with business entities as suspicious. He mentioned a few notorious cases in which such partnerships were either abused or produced unfortunate results. He then proposed an alternative view, that academic interactions with industry could contribute in important ways to the good of both parties.

He presented to the delegates two cases that raise troubling ethical and legal issues regarding physicians and scientists. The participants, many of whom spoke from the point of view of professionals in law and medicine, entered into a vigorous discussion in which several additional issues were raised. In his summary remarks, Levine opined that the ensuing discussion had raised concerns that were perhaps as interesting or more interesting than the original questions he had proposed.

Following the reports from the breakout sessions, Assembly Chair Mark Greenwold closed the Assembly by summarizing the themes of the weekend and providing his final reflections.