![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
unjapanologistAs a "happy birthday to me" present, I'd like indulge in some free speech today. Please skip the next two paragraphs in italics if you're aware of the background here.
This text is about the dismissal from my Belgian home university of another researcher, Barbara Van Dyck. Last week, she attended and defended a protest action that resulted in significant property damage to a field of GMO potatoes that was part of a scientific experiment. The university summarily dismissed her after she refused to retract her support for the protest action, stating that she violated other scholars' right to freedom of speech as well as their academic freedom. Many other academics and commenters have, in turn, accused the university of violating Barbara Van Dyck's right to freedom of speech.
Most of the online discussions about these events have been conducted in Dutch, but English breakdowns of the situation are starting to circulate as well, for instance on this petition here. Please note that the opinions expressed in this text are entirely my own. I speak as an individual grad student of the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, not as a representative of my doctoral school, faculty, research unit, or any other group I belong to.
Dear Katholieke Universiteit Leuven,
Recently, a member of the KULeuven research community was dismissed from the university because she defended and then refused to denounce a protest action that resulted in significant damage to a research project administered by colleagues from the University of Ghent. My own professional opinion about the research project in question is irrelevant here. Instead, I want to explain to you why I disapprove of the disciplinary action that was taken against Barbara Van Dyck.
Let me start with a reason that hasn't been beaten to death entirely in the numerous other commentaries that have been published since last week. Firing a young researcher for taking part in a protest action, whatever its nature, sends a truly appalling message to an entire generation of up-and-coming academics. It tells members of the university community whose career prospects are still uncertain at best, such as untenured faculty or grad students like me, that activism could endanger our (future) employment. It tells us that taking a forceful public stance on a controversial topic is not something that academics can do. It tells us that although we have important duties towards the taxpayers who provide us with our grants and wages, every individual academic should agree with the university's stance on socially relevant issues, even when his or her professional opinion on those issues is different from the university's. It tells us that the university is prepared to threaten us when we use whatever academic clout we have to stand between protesters and those who try to silence them or dismiss them as uncivilized radicals.
Also, I regret to say that I disagree with the reasons that have been given for dismissing Barbara Van Dyck. You assert that her defense of her fellow protesters constitutes an unjustifiable and un-scholarly attack from a researcher on other researchers' impartial, independent, and purely scientific research. You assert that she broke ranks with the rest of the scholarly community, and that this is grounds for dismissal. I believe that academics don't have a moral obligation to support a research simply because it's academic. Researchers are no more immune to civic action than members of governments, companies, or other entitites. Academic research doesn't deserve special dispensation from criticism or protest actions because it's academic and therefore supposedly neutral, objective, and automatically beneficial. Others besides me have described in great detail why the independence and neutrality of the GMO potatoes research project that was damaged is questionable at the very least.
I also find it disappointing that your public statements on the events of last week have spoken only of the supposed harm done to "science" by Barbara Van Dyck and other protesters. You haven't tried to address the issues that the protesters sought to raise, and you haven't discussed the legitimate questions that many commentators have asked about the neutrality and purposes of the research project in question. You haven't spoken out against the frankly ridiculous charges of gang activity that police wants to leverage against the protesters, or the undemocratic way in which several of our elected officials have publicly taken sides while the police investigation is still underway. Your public indignation on behalf of "science" would be far more understandable and balanced if you addressed the abovementioned issues as well.
Additionally, I can't help but feel uncomfortable at the high-handed way in which university authorities seem to have handled this matter, dismissing Barbara Van Dyck at once, without even trying to consult the academic community of KULeuven. You assert that university authorities have a right to dismiss Barbara Van Dyck because her uncompromising defense of the protest action makes her unfit to remain a member of our academic community. I couldn't disagree more. I feel that academic bodies alone aren't fit to judge what constitutes the proper way for an academic to form, express, and defend his or her opinions. Individual researchers and thinking people, university-affiliated or otherwise, are the only ones who can form professional opinions on whether or not this colleague conducted herself in an acceptable scholarly fashion.
And we don't form our professional opinions lightly. All the members of our academic community should be treated like the intelligent, well-informed, and professional people that they are. Barbara Van Dyck is an member of our community who clearly takes her obligation to serve the public good with her professional opinions very seriously; indeed, few academics would be as willing to stand their ground as she did. She is a fellow scholar, not an unthinking child who can be disciplined for unruly behavior. She drew her own conclusions about the appropriateness of last week's protest action and the appropriateness of her participation in it. Her professional opinion should be respected, not decried as somehow fundamentally counter to everything that "science" stands for. If other academics believe that Barbara Van Dyck's actions violated a scholarly code of conduct, they absolutely have the right to react in whatever way they deem appropriate, for instance by no longer collaborating with her on research or other forms of scholarly exchange. However, it's not up to university authorities to decide that her actions are unfit for a member of the university community.
You further justify your dismissal of Barbara Van Dyck by asserting that her actions were a breach of trust. In my opinion, it's the other way around. Barbara Van Dyck did exactly what she, as an academic, is supposed to do -she defended the good of society to the best of her considerable knowledge and ability, and she took risks that few other academics would be prepared to take. By punishing her in this way, the university has broken trust with her. The university employed Barbara Van Dyck and was happy to benefit from her work and her research, up until the moment when she left her office in Leuven and went to apply her knowledge and ability for the public good in a way that the university finds objectionable. The minute (almost literally) she did this, the university that had previously expressed complete confidence in her intellectual abilities dropped her like a stone. Keeping in mind that a university is not a work environment where expectations are identical to those in a commercial firm, I see no evidence that Barbara Van Dyck broke trust with her employer in any way. Whether her behavior was unfit for a scholar is debatable at the very least, and she did no harm to the university's bottom line. Perhaps I should add that if she did manage to harm to a bottom line anywhere, the university has much larger problems it should be focusing on.
Maybe it will turn out that Barbara Van Dyck's professional opinion about the issue at hand is incorrect, or at least that the colleagues whose research was damaged are more right than she is. So be it. Academics are human and have the right to make mistakes. Indeed, they're probably wrong more often than they are "right", but it is mistakes, contradictions, and dissenting voices that challenge us to think about what we're doing. Mistakes are pure gold to the whole scholarly community. An academic should never be punished for expressing a mistaken professional opinion.
I'd like to conclude by expressing my sympathies for the colleagues from the University of Ghent whose experiment was partly destroyed in last week's protest action. No matter my reservations about several aspects of the way GMO research is conducted both in Belgium and abroad, I find the destruction of a scientific experiment deeply saddening. I hope that the researchers in question will be able to continue their work, preferably in a more open fashion.
Most of all, I hope that my university will learn from the many intelligent and well-argued protests that have been voiced about the way it's handling this matter. And I hope that Barbara Van Dyck will also be able to continue her work -in whatever capacity she wishes, wherever she wishes, in an environment where her dedication will be appreciated and her intelligence and abilities respected.
Respectfully,
Nele Noppe
Faculty of Arts, Japanese Studies
This text is about the dismissal from my Belgian home university of another researcher, Barbara Van Dyck. Last week, she attended and defended a protest action that resulted in significant property damage to a field of GMO potatoes that was part of a scientific experiment. The university summarily dismissed her after she refused to retract her support for the protest action, stating that she violated other scholars' right to freedom of speech as well as their academic freedom. Many other academics and commenters have, in turn, accused the university of violating Barbara Van Dyck's right to freedom of speech.
Most of the online discussions about these events have been conducted in Dutch, but English breakdowns of the situation are starting to circulate as well, for instance on this petition here. Please note that the opinions expressed in this text are entirely my own. I speak as an individual grad student of the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, not as a representative of my doctoral school, faculty, research unit, or any other group I belong to.
Dear Katholieke Universiteit Leuven,
Recently, a member of the KULeuven research community was dismissed from the university because she defended and then refused to denounce a protest action that resulted in significant damage to a research project administered by colleagues from the University of Ghent. My own professional opinion about the research project in question is irrelevant here. Instead, I want to explain to you why I disapprove of the disciplinary action that was taken against Barbara Van Dyck.
Let me start with a reason that hasn't been beaten to death entirely in the numerous other commentaries that have been published since last week. Firing a young researcher for taking part in a protest action, whatever its nature, sends a truly appalling message to an entire generation of up-and-coming academics. It tells members of the university community whose career prospects are still uncertain at best, such as untenured faculty or grad students like me, that activism could endanger our (future) employment. It tells us that taking a forceful public stance on a controversial topic is not something that academics can do. It tells us that although we have important duties towards the taxpayers who provide us with our grants and wages, every individual academic should agree with the university's stance on socially relevant issues, even when his or her professional opinion on those issues is different from the university's. It tells us that the university is prepared to threaten us when we use whatever academic clout we have to stand between protesters and those who try to silence them or dismiss them as uncivilized radicals.
Also, I regret to say that I disagree with the reasons that have been given for dismissing Barbara Van Dyck. You assert that her defense of her fellow protesters constitutes an unjustifiable and un-scholarly attack from a researcher on other researchers' impartial, independent, and purely scientific research. You assert that she broke ranks with the rest of the scholarly community, and that this is grounds for dismissal. I believe that academics don't have a moral obligation to support a research simply because it's academic. Researchers are no more immune to civic action than members of governments, companies, or other entitites. Academic research doesn't deserve special dispensation from criticism or protest actions because it's academic and therefore supposedly neutral, objective, and automatically beneficial. Others besides me have described in great detail why the independence and neutrality of the GMO potatoes research project that was damaged is questionable at the very least.
I also find it disappointing that your public statements on the events of last week have spoken only of the supposed harm done to "science" by Barbara Van Dyck and other protesters. You haven't tried to address the issues that the protesters sought to raise, and you haven't discussed the legitimate questions that many commentators have asked about the neutrality and purposes of the research project in question. You haven't spoken out against the frankly ridiculous charges of gang activity that police wants to leverage against the protesters, or the undemocratic way in which several of our elected officials have publicly taken sides while the police investigation is still underway. Your public indignation on behalf of "science" would be far more understandable and balanced if you addressed the abovementioned issues as well.
Additionally, I can't help but feel uncomfortable at the high-handed way in which university authorities seem to have handled this matter, dismissing Barbara Van Dyck at once, without even trying to consult the academic community of KULeuven. You assert that university authorities have a right to dismiss Barbara Van Dyck because her uncompromising defense of the protest action makes her unfit to remain a member of our academic community. I couldn't disagree more. I feel that academic bodies alone aren't fit to judge what constitutes the proper way for an academic to form, express, and defend his or her opinions. Individual researchers and thinking people, university-affiliated or otherwise, are the only ones who can form professional opinions on whether or not this colleague conducted herself in an acceptable scholarly fashion.
And we don't form our professional opinions lightly. All the members of our academic community should be treated like the intelligent, well-informed, and professional people that they are. Barbara Van Dyck is an member of our community who clearly takes her obligation to serve the public good with her professional opinions very seriously; indeed, few academics would be as willing to stand their ground as she did. She is a fellow scholar, not an unthinking child who can be disciplined for unruly behavior. She drew her own conclusions about the appropriateness of last week's protest action and the appropriateness of her participation in it. Her professional opinion should be respected, not decried as somehow fundamentally counter to everything that "science" stands for. If other academics believe that Barbara Van Dyck's actions violated a scholarly code of conduct, they absolutely have the right to react in whatever way they deem appropriate, for instance by no longer collaborating with her on research or other forms of scholarly exchange. However, it's not up to university authorities to decide that her actions are unfit for a member of the university community.
You further justify your dismissal of Barbara Van Dyck by asserting that her actions were a breach of trust. In my opinion, it's the other way around. Barbara Van Dyck did exactly what she, as an academic, is supposed to do -she defended the good of society to the best of her considerable knowledge and ability, and she took risks that few other academics would be prepared to take. By punishing her in this way, the university has broken trust with her. The university employed Barbara Van Dyck and was happy to benefit from her work and her research, up until the moment when she left her office in Leuven and went to apply her knowledge and ability for the public good in a way that the university finds objectionable. The minute (almost literally) she did this, the university that had previously expressed complete confidence in her intellectual abilities dropped her like a stone. Keeping in mind that a university is not a work environment where expectations are identical to those in a commercial firm, I see no evidence that Barbara Van Dyck broke trust with her employer in any way. Whether her behavior was unfit for a scholar is debatable at the very least, and she did no harm to the university's bottom line. Perhaps I should add that if she did manage to harm to a bottom line anywhere, the university has much larger problems it should be focusing on.
Maybe it will turn out that Barbara Van Dyck's professional opinion about the issue at hand is incorrect, or at least that the colleagues whose research was damaged are more right than she is. So be it. Academics are human and have the right to make mistakes. Indeed, they're probably wrong more often than they are "right", but it is mistakes, contradictions, and dissenting voices that challenge us to think about what we're doing. Mistakes are pure gold to the whole scholarly community. An academic should never be punished for expressing a mistaken professional opinion.
I'd like to conclude by expressing my sympathies for the colleagues from the University of Ghent whose experiment was partly destroyed in last week's protest action. No matter my reservations about several aspects of the way GMO research is conducted both in Belgium and abroad, I find the destruction of a scientific experiment deeply saddening. I hope that the researchers in question will be able to continue their work, preferably in a more open fashion.
Most of all, I hope that my university will learn from the many intelligent and well-argued protests that have been voiced about the way it's handling this matter. And I hope that Barbara Van Dyck will also be able to continue her work -in whatever capacity she wishes, wherever she wishes, in an environment where her dedication will be appreciated and her intelligence and abilities respected.
Respectfully,
Nele Noppe
Faculty of Arts, Japanese Studies
