<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: What &#8220;Academic Freedom&#8221; Means</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.juliansanchez.com/2006/07/24/what-academic-freedom-means/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.juliansanchez.com/2006/07/24/what-academic-freedom-means/</link>
	<description>Just another geek in the geek kingdom</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 05:38:37 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Grant Gould</title>
		<link>http://www.juliansanchez.com/2006/07/24/what-academic-freedom-means/comment-page-1/#comment-1142</link>
		<dc:creator>Grant Gould</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Jul 2006 13:43:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://juliansanchez.com/?p=1282#comment-1142</guid>
		<description>I can&#039;t entirely agree with this sentiment, because the distinction between inquiry and politics is simply not real.  In cases where a matter is politically &quot;settled&quot; but scientifically uncertain (questions of gender and race, for instance) or scientifically settled but politically uncertain (evolution for example) the very act of inquiry is a political statement.

It is impossible to not make a political statement when asking certain questions -- the statement that these matters are open to question.  And because scientifically pursuing certain questions or accepting certain self-evident scientific truths is a political action, the professor is necessarily urging political action by the very act of teaching.  And because of the nature of politics, every political action is a partisan political action.

To imagine that academe is dedicated to some higher truth divorced from the lower truths of politics is naivete in the first order.  To inquire, to educate, to learn &lt;i&gt;is&lt;/i&gt; political action, and it absolutely is the job of professors to urge this political action.

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I can&#8217;t entirely agree with this sentiment, because the distinction between inquiry and politics is simply not real.  In cases where a matter is politically &#8220;settled&#8221; but scientifically uncertain (questions of gender and race, for instance) or scientifically settled but politically uncertain (evolution for example) the very act of inquiry is a political statement.</p>
<p>It is impossible to not make a political statement when asking certain questions &#8212; the statement that these matters are open to question.  And because scientifically pursuing certain questions or accepting certain self-evident scientific truths is a political action, the professor is necessarily urging political action by the very act of teaching.  And because of the nature of politics, every political action is a partisan political action.</p>
<p>To imagine that academe is dedicated to some higher truth divorced from the lower truths of politics is naivete in the first order.  To inquire, to educate, to learn <i>is</i> political action, and it absolutely is the job of professors to urge this political action.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

