Mr. Godbout's piece on academic freedom and the UBC controversy was interesting - and while professors definitely need protection when it involves their research and opinions that spin off from their academic expertise, in this case he seems sort of right: UBC business professor Jennifer Berdahl's point of view does not seem to be "based on legitimate scientific methodology," though (and this is a fairly important "though") her area of expertise might touch on what may or may not be behind UBC's odd behaviour.
But Mr. Godbout forgets there are all kinds of scholarly expertise that revolve around interpretation and opinion, especially those that are often discursive: psychology, philosophy, economics, social policy, political science, cultural studies, etc. In short "scholarly" goes far beyond plain "scientific methodology."
Softer fears about her area of expertise is that it can be ideologically driven, and that it comes to the same conclusions no matter what it turns it eyes upon. However, given Dr. Berdahl's proven expertise (on gender, power, and diversity in large institutes), she is worth at least listening to.
However, if she speaks out as a concerned citizen, who cares? UBC's mistake was to even respond.
But the real issue is that UBC, as a public institute, and fully paid for by the people, is not utterly transparent.
That is the real issue. What right does UBC have to not be forthcoming in all its actions? If it was a private institute, like Harvard, for example, that is a little different. UBC is owned by us and we need answers. Please go after them and quit swatting at flies when a camel sits upon you.
G. Blank, Victoria
