Alaskan Oil vs. Academic Freedom
26 10 2009In Alaska, land of oil and fish, there are battles being waged all the time. The oil companies have infused Alaskan politics like … oil. And their influence moves on from there – they sponsor our symphonies, they support our kids’ sports teams, they donate to local charities, and just last week Conoco-Phillips, one of Alaska’s “big three” oil producers got its name on the science building at the University of Alaska Anchorage campus. The oily sheen has reached the halls of higher learning.
Oil money and academia – dangerous bedfellows.
This weekend, a long-time professor at the University of Alaska announced his resignation. Apparently the University and its President, Mark Hamilton don’t think it’s polite to criticize someone you’re in bed with, even if they’ve got no business being there with you in the first place.
It all stemmed from a conference sponsored by the University, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and Shell Oil. The event was about “How Oil and Fish Can Coexist.” Professor Steiner and others felt that the conference was biased toward a pro-drilling stance. It may have had something to do with it being sponsored by Shell Oil. Hard to pull one over on those scholarly types.
Steiner was outspoken against a plan to drill for oil in Alaska’s prisine Bristol Bay, home to the largest wild salmon fishery in the world. Subsequently he lost his NOAA funding from the University, filed a grievance which was denied, and is even having his office relocated into “hostile territory.”
Recently, the very drilling project that Steiner spoke out against, has been evaluated by NOAA as too risky for the area. And in what at first glance seems like irony, University President Mark Hamilton was the recipient in 2002 of an Academic Freedom Award from the National Association of Scholars (NAS). However, a quick perusal of the group’s website reveals an organized campaign against sustainability. Ready for the Top 10 Reasons to Oppose the Sustainability Movement on Your Campus? It’s just like David Letterman, only totally not funny.
Sustainability is #10) deceptive, #9) coercive, #8) closed-minded, #7) it is a pseudo-religion, #6) it distorts higher education, #5) shrinks freedom, #4) tries to program you, #3) is anti-rational #2) bypasses the faculty. And the #1 reason you should oppose sustainability? It’s wasteful!
The citation they use for this sweeping claim is this:
For an earlier iteration of sustaina-hysteria see Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb. New York: Ballatine/ Sierra Books. 1968. Ehrlich famously lost a bet with the economist Julian L. Simon over the future prices of five commodities chosen by Ehrlich (copper, chromium, nickel, tin, and tungsten.) Ehrlich, believing that earth was running out of resources, bet that prices would rise from 1980 to 1990. He lost decisively.
Can you believe it? What kind of 2-bit moron could think the Earth will run out of resources? Why, they’ll go on forever! Won’t they? Sustainability is totally overrated. Let’s all just join up with these guys and go out in a blaze of glory. Pour some oil on that, would you? >>>WOOOOSH!<<<<
But, I sure am proud that my state university’s president accepted an Academic Freedom Award from these guys. I’m keeping my fingers crossed that he’ll bring more prestige to the University by winning next year’s Environmental Justice Award from Exxon! We can dare to dream.
The real issue here is bigger than the University of Alaska, bigger than Dr. Steiner, and bigger than oil. This situation asks if institutions of higher learning will succumb to pressure from moneyed interests at the expense of academic freedom. Is the integrity of our state universities for sale to the highest bidder?
Below is a letter from Dr. Steiner to the NAS.
I appreciate the opportunity to set the record straight with the NAS article about my situation at the University of Alaska. My situation here should cause serious concern for anyone who believes in the fundamental importance of academic freedom on college campuses. Some highlights of my case are as follow:
In 2005, I was told by university administrators to “not criticize state government as that is where we get our money;” not to “advocate;” and to have my name taken down from an NGO website as an “information resource.”
In 2008, I was specifically excluded from meetings between Shell oil and university faculty, students, and staff, in violation of the state’s Open Meetings Act and university open meetings policies. We later learned (through public records requests) that in response to my request to sit in on the meeting, the university Chancellor sent an email to other administrators saying: “Rick is not on a need to know basis with these meetings,” and that others had expected me to “be a spoiler.”
The recent episode of violation of my academic freedom derives from comments I made at a press conference in March 2008, in which I was critical of a particular offshore oil and gas lease proposal — in Alaska’s fish-rich Bristol Bay (North Aleutian Basin); and a conference sponsored by Shell, the University of Alaska, and NOAA on “how oil and fish can coexist” in this region. I, and many Alaska natives and conservationists, felt that the conference was biased toward the pro-drilling option, and we felt obliged to say so. NOAA and university administrators objected to my comments, and decided then to terminate my NOAA Sea Grant funding due to these comments. This much is perfectly clear and not disputed by the university. We have a clear written record documenting this (I will attach the “smoking gun” documents here). Ironically, while NOAA had such objection to my concerns about the offshore oil lease sale planned for Bristol Bay Alaska in March 2008, in September 2009 it’s official position was released, and they now feel this lease sale should not go forward, as the region is too productive to put at risk from offshore oil drilling. So, NOAA has now come full circle, and endorses my perspective on this particular offshore lease sale entirely. Further, NOAA says now that ultimately, it is the university’s responsibility as to who is continued in the Sea Grant funding – not NOAA’s. Nevertheless, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) in Washington DC is preparing a formal rule making they will propose to NOAA this week, that would prohibit the agency from attaching any such gag order as a condition of its grants in the future.
This is the first time we know of anywhere in the nation where federal grant funds were removed from a university faculty member due specifically to their public comments. I have had this funding for almost 30 years. In response to our faculty union grievance filed on this, and to media inquiries, the university administrators decided to cover the federal funds they had terminated with state funds, but just for one year (the Sea Grant funding is a multi-year commitment). And, terminating my NOAA funding removes me from a nationwide network of professional peers with whom I have associated for 30 years. Further, the university then terminated my office lease, attempting to move me into an office in which their own internal investigation found to be hostile to many faculty, but particularly to me. This forced move was clearly retaliatory for the grievance and media coverage of this episode. The university’s academic freedom policies are perfectly clear and unambiguous (they are attached here). They do not require that financial harm occur in order for there to be a violation of academic freedom — just that a faculty member feels “anxiety or fear” from publishing or speaking their informed opinion.
On the issue of advocacy, all faculty “advocate,” as we all have perspectives. Sea Grant funded faculty advocate all the time, but almost always for commercial development and exploitation of ocean resources, rather than conservation. The problem arises here when a faculty member raises concerns about powerful industrial interests in Alaska, which is what I have done. The University of Alaska receives several hundred million dollars each year directly or indirectly from oil.
A fundamental issue at stake here is whether or not a university can cede authority over faculty free speech to a grant-making institution. In my case, the university ceded to NOAA the right to dictate to the faculty members they fund what they may and may not say. To many of us, this is a very straightforward infringement of academic freedom. If universities allow a federal agency to attach such restrictions on faculty speech to its grants, then why can’t Exxon, BP, Merck, of Raytheon? This seems not just a slippery slope, it is a cliff — either we are on top of it, or we are off it. In this case here at the University of Alaska, we are obviously off the cliff. And who decides what is advocacy and what is not? The irony of this particular episode is that what I was saying publicly was actually calling into question the biased advocacy of the university and NOAA in their collaboration with Shell on the Bristol Bay offshore oil conference in March 2008. That irony is not lost on any of us here.
These are all clear examples of this university administration violating my academic freedom. The administration conceded to remove the hostile dean’s review from my file, and to host a 1-day workshop on academic freedom by the AAUP. Other than this however, they have not been able to admit this was wrong, and that they have violated their own policies on academic freedom. I have endured continuing, even escalating, attempts by certain university administrators to silence my free speech over the past 4 years, and all I really need as remedy for this to be transfered into another administrative unit where I would be free from such repression, where I would be able to do my environmental sustainability work without threats, intimidation, hostility, and repression of my free speech. That is not too much to ask, but they will not do so. They clearly know what has happened to me is wrong, and that they do not want to admit it, or remedy their wrong in any way is a very troubling precedent.
As I will not compromise my ethics, professional integrity, or suspend my free speech or work, I will be resigning from the university during this academic year. I truly worry about the cloud this leaves over the faculty here at the university though. Everyone now knows here that if they say “the wrong thing” (in some administrator’s opinion), they can and likely will suffer adverse administrative action, including having grants terminated. Further, they know there is little chance for remedy through the grievance process, as the faculty union’s Collective Bargaining Agreement is stunningly weak on issues of faculty rights — there are no remedies provided to the victim of violations of academic freedom, no consequences to the offending administrators, and no deterrence to future such violations.
As NAS bestowed upon University of Alaska President Mark Hamilton an award for support of academic freedom in 2002, I think the only honorable course for NAS at this point is to rescind that award. President Hamilton has said many things in support of free speech and academic freedom over the years (even in support of my 2005 case), but here had actually had the opportunity to make a decision to support academic freedom. Instead, he chose to join his other administrators in their opposition to my free speech. That action most certainly does not qualify for anyone’s accolades for support of free speech. NAS should rescind the award it bestowed upon Mr. Hamilton.
If you do not rescind this honor, you will demonstrate that NAS believes in academic freedom and free speech only when you agree with what is said, but not when you do not agree with what is being said. Friends, this is not academic freedom. As Descartes once said: “I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
I appreciate your offer to set the record straight, and to posting this information.
Sincerely, Richard Steiner, Professor
October 26th, 2009 at 5:35 PM
I don’t have any inside knowledge on why Mr. Steiner’s grant was not renewed, but I do know that grants are often not renewed. Mr. Steiner spends a lot of his time advocating for environmentalists, which in itself should not result in his losing his grant, but it also should not ensure that his grant is renewed. He still has to do the work required by the grant.
What bothers me is that he doesn’t even argue that he fulfilled the requirements of the grant. Instead, he just argues politics. And now he resigns his state job, only to go do the same work in the pay of the environmentalists. That argument is more geared to be a martyr than to be a free speech or academic freedom argument.
October 26th, 2009 at 5:44 PM
Skip the oil. Without freedom, all that black muck is meaningless.
And skip Hamilton, too. Any college president who refuses to recognize the necessity of academic freedom and speech is someone who needs to find something else to do.
October 26th, 2009 at 6:19 PM
As a former university faculty member, all I can say is that this is just stunning…..
October 26th, 2009 at 6:23 PM
OT, Chicago MudPuppies not busy tomorrow, at 10am, Wacker Dr. east of Micigan Ave. –join the protest “Show Down In Chicago”!
A protest of the annual ABA (american banking association, WellsFargo, et al…)
Read up on HuffPo.
October 26th, 2009 at 6:57 PM
I would love to know what we as Alaskans can do?
Is it worth a letter to the university?
At this point we do not donate to the university and will not plan to in the future with this behavior, but how do you hit them where it hurts?
I will be looking for other places to take any classes I usually do during the year but that seems a small thing for such a terrible case!
Frustrating!
October 26th, 2009 at 7:00 PM
I would sign a petition…..or two…..
October 26th, 2009 at 7:00 PM
I’d donate toward making this debate a reality. Topic: “Can Academic Freedom and Big Business Donations Coexist”
October 26th, 2009 at 7:37 PM
AKM- tucked in the middle of your post here, Mr Steiner’s words “On the issue of advocacy, all faculty “advocate,” as we all have perspectives…” are the most important , to me.
I have been watching this story unfold and am deeply concerned about the idea that scientists could be asked to give information… neutrally… without perspective and that anyone would think this a good thing.
Solid understanding of perspective helps round out what one can make of the information presented to them.
The idea that a scientist may NOT have a perspective nor advocate a POV from which to view information is stupid in my view.
They ALL do, it’s the human thingy.
If it’s explicit, responses and decisions are made on what is out in the open… not what is crafted into a “neutral”observation by way of sly manipulation of data or observation.
Some of the greatest leaps of understanding of the world around us have come from advocating a different way of looking at things, questioning whether we have unnecessarily hindered knowledge to base decisions on by a narrow frame of reference…
The University has every appearance here of failing to maintain support for one of it’s own on a very basic level.
I’m glad I sent my kid to college Outside, President Hamilton.
I’m bummed he didn’t come back but I’m glad I got him to change his mind about UAF.
Oh, and the sophmoric sustainability rant on the NAS site…
Some of those scholars might want to take a break from the stacks and come out and see what a hash their communications director is making of the site…
After I read the why-we-established- ourselves page there last night and re-read the sustainability rant I’m just flabbergasted that any scholar would remain in the same barn with that foolishness…
After I read the so-called 2 cases which included Mr Pollan and Mr Steiner as bad guys I had to leave…
Not as bad as the scholar- nutjob AKM tracked down in last post… not nearly as bad… but obscurantic, 2-dimensional, and sophmoric.
October 26th, 2009 at 7:47 PM
This would almost be amusing, if Steiner’s career were not involved. I had never heard of the “National Association of Scholars”, nor of the name under which it was started in 1987, “Campus Coalition for Democracy”. This is probably because they claim to have 5,300 members nationwide. This is not a very noticeable fraction of the total number of scholars in the United States.
They claim to be in favor of “academic free speech”, but that appears to mean “conservative academic free speech that attacks the nasty ‘illiberals’ currently dominating college campuses”.
Their Board of Advisors are largely the usual suspects — about 3/4 are from Hoover, the Manhattan Institute, and the American Enterprise Institute.
To give them some credit, they did publish Rick Steiner’s letter on their website, and promised an “NAS response” in the near future. It might be interesting to see how they square “academic free speech” with deciding that Steiner was in the wrong; but actually, it will probably just be stupid sophistry.
October 26th, 2009 at 7:49 PM
@Alaska Pi — I doubt that many of these “scholars” are lost in the stacks. I doubt that many of them can find the stacks.
October 26th, 2009 at 7:59 PM
@ strangelet-
I was being nice… giving em the benefit of the doubt.
Somebody ought to wake up and see what a non-scholarly mess their young communications director is making of the place.
Inviting Alaskans in, even accidently, on the subect of sustainability is going to cause enough ruckus to wake em up wherever they are snoozing.
October 26th, 2009 at 8:08 PM
I am sorry that it has come to this for Professor Steiner. What a black mark for the college. UAW has sold out to the quick and easy money. Just look what happened to the banks when they did that.
Doing the right thing has become a rare trait in all our institutions lately.
October 26th, 2009 at 8:44 PM
The silver lining of this big black cloud of a story is that the oil industry and those who have been “bought off” no longer have a pass thanks to people like Professor Steiner and all the citizens and bloggers that keep a light shining on this travesty.
It used to be that these things just happened with no question or no opposition. I love all the thorns that have sprouted to get in the way of these agendas.
Keep the fight up.
October 26th, 2009 at 8:45 PM
Its a shame that my state is all NIMBY’d up.Great article from Tom Bradner last sunday in the ADN,in short its not NO that moves us forward,but WHAT WILL IT TAKE.
Dont like big oil or mining?
Just how do you propose we pay our way,oh let me guess we’ll all be in owner operated tourism operations.BELIEVE ME Im no big fan of corporate control,but I do realize that we are and always have been a resource extraction region for over 200+yrs.
The financial pain is only just started for this state,the good thing is when it gets bad,most of the reactionary mamby-pamby’s will be gone.And it will be more like it was when I first came here with my parents in 1972(thats when my dad came up to work for standard oil @ swanson river).
As a former commercial fisherman for 23 yrs Im well aware of whats at risk.
ak4195
October 26th, 2009 at 8:47 PM
Mark Hamilton is a brittle, petty shill for the oil companies. He’s the one who needs to resign.
October 26th, 2009 at 9:54 PM
Academic freedom has also been under assault here in CA at Cal Poly in San Luis Obispo. A big agribusiness donor threaten to pull donations if Micheal Pollen was allowed to give a lecture.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/10/california-agribusiness-pressures-school-to-nix-michael-pollan-speech.html
Harris Ranch is a huge feed lot on 5, that you can smell for miles and miles on the drive between the Bay Area and LA. The University President caved immediately to a big business donor and forced Pollan to be part of a panel instead of giving a lecture.
It’s so typical of right wingers to be afraid of anyone with alternative ideas.
October 26th, 2009 at 10:37 PM
I can’t speak to the Mark Hamilton issue as I know little about it/him – but I attended the fisheries/oil ‘co-exist’ conference and did not feel that it was biased at all. It was sponsored by many other entities besides Shell, notably, Native groups.
In fact, I found it very informative to have oil experts there who showed all their maps and answered all kinds of questions about their proposed plans and procedures at Bristol Bay.
I will never support oil/gas development in Bristol Bay because of the dangers it poses to the region’s fisheries. (Ditto Pebble MIne) But the conference was extremely worthwhile and again, was not biased toward Shell.
It was also unfortunate that Mr Steiner ‘ambushed’ the conference the day before it occurred with very sensationalistic media alerts – and many of the ‘facts’ he used were inaccurate.
October 27th, 2009 at 12:12 AM
Alaskan parents can speak with their oily PFD-dividends. For those of us left who put their future college students’ PFD and other income into a Alaska College Savings Plan…when the application time is upon us.-remember President Hamilton. Perhaps don’t check the box on your application to have half of your PFD go into this account. Research another way for little Johnny or Jane Alaska to save for college. And here I am always harping about Alaska’s brain drain and how I go out of my way to condition my kids to view Alaska as its own vast ‘country’ of opportunity, diversity and freedom. I want my kids to stay and thrive in Alaska-however, I value having an reality based, open minded child more.
October 27th, 2009 at 3:59 AM
Pres Mark Hamilton sounds like a classic Devil and Daniel Webster. The student body, citizens, and State Officials should demand his resignation.
October 27th, 2009 at 4:35 AM
There is a larger context in which this story takes place… unbridled greed of the Bush administration results in a global economic melt down.
Back in 1999 when Bush was running to become President, an article appeared in the Madison, WI newspaper. Mid-Western Governors holding a conference in Chicago with large energy producers. Their mission was to convince the large energy producers to back Candidate George Bush. The deal was that Bush’s “Clear Sky Initiative” would gut the clean air and water act. Deregulation would allow unlimited pollution emmisions, and thus record profits. Not wildly reported is that Bush’s “Clear Sky Initiative” would lead to 60,000 to 80,000 premature deaths per year.
Throughout Bush’s two term we endlessly heard of how he was a science denier, installing political appointees to head Gov agencies, to silence the scientists at EPA, NASA, FDA, CDC, NOAA and other agencies.
Besides denying global warming, we found our pets dying of tainted food. Patients dying of pharmaceuticals being made in China Chemical Plants without any regulation and safety controls. Citizens dying of feces in our meats and vegetables. Tainted baby food. Homes built with toxic dry wall. Toys and bedding tainted with dangerous chemicals. Municipal drinking water laced with 50 or more traces of pharmaceuticals and industrial waste.
And this same philosophy, that Government is bad and that free markets can best take care of themselves (pro-business) led to the deregulation of banking and financial industry.
In 2008, unbridled greed and deregulation came home to roost with systemic failure and a world economic meltdown.
October 27th, 2009 at 8:16 AM
Time to go Hamilton. You had a good run.
October 27th, 2009 at 9:09 AM
@20 Wolfpack – Absolutely correct.
This situation is not unique to Alaska, nor is it a new occurence. Across the country Academia has been led by ever hungry wallet. The heads of these higher places of learning are continually scrambling for cash. States cut funding to U’s as they feel the nation’s economic crunch. Meanwhile the college administration fees rose and funding for paid internships, school supplies and research projects fell. The corporations come in and offer a building or two, a huge grant, scholarships, fame & fortune and well padded desk jobs after post Doc work or retirement from the U. All they have to do is just keep their proffessors quiet and producing mindless lackeys and do research that is only pro-industry.
I’ve watched this happen for the last 30 years and was one of my primary reasons for not pursuing a Master’s. Especially after watching my peers go for their higher degrees and enter the academic environment. Watched them go gray over surpressed findings and twisted research results. Watched them loose their ideology and hope to make a difference in the world with their research. Watched them grow angry and cynical when they are shown how their work is manipulated for purely profit-driven reasons. But they slog on to feed their families, keep a roof over their head and continue to teach and learn what they can. Very few have the gumption and resources to make a stand the way Steiner is doing.
We MUST remove the influence of big corporations from not only our government and political election processes, but also from our places of higher learning.
October 27th, 2009 at 10:30 AM
Dr. Steiner’s case is much more public but I have seen other “smaller” cases of academic freedom occurring in the UA system and it is disturbing to me as a member of the academy. A faculty member was told not to write letters to the editor opposing the road out of Juneau because of environmental concerns and not to speak to members of the press.
I have watched as administration has harassed senior faculty (tenured) because they don’t like them speaking out on a variety of issues. I can attest that if the administration (at least at UAS) could run this institution without faculty they would. The UA system can be a very hostile place for a faculty member.
I agree that this is not the only place that has issues with academic freedom. It occurs in many, many different issues. I myself had to ‘rephrase’ statements in my thesis because it could have been portrayed as offensive to a major corporate donor of the institution. It is happening in many places and it should be of concern to us. Academic freedom exists for a reason and we need to be working to reign in corporate control of all of our public spaces.
October 28th, 2009 at 7:53 AM
Here’s NAS’s response to Steiner’s article: http://www.nas.org/polArticles.cfm?Doc_Id=1071