Academic freedom has always seemed a weird concept to me. I mean, universities generally promise it to their professors; I’ve seen many people argue for it; I’ve hardly seen anyone argue against it (at least not in principle – it’s always “this is an exception” rather than “the rule is wrong”); but still, the whole idea seems so naive. When someone has been hired as a world-class expert, has been entrusted to teach others, and then reveals himself to be a prize ass, how can anyone look at him the same again?

It goes the other way, too. Lots of professors these days have been hired to be prize asses. If they suddenly start making sense, they can’t really expect any mercy from their employers, no matter how much lip service is paid to academic freedom.

What does make sense is to give professors the benefit of the doubt. If there’s doubt about what they meant, or whether they were just joking, or whether what they meant is actually wrong, they should get the benefit of that doubt. Giving people the benefit of the doubt is generally a good rule, except in adversarial situations such as when someone is threatening you or trying to sell you something, and it especially makes sense when judging experts whose job is often to say something that’s beyond the average person’s comprehension. It is good tactics even within academic subjects that are bullshit: how do you expect to do a good job propagating your bullshit if you keep crucifying your top bullshitters for occasional mistakes?

Of course the benefit of the doubt only goes so far; after a few iterations of it, there isn’t really much doubt left. Two coin flips in a row ending up tails is normal; ten in a row isn’t.