Editor's Page

Fear and Intimidation: Threats to Academic Freedom and Extension

I want to report a sample of situations I've encountered in the last two years as editor as straightforwardly as I can. You judge whether we have anything to worry about.

I received a submission from a senior administrative staff person in a state Extension office. The article discussed problems with doing meaningful personnel evaluations in Extension and concluded that Extension has accumulated "a lot of dead weight that is seriously undermining effectiveness." The author asked that, if accepted, the article be published anonymously.

"I would put my Extension career in serious jeopardy if this were published under my name. Somebody needs to blow the whistle on the rampant incompetence in Extension. I know that what's true in my state is true in other states because at national conferences everybody tells the same kinds of stories. But I can't have this published with my name on it. It's just too risky. The system can be very vindictive."

The policy of the Journal of Extension is not to publish articles anonymously. The author withdrew the manuscript and said, "Maybe I'll resubmit it after I've retired-if I still care then."

I received a To the Point submission from a nationally prominent Extension leader. The article argued that Extension had outlived its usefulness and "we should just fold our tents and go out of business." The author thought that it's better to go out at the top instead of waiting, like an old athlete who tries to hang on too long, until Extension had completely embarrassed itself and tarnished the image of its previous days of glory.

The author asked if the article could be published anonymously. I checked with the To the Point reviewers (all state directors) who reaffirmed the policy of not publishing anonymous submissions. As one reviewer put it, "Academic integrity requires that people be willing to own their opinions."

I shared this feedback with the author. The response: "The system would have me for lunch if I published this. I wouldn't be able to continue working in Extension if people knew what I really think." The author withdrew the article.

A feature article was submitted describing a statewide Extension process. The article was rejected by reviewers because it didn't really say anything new that made a contribution to Extension's knowledge base. When I provided this feedback, one of the authors said, "I can't tell the real story yet because I don't have tenure." I suggested the author submit the real story after receiving tenure. Some time later, I did receive a revised article with a note that the author had received tenure and now felt secure enough to publish the "real" story. The content was actually quite mild from my perspective. The article was reviewed, went through some revisions, and was eventually accepted.

Just before publication, the authors called to withdraw the article citing heavy pressure from Extension superiors "who say they don't want our dirty laundry hung out for the whole world to see." Given the academic freedom issues involved, I did some checking. The superiors felt they'd made suggestions for improving the article, but didn't in any way try to suppress publication or otherwise impinge on academic freedom-and seemed genuinely aghast that such an inference might be suggested. The authors genuinely felt pressured. They now intend to submit a revision after it has been reviewed by and found acceptable to their superiors.

As I travel and speak around the country, I always encourage people to write for the Journal. I especially encourage Forum (opinion) contributions because that's the section of the Journal that gets the fewest unsolicited submissions and the weakest material. It seems hard to get Extension people to express firm opinions on genuinely controversial issues. During my time as editor, I've been most disappointed in the content of the Forum section.

In response to invitations to write for Forum, I'm routinely told of fundamental problems that reduce Extension's effectiveness. When I encourage these people to document their concerns and write for the Journal, they inevitably dismiss the idea as impossible because it would jeopardize their careers. They often assert that, as one senior person told me, "Extension people only want to report and talk about good news, the positives. If you ever suggest there are problems, you're accused of being a 'naysayer,' or 'not a team player' or otherwise put down and shut out. Maybe when I'm retired, I'll write the true story." I've never received such a submission from a retiree.

Are these just malcontents? Are these ineffective staff blaming the system for their own shortcomings? Or has Extension, in its commitment to project a positive external image, created an internal environment of fear and intimidation? Have we created organizational barriers to learning the truth about ourselves?

Are these cases threats to academic freedom? Or are they simply people who lack the courage to publish their convictions? Should we be worried about these examples, or are they merely aberrations?

You be the judge, but do make a judgment. What's at stake are the most fundamental ideals of intellectual integrity, academic freedom, and independent judgment-the very reasons Extension is located in universities.

MQP