Letters to the Editor – Stirring the UT tenure tempest further

Re: “A Tenure Tempest,” July 24 Editorials. 

I commend this editorial for bringing attention to the work of Iván Chaar López. His writing deserves attention, and your editorial takes us on some of the intellectual back-and-forth our universities should inspire. I read the articles cited — the Progressive Policy Institute’s “The Distortion of American Studies: How a Field’s Leading Journal Has Embraced a World View as Slanted as Donald Trump” and Chaar López’s response in Public Books.  

These are important issues. Unlike your editorialist, I found the PPI critique unconvincing and driven more by ideology than fact. I have real problems with a methodology that uses a scale that is based on the accumulation of patriotism points to review critical scholarship. 

I found Chaar López ‘s defense of the work of his fellow American studies scholars generally convincing. I was especially struck by Chaar López’s assertion that the PPI article was “a hollow attempt to tilt the balance against those who dare speak the truth to power,” given the fact that he has now been driven out of academic life at UT. 

After five years of exemplary work for his university, Chaar López has essentially been banished. Your editorial fails to emphasize the critical fact that he was not dismissed through the established process of peer review rooted in long-standing principles of academic freedom. He was cut loose by faceless political operatives recently appointed and empowered by our MAGA-aligned governor. In this new, opaque system, there is no necessity for a public justification for the canning of a scholar. 

I thank The Dallas Morning News for discussing Iván Chaar López’s work; that is more than he got from the University of Texas. It is now easier to understand the shady logic that led to his sacking.  

The firing of Chaar López sends the clear message that important new academic research will not see the light of day in Texas universities if it does not meet the MAGA litmus test. 

Tim Cloward, Dallas

Thank you for the editorial explaining clearly why Chaar López was denied tenure. His insane view of our borders, his bizarre focus on racism in border issues, his disdain for “balance and fair-mindedness,” and his consistently negative articles about America and the people in it all show him for what he truly represents. 

I feel sorry for the students who have had to tolerate his strange and repellent ideas in his classes. 

Your final point in the editorial was also excellent: This person was “enthusiastically endorsed” by his peers?  

Olan Knight, Murphy 

I was gobsmacked that my alma mater would be controlled by Donald Trump. What other excuse for denying tenure to Chaar López? I got my JD in 1977. I have been considering a substantial gift to the UT law school; however, the editorial was so upsetting, I will likely be talking to Texas A&M. 

Chuck Noteboom, Fort Worth 

As an academic who values scholarship and science, I can’t give this editorial better than a C. First, being “well outside the mainstream” is not by itself a bad thing; Thomas Edison and Steve Jobs both were. That’s where new ideas and discoveries come from. 

Second, you can’t judge “viewpoint diversity” from a sample of one. Unlike science, faculty members in the critical disciplines make their cases strongly for the purpose of forcing each other to sharpen their arguments and to model critical skills for students, some to be future lawyers. 

Third, you commit the academic sin of taking quotes out of context, a hallmark of political rhetoric. 

Because I value good journalism and balanced argument, I also commend you for Lily Kepner’s excellent article on July 22 about UT’s rejection of Chaar López’s tenure application, and for allowing the space for her to explain the complexity and thoroughness of the tenure process. Academics turn our critical skills on each other first.  

Sharon Rae Jenkins, Denton

Your editorial is a poster child for what is wrong with our colleges and universities. Anyone who writes, “the border itself is war; it is war by other means,” is ignorant, malicious or both. Not only is this statement factually wrong, but it is also empty of intellectual content — no nuance, nothing to interpret or ponder, just an asinine declaration.  

The fact that other professors are supportive says everything you need to know about their intelligence and integrity as well. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts. We do not need professors incapable of understanding that. 

Bernard White, Dallas 

Just because a professor writes about ideas you don’t like, doesn’t mean he should lose his job. 

Years ago, I remember taking a history professor’s class, and I disagreed with many of his views. In class, I would ask questions and challenge his assertions. I took half a dozen classes with that professor and ended up majoring in history because of him. 

He didn’t brainwash me. His lectures encouraged me to think for myself. 

Perhaps my professor was sometimes playing devil’s advocate to provoke discussion in class, but more importantly, he was respecting his students to form their own opinions and think for themselves. 

Dallas Morning News, please have more respect for young people. Let them form their own views about things. I know my history professor did, even as he presented views contrary to my 18-year-old self. 

Our universities shouldn’t be places that censor just to make people feel safe with their views. Universities are places that explore different ideas and encourage you to think. 

Glenn Hutchinson, Fort Worth 

Your editorial on the refusal of UT to grant Chaar López tenure was spot on.

I have read multiple accounts of this incident. All gave glowing reports of this assistant professor’s work at UT. All of them said no reason was given for the denial of tenure. None even mentioned his very controversial writings that you quoted. 

The piece also talks about how the American Quarterly publishes articles that are extremely negative about America. In response, Jason Ruiz, the editor of American Quarterly, says the journal’s mission was not “national boosterism.” Sounds like the perfect landing spot for Chaar López. 

Les Gregory, Frisco

The denial of tenure for Chaar López is symbolic of what is happening in our country. Universities historically provide the research that advances our society. Some may not like the results that are based on fact, but never should that determine tenure. 

To completely derail this man’s career is abhorrent. He has been pursuing tenure for 11 years, conducting research on how race, history and technology shape the government’s immigration enforcement at the border. 

It appears that politics has completely derailed this man’s career. Love or hate the tenure system, this is what professors spend years obtaining. It is the university that sets these rules. It’s not about money. It’s about their research, their reputation, respect from peers and students, and freedom to continue research.  

I am hoping that students will protest this decision. This is a direct appeal to the students – show your allegiance to an esteemed professor. 

Debbie Gallagher, Cedar Hill