Making a Mockery of Academic Debate
Late this January, the Lehigh University College of Business published a short video about poverty. In the video, professor of economics Frank Gunter sets out to debunk three myths about poverty: that it is mainly a matter of race, that it is a generational curse, and that the poor have no power to change their circumstances. Gunter claimed, instead, that poor people, whatever the causes of their poverty may be, can escape poverty. The poor are not “victims of large impersonal forces.”
Naturally, people were outraged.
As the editorial board of Lehigh University’s student newspaper put it, Gunter’s claims “are not only false and damaging but are also blatantly racist.”
Frank Gunter, left, and Ziad Munson
Lehigh University asked professors in its business school to advise the new Biden administration on their areas of expertise via short “kitchen table talk” videos. But one professor’s short talk on poverty, including its relationship to race, proved divisive and that the topic needed a more thorough analysis, the university said. So after temporarily removing the video for review, Lehigh reposted it alongside additional context from other scholars.
The outcome wasn’t ideal for anyone involved. The professor at the center of the controversy feels wronged by Lehigh, while some of his fellow faculty members are disappointed that the video was published in the first place. Many students feel hurt by the professor’s words. But the incident and the resolution do offer a potential framework to other institutions grappling with cases of similarly offensive speech: make room for and model academic critique, and be transparent about the process