Scholars who blog should accept that their writing affects their professional image. If they take controversial stances, they will be criticized. If they behave badly online, their reputations will suffer. Academic freedom protects the tenured (a fast-shrinking group) from punishment when speaking out -- but it does not and should not protect them from the unforgiving sorting process that is the marketplace of ideas.

Much ink and many pixels have been expended deploring the energy with which Cole's candidacy was debated. But we should welcome such debate, and we should meet it with more. There is no threat to academic freedom in vigorous public discussion. There is only freedom itself.

A tad thick on the free-market rhetoric for me, but O'Connor's point about the increased debate is what interests me and gives me hope about this very blog-like exchange.  These academics have all decided that making their voice heard is just as important as, or at least is a part of, their academic identity.  They are, or at least are attempting to be, 21st century public intellectuals.  As another of the prof bloggers, Siva Vaidhyanathan from Sivacracy, points out, "There has never been a better time to be a public intellectual, and the Web is the big reason why." And Juan Cole's take?  

Being in the middle of [the debates over the middle east], trying to help mutual understanding, is what I trained for. Should I have been silent, published only years later in stolid academic prose in journals locked up in a handful of research libraries? And this for the sake of a "career"? The role of the public intellectual is my career. And it is a hell of a career. I recommend it.

Is every academic who starts a blog a public intellectual?  Of course not.  But, given the level of discussion that goes on about professors these days, I am happy to see more academics willing to enter the public debate even if blogs are as Daniel Drezner says "an outlet for unexpurgated, unreviewed, and occasionally unprofessional musings [and] what makes them worth reading can also make them prone to error." OK--so perhaps blogging can be a little dangerous for academics and perhaps somewhat antithetical to the cautious and methodical approach of the academy.  But I can't help but think that the public debate is better off for having scholars weighing in more frequently on a host of issues and that is one direct outcome of blogs. I also think that such engagement is a positive for higher education as well. As Brad DeLong states in his response to the Cole affair:

The hope of all of us who blog is that we will become smarter, do more useful work, be happier and more productive, and will also impress our deans so they will raise our salaries. The first three hopes are clearly true: Academics who blog think more profound thoughts, have a bigger influence on the world -- both the academic and the broader worlds -- and are happier for it. Are we more productive in an academic sense? Maybe. We will see when things settle down.

Are our deans impressed? Not so far, but they should be. A lot of a university's long-run success depends on attracting good undergraduates. Undergraduates and their parents are profoundly influenced by the public face of the university. And these days, a thoughtful, intelligent, well-informed Web logger like Juan Cole or Dan Drezner is an important part of a university's public face. Michigan gains in reputation and mindshare from having a Cole on its faculty. Yale loses from not having an equivalent.

A great university has faculty members who do a great many things -- teaching undergraduates, teaching graduate students, the many things that are "research," public education, public service, and the turbocharging of the public sphere of information and debate that is a principal reason that governments finance and donors give to universities. Web logs may well be becoming an important part of that last university mission.

Well said.