Using heroin is illegal, so it would seem self-evident that using academic grant money to fund your habit would be not only illegal, but also inappropriate. Evidently that was not clear to Ansley Hamid, a John Jay College of Criminal Justice professor.
Hamid was an anthropologist studying New York City's heroin drug culture. To fund his work he received the largest grant -- $3.1 million from the National Institute on Drug Abuse -- in John Jay history. He then proceeded to use part of this money to buy heroin and shoot up in an attempt to immerse himself in the culture he was studying. Now The Chronicle for Higher Education, the journal which reports on the people, actions, politics and ethics of academia, is asking if his actions weren't somewhat legitimate or, at least, if the law enforcement action against Hamid wasn't excessive ("Crossing the line, a heroin researcher partakes and pays the price," Oct. 25). The obvious answer should be no. No, it was not appropriate for Hamid to partake in drug culture, especially with the aid of grant money. No, it was not an overreaction when Hamid's apartment was searched.
In the end, Hamid was not arrested or jailed for his offense. He did, however, lose tenure at John Jay and his official connection with that institute will end in January. What happens to Hamid and his career, though, is less significant than what led him to believe that his actions were acceptable. Believing that taking blatantly illegal action, even in the name of academics -- and believing that it won't be punished -- is the height of professional arrogance.
Cultural immersion is not a new or unfamiliar method of study in anthropology. Nor is it inappropriate in most cases. To take the method to such an extreme, however, signifies a complete detachment from responsibility and common sense.
In a perfect world, academics wouldn't have any obligations to anything but the integrity of their work. In the real world, however, accepting a grant is akin to accepting investment and entails a responsibility to the investor. Hamid managed to compromise both the integrity of his work and his obligation to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, his investors.
Immersing oneself too fully in any culture makes objectivity difficult, even when part of a legitimate academic endeavor. Add to that participating in a culture which opens oneself to chemical dependence, and any conclusions become suspect.
Hamid, although considered a leading authority on the cultural aspects of drug use, called all of his work into question when he corrupted his method. If for that reason alone, John Jay had to end its affiliation with him.
Beyond his own personal integrity, Hamid violated his responsibility to the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Government or private grants should not be able to dictate fully the direction or practices of academic research, but they do have a stake in them, both in terms of public reputation and reliable results. Even after Hamid managed to convince himself that using heroin was an appropriate research method, how he decided that it would be acceptable to use money from an anti-drug organization to fund his habit is incomprehensible.
Hamid is not a drug addict. He did not use grant money for drugs because he was addicted to them, rather to further his study. From an academic standpoint, the latter is more disturbing.
Academia's storied ivory tower is valued for its distance from the influence of commercialism and popular whim. However, it is only valuable if it also recognizes and respects the society of which it is a part. In taking illegal drugs, Hamid stepped out of the ivory tower and down to the streets and at the same time disregarded the standards and expectations of his academic society and society at large. Indiscretions like Hamid's are dangerous to the integrity of academia as an institution. Academics have a responsibility to protect the integrity of their own work and to shun lack of integrity among colleagues, which is what John Jay accomplished when it suspended Hamid.
(Megan Moyer's column appears
Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at mmoyer@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | YesterdayInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
SHRAUGER: McIntire’s three-year model limits opportunities for first-year students
By Alex Shrauger | 4 days agoBy pigeonholing students into commerce so early, the University violates its own mission of providing a holistic education that produces students capable of succeeding in a variety of fields.
