The phrase “I know that I know nothing” is attributed to Socrates, who when presented with the compliment of being the wisest man in Athens, sets out to disprove it by finding a man smarter than he. Instead, he discovers that while he has dispelled himself of the notion of knowing anything great or good; other men know just as little, but fancy that they know better. Paradoxically, his self-awareness makes Socrates wiser than the rest. The ongoing debate between an academic and a journalist in social media appears to have missed Socrates’ basic lesson.

For those distracted by more worldly engagements over Eid, some context first. When a prominent academic accused an equally towering journalist of toeing state’s line over a rights’ movement, the latter countered that the academic was unfit to teach, “given her established bias as an activist”.

The ad hominem jolted the Twitterati to jump in. The ‘less insane’ attempted to point out that political activism amongst academia follows in the long tradition of giants such as Mahatma, Faiz, Chomsky, E. Said, and more recently, Paul Krugman. Unsurprisingly, the argument quickly degenerated into a playground brawl – characteristic of online trolling - with opposing tribes demanding apology because “he(she) started it!”. Whether an apology(ies) will be made remains to be seen, but few points may still be made.

First, demanding that activist academics be disallowed to teach reeks of entitlement. While agenda-peddling may have traditionally been the domain of opinion-journalism, internet has been the great equalizer. Academics that were previously confined to classrooms and research papers can now broadcast their views more widely, possibly drawing away loyal followers from veteran journalistic names.

Second, rules of online engagement. Social media represents modern mode of casual, candid interactions. Neither academics nor journalists, whether past or present, are bereft of making personal attacks or questioning their adversaries’ motives under non-professional settings. Because (vocal) academics and veteran journalists are the closest Pakistan has to public intellectuals, audiences normally accustomed to editorial filtering appear horrified. However, short of employers’ policing online interactions, the outrage and indignation are uncalled for. If social media is the new normal of candid interactions, ad hominem is fair game.

Nevertheless, prominent intellectuals pointing fingers at their critics’ ulterior motives are indicative of a growing culture of suspicion. This is a direct result of a general sense of censorship in media and does not bode well for any free society; as those taking genuine sides with state’s position may no longer be spared. Third, whether political activists make good teachers is one for the ages. After all, intellectual giants such as Chomsky have attracted fair share of controversy. Few social sciences, if any, can be divorced of political biases of those who teach it. Even traditional economics, the non-activist dismal kind, has schools of thought named after distinct universities, because the academics in those seats of learning leaned a certain way.

And that brings us to activism, whose wholesale branding as ‘vile’ borders on ignorance of history. A large part of opposition to Vietnam War took place on university campuses, as did campaigning for civil rights movement. Closer to home is the example of JNU, which has become a bastion of liberty in the face of majoritarian onslaught.

Lastly, it may not hurt activist-teachers to take a leaf or two from the man who knew nothing. He imparted no ideologies yet is considered the greatest teacher to have ever lived. For he taught his students to question all dogmas – and died for it. As political activism goes, that’s tough to beat.