New Firing Line: Sexual Harassment as Excuse to Fire Faculty

From East Georgia College: the latest in a string of cases involving abuse of the "sexual harassment" codes. These codes can be used to expel students later found to be innocent (see my previous blog entry) or terminate faculty for speaking out against "sexual harassment" codes that lack due process.

All too often, the accused is guilty-until-proven-innocent. Even then, students and faculty can still be thrown off campus because the administration doesn't feel they will make for a "comfortable environment." Oh, no, we can't have tenure-track faculty criticizing our administrative czars, especially if they wrap the Star Chamber with sweet sounding rhetoric about an "institutional commitment to a harassment-free campus." Offering a different viewpoint thus constitutes harassment itself!

Thank God for the lawyers at FIRE and ACLU local chapters. This is also an issue being fought by the Faculty Association. It is a battle against university lawyers who err on the side of being overprotective of those who might be harassed. This buys them, in their way of thinking, some legal insurance against lawsuits that claim they didn't "do enough." FIRE, ACLU, FA help level the legal battlefield.

All Hail Caesar! Here and Abroad

In the USA, it is "All hail Caesar!" So it seems by the clampdown on students satirizing President Obama at Bucknell University. Readers may recall that during the election campaign the freedom-fighting (?) faculty of the University of Illinois got a reversal of a ruling that would require them to eschew political buttons bashing President Bush and/or candidate McCain. During that free speech fracas, the AAUP and ACLU rushed to join FIRE in protesting this restriction. The AAUP's professed commitment to academic freedom involved both faculty (its constituency) and students (read AAUP Joint Statement here under Student Affairs).

Now that the favorite of academe (Obama) is in power, we wait for the other shoe to drop. And the AAUP, ACLU are . . . silent as a tomb.

Civil libertarian David French opines on the Bucknell situation here. A Bucknell alum notes that his alma mater is a repeat offender.

At least FIRE is consistent: They have defended the right of campus groups to bring left-wingers like Bill Ayers and Ward Churchill to campus.

Speaking of speech tombs, the election in Iran shows how difficult it can be to get out the message. Twitter has emerged as the primary means, along with bloggers who are putting their lives on the line. Why? Because a 2008 Iranian law imposes the death penalty for all those who "disturb the mental security" of others. Hmmm. Have the mullahs been reading U.S. harassment codes?

Read on about the cyberwar being fought in Iran.

Lost in the election debate is the distinction between freedom and democracy. Democracy may be the means to an end but if women are beaten for showing their ankles, Lady Liberty is outraged, even if an election was "fair." The media (and presidential) focus on democracy misconstrues the individual yearning for freedom--the same desire that motivated minorities in this country to cite our natural rights tradition and Constitution protecting the right to deviate from the norm. But that's a subject taken up in my forthcoming book (due out next month), Race and Liberty in America: The Essential Reader.

One final note: there is no moral equivalency between the USA and Iran on matters of speech. Nonetheless, if tyranny has a tendency to spread, it is aided by the forgotten arguments for freedom.

God and Man and U., Part 2

For cases of religious discrimination on campus, readers may consult web sites operated by watchdog groups that defend religious freedom. For some of these groups it is a core mission, but for others it is one of many civil liberties issues:

FIRE: See their guide to religious liberty.

Alliance Defense Fund: One of the top lawyers for FIRE, David French, left to help with this aggressive organization. They can help you with a case of religious discrimination, find local counsel, or seek out similar public interest groups in your region of the USA.

Anti-Defamation League: ADL is actively fighting anti-Semitism on many fronts, including the campaign to battle academic boycotts of Israel. It is a sad state of affairs when thousands of scholars (myself included) have to sign a petition opposing a boycott of the country allowing the freest expression of opinion and religion in the Middle East. There is no such boycott of Iran or other Muslim nations that sharply restrict religious and academic freedom. Read this Freedom House report.

Here is Freedom House's report on Israel rating it "Free." Reports on Egypt and Iran are also available, along with annual reports on every country in the world.

Catholic League: Many years ago, someone quipped that anti-Catholicism was the "last respectable bigotry." The Catholic League is that religion's equivalent of the Anti-Defamation League. Search their site for "academic" (without the quotes) and you will find many items.

The oldest organization in America on this issue is the

ACLU: Often accused of promoting "freedom from religion" (rather than freedom of religion), the organization does take on cases that protect the rights of the religious, as well as the atheist.

SIU Speech Zone: What's Right? What's Wrong?

When students were away on break, SIU Chancellor Sam Goldman received a letter from F.I.R.E. challenging the university's "designated public forum areas" (labeled "Free Speech Facilities" in the handbook for Registered Student Organizations). ACLU-Southern Illinois, and the Illinois affiliate of the National Association of Scholars (NAS) cosigned the letter from FIRE.

As I noted at the time, this issue erupted in 2004 when an anti-war group protested outside the then-designated speech zone. The administration acted swiftly by forming a committee and then issuing a revised policy entitled "Demonstrations: Regulations and Procedures."

There is a lot of good in that demonstrations policy but one major flaw: the presence of special zones for speech. Here is my rundown of the good and bad:

POSITIVES:

1. The demonstrations policy approved by the Board of Trustees begins with a strong statement in support of academic freedom.

2. The section "Standards of Respect and Civility" offers common-sense guidelines for protests, demonstrations and other individual or group speech on campus. Don't block traffic, don't disrupt classes, don't break the law: Golden Rule 101.

3. The Designated Public Forum Areas are in high-traffic areas (but see below).

NEGATIVES:

1. "Events within Designated Public Forum Areas": designate implies that this is a special area set aside for "free expression." Only one group may be present at a time. There are two areas designated for demonstrations: adjoining the parking garage and parking lots near Anthony Hall; and in front of Morris Library. WHY is "free expression" given a "designated" area? What can one do outside those zones?

2. "Events Outside of Designated Public Forum Areas": The previous section setting aside "free expression" areas conflicts with the short section allowing events outside of designated areas. The natural question: why have a designated area at all? The "events outside" section ought to be applied to all the public plazas and walkways of the campus. Simply put, the "Standards of Respect and Civility" govern speech in these outside areas. So, once again, why have a designated area that leads students and others to think that there -- and only there -- they may protest or demonstrate?

3. The RSO Handbook (see pp. 25-26): RSO's are among the groups most likely to speak out on campus. That is why the handbook language is so troubling:

a. The Orwellian phrase "Free Speech Facilities" is substituted for Designated Public Forum Area.

b. The handbook lists only one of the two designated areas listed in the Board of Trustee policy.

c. "Other campus areas will not be used as open forums." This conflicts with the Board policy of allowing individuals or groups to assemble outside designated areas.

If all of this is clear as mud, you are right. But the simple question is "why have a forum at all?" Is SIU-C for or against "events outside" the designated areas?

RECOMMENDATION:

Abolish the zone and all will be well. The "Standards of Respect and Civility" are enough.

There is no need for a forum area, particularly since

a) SIU-C cannot make up its mind about speech outside that area; and

b) limiting demonstrations to a "zone" makes SIU vulnerable to a lawsuit.

SIU-C has a good policy -- if it abolishes the zone. Let's hope that this is resolved in good faith without the usual circus surrounding any challenge to standing policy. I believe the administration wants to do the right thing. But, if it does not, it will certainly face a challenge from FIRE.

FIRE Challenges SIU Speech Zone

The campus watchdog group F.I.R.E. (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) offers a challenge -- and advice -- to SIUC on how to free up student speech on campus. Read here for the local news coverage and here for the full document (click Download and Open).

First step: Make free speech, leafleting, and the rest possible across campus. Currently, such speech is confined to a "zone." In the 1990s, colleges enacted speech codes and were swept back by groups like FIRE, ACLU, and the National Association of Scholars. (Disclosure: Together with ACLU Southern Illinois, the moderator, as president of the Illinois Association of Scholars, cosigned the FIRE letter to Chancellor Goldman).

Readers may recall that this was an issue in 2004 when a student protested outside the designated "speech zone," thus resulting in an outcry over free speech. That incident involved an antiwar protest but it could be almost any other kind of peaceful demonstration.

"OMW": Christians on Campus: Bah, Humbug!

[MODERATOR'S NOTE: The following post by "Old Man Winter" (OMW) discusses the lack of religious tolerance on SIUC campus, particularly for those who profess Christianity in its many forms.

OMW asks for greater understanding from an academic establishment that is tone deaf to the meaning of religion. The regulators of religious freedom hide their ignorance behind a doctrinaire wall of church-state separation that violates the religious freedom clause of the First amendment. In social work, education, and law, students and staff are harassed for exercising their religious faith on campus. This is unconstitutional. But once again it has taken a major court victory to order SIU to "do the right thing": Christian Legal Society v. Southern Illinois University (2006). The following links show how FIRE and the Alliance Defense Fund (a religious freedom group) won this important precedent--a case now studied by SIU Law students! Click here, here and here. For a case involving the School of Work, see this Daily Egyptian editorial.

The root of this discrimination is ignorance of the law and the vital role religion plays in the public square. For more, see FIRE's guide to religious liberty: http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/5061.html As always, if you feel your religious liberty is under assault, educate yourself and contact, FIRE, ADF, or the ACLU.]

**********************************
"Old Man Winter" writes:

Anti-"Christian" rhetoric at SIU is little more than unawareness--a polite term--of its historical, theological and cultural complexity. In fact, there is not one "Christianity," but several. As Christians, we share the kergyma or proclamation that we somehow experience "God" in the historical figure of Jesus from Nazareth. After that proclamation, disagreements reign with far more frequency than agreements.

For academics to be unaware--for whatever reason--of these disagreements and the controversies behind them is simply inexcusable. Such unawareness, however, provides a vehicle through which ideological and political agendas that have nothing to do with intellectual discussion or academic freedom can occur. In short, pronouncing that "the Christians" will raise complaints about GLBT issues and that we intellectuals need to anticipate ignorant rantings about "sinful behavior" is simply wrong at best and offensive at worst.

Ignorance is not necessarily harmful in itself. When it is used, however, to label, categorize, shun and even attack colleagues, students and other human beings, such ignorance needs to be renounced as firmly as possible. To those who are so busy defending "rights," perhaps it may be necessary to ask them to become morally consistent. We who are people of Judeo-Christian faith have the right to practice our faith, explore our own issues, meet in peaceable assembly with our fellows and even debate the merits of our own assertions without fear of retribution, castigation, exclusion or stereotype. We as people of faith have something to offer the intellectual dialogue that can take place on a college campus and, in my experience, did until about 30 years ago.

We also have the right to raise questions about the claims of those who express different opinions in the spirit of intellectual give and take without having our inquiries narrowly labeled as "religion and (sexual) morality." For there to be any question of our intellectual part of the "search for truth wherever it may lead" only heightens the problems facing SIUC and, I presume, many campuses across the country.

Surely with the brain power present at a research institution like ours, we can do better. In fact, if we really believe what we say about justice, equality and academic integrity, we must.

FreeSIU News Coverage

http://thesouthern.com/articles/2008/09/29/local/26051585.txt

Ain't No Bias at Diversity U: The DE gets rolled

Dear editors:

Regarding your editorial, "Perspective is Important":

http://media.www.siude.com/media/storage/paper1096/news/2008/09/23/OurWord/Perspective.Is.Important-3445420.shtml

You write that we should not let "past experiences" or "preconceived biases" inform our "perspective." But the Working Group is stacked with EIGHT-- ALL EIGHT -- members who have a vested interest in the old code (see list below).* They managed it, and made a career out of it (in some cases). If they are not biased, then no one is "biased." (There is nothing wrong with "bias"--an informed person ought to be biased one way or the other. Balance is lacking here).

I read the models SIU Legal Counsel said they relied upon:

U of I: see code
Princeton: see code
NYU: see code

ALL three codes state that the legal standard is "severe, persistent, or pervasive." Very clear language.

Like a good reporter, I carefully reread SIU's new draft policy, which you say provides a "solid foundation" for the future. There is no mention of severe, no persistent, and no pervasive. Those three little words would help guide conduct of everyone on campus, including those who investigate. Believe me, no one has a clue as to the standard unless it is stated by the university, investigators are trained according to the standard, and it is hammered into them that anything below "s, p, or p" is NOT a "hostile environment." As it stands, there is no standard to guide conduct and investigations.

Moreover, the definition of terms like "sexually explicit" is extremely broad ("sexually explicit" is an entirely new category to the code). Wal-Mart censors music, is that the model for SIU? What is a "sexually explicit" song? Image? Object?

You say the draft policy is a "good start" but you made no recommendations for any changes. Be realistic: With a month to go, what could "constituency groups" do to improve the policy before the BOT votes on it in November? "Constituency groups" already offered input through one of the high-level committees of two years ago. None of their major recommendations are reflected in the "draft policy." At this point, "what you see is what you get."

My "preconceived" understanding of this area of law and policy led me and the ACLU president to warn that the code was a "ticking time bomb" before it exploded ("Can the Code"). The ACLU president and I see nothing in the new code to prevent further abuses or, even worse, a "chilling effect" on student and staff behavior. We were also right on the religious freedom case (SIU lost and had to pay $100,000 settlement plus legal expenses). We were right about the DOJ case (SIU signed a consent decree). Our "preconceived bias" has produced a good track record. How is SIU Legal's track record these days?

With all due respect, you gave Legal Counsel far more credibility than they deserve. If they say they based their model on x, y, or z, then read x, y, or z and see if it is true. In this case, they blew smoke all over the Daily Egyptian.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Bean
President, Illinois Association of Scholars
Professor of History
Southern Illinois University
Carbondale, IL 62901
jon.bean AT inbox DOT com

*From the Working Group:

"Committee Membership:
Sexual Harassment Information Advisor representatives
Jill Adams, Associate Professor, School of Law; also teaches and researches sexual harassment policy
Dave Dilalla, Associate Dean, College of Liberal Arts
Joan McDermott, Director, Women's Studies
Michelle Hughes Miller, Director, UWPA
Carmen Suarez, Director, Office of Diversity and Equity
Sexual Harassment Scholars
Peggy Stockdale, Professor, Psychology and Faculty Senate President
Cheryl Anderson, Associate Professor, School of Law
Affirmative Action representative
Phyllis Khaaliq, Assistant Equal Opportunity Officer, Affirmative Action Office

The Committee will be facilitated by University Women's Professional Advancement and report its activities to the Associate Chancellor (Diversity).