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.

Feds Gut Due Process in "Sexual Harassment" Cases

The Office of Civil Rights for the Department of Education has retreated from its firm stance in favor of due process and put forth a new standard for enforcing campus sexual harassment codes based on "the preponderance of evidence" (rather than "clear and convincing" evidence). AAUP and FIRE are concerned that this lower bar deprives faculty, staff and students accused of the due process they need and deserve.

Keep in mind that "sexual harassment" codes extend to a wide range of behavior that is not sexual: namely, creating a "hostile environment." The "hostile environment" category embraces speech and makes this an academic freedom concern, according to both AAUP and FIRE.

How low does this bar go? Pretty darn low. Consider a case from North Dakota where a male student (Caleb Warner) was suspended for three years after a female student accused him of rape. The police later found evidence that this woman had made a false accusation (they never happen, right?) and "lodged criminal charges [against her] . . . for filing a false police report."

So the male student was let back on campus, right? No. Based on the "preponderance of evidence" letter just issued by OCR, North Dakota State still refused to re-consider the case. In the administration's opinion, there was no "substantial new information" (bold for emphasis) and "Warner's three-year suspension 'was not a legal process but an educational one.'"

It's a bad turn of events because in 2003 the same Office of Civil Rights was concerned with the "convict first and fast" attitude of harassment officers in areas of speech. In 2003, the Office of Civil Rights issued a statement clarifying that enforcement did not require campuses to abandon the First Amendment. Today's OCR seems to think its lower standard is just fine, thank you. It will apply not only in cases of alleged rape but also "expressive activities" (speech).

This gutting of due process will leave administrations with the power to blur the difference between rape (a crime that must be proved, except on campuses) and innocent speech, however controversial. In either case, due process is there to prevent Star Chambers from walling themselves off from the rest of the world and declaring their authority Supreme on campus. So now places like North Dakota will stonewall and say: we don't deal with legal processes, only educational ones.

AAUP and FIRE have fought so many of these cases that they have lost their shock value.  Indifference breeds the arrogance of power. Fortunately, faculty/staff/students can organize or speak out. In some cases, they can bring in the AAUP and FIREs of the world and "sue the bastards." Perhaps that is the only thing that Power understands. 

For more, read this FIRE FAQ on the new OCR mandates

HT: Adam Kissel

Yes, Virginia . . . You are All Right

It is always nice to report good news. In the long struggle for sanity on college campuses, occasionally schools "do the right thing." In this case, the University of Virginia has eliminated all speech codes and earned a "Green Light" from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). For more on the story, click here

To see where your school stands in FIRE ratings, search here

Sadly, most schools are Red or Yellow. Take action by keeping an eye on your alma mater or local university.

Lawsuit Walking: The Awful, Unlawful, Un-American harassment code

Time has passed since the SIUC administration began to "reform" the university's (unl)awful sexual harassment policies and procedures. Days before a Board of Trustees meeting FIRE lawyer Azhar Majeed, based here in Illinois, contributed a useful guest column in the Daily Egyptian: "SIUC's sexual harassment policies badly need revision."

Those responsible for the current policies and procedures were put in charge of "gathering input" from various constituency groups. The result, if possible, is even worse than what we had before: forget due process and hand all discretionary power over to a single person! God Bless America!

It's sad. SIU has walked into needless lawsuits in the past. From my vantage point, the Board ought to consider whether these "new" procedures leave us a "Lawsuit Walking."

Fear Factory: Sexual Harassment "Reform"

Are you an employer who would like to effectively police your workforce? Instill fear that any misstep (real or imagined) could lead to dismissal, removal from the workplace, or mandatory "sensitivity training"?

Don't waste money on some high-priced consultant. Simply go to the web site of your local university and look up "Sexual Harassment Policies and Procedures" (SHPP).

Voila! For the price of a brief web search you will find a workplace model that empowers you and self-polices the employees. The model features:

1. Vague definitions of harassment that have nothing to do with sex.

2. Self-policing: The university model turns all employees into informants. If they refuse to inform on a violation of the incomprehensible policy, then others can inform on these refuseniks.

3. You will have no shortage of informants: coworkers (or customers/students) can turn in others for frivolous reasons and never have their identity known to the accused.

4. Even better, trained police ("advisers") will coach accusers and write their complaints for them (apparently, those in college cannot write a simple report of events).

5. Finally, have your lawyers repeat (again and again) "this is required by law" (even if it really isn't).

Sound unreal?

Welcome to Sexual Harassment "Reform" at Southern Illinois University Carbondale. In today's Daily Egyptian, the front page story is "Sexual harassment training begins, questions remain."

Questions indeed!

To bring readers up to speed, I am providing a select list of links on the issue (see below). The "sexual" in harassment is really lipstick on a pig: often the charge has to do with speech that makes someone uncomfortable or allegedly creates a "hostile environment." Like the drag show recently held on campus, the dressing covers what is beneath: in this case, "sexual harassment" is a speech code in drag.

As a recap, here is a Hit Parade of SIU-related links on sexual harassment, free speech, and due process:

This link sums up criticisms of the Code being shoved on faculty, staff and students:

Sexual Harassment Procedures: You Have the Right to ... (mumble mumble)

"The Right to Know Your Accuser" (Leonard Gross)

Professor Gross's entry got the most "hits" of any FreeU entry. It shocks people to know that you have NO right to know your accuser.

Lest any one think that there are only a few victims of harassment codes, they may peruse the full list of FreeU posts:

http://freesiu.blogspot.com/search?q=sexual+harassment

The Sexual Harassment Establishment (S.H.E.) would have you believe that this is a tempest in a teapot. "Mistakes were made" with the John Y. Simon case but that was the exception, S.H.E. says.

Fact check: the guilty-until-innocent abuses have such a long history here that two prior blue-ribbon panels urged real reform.

Phil Howze, one of the courageous voices of reason here at SIUC, said in today's newspaper: "never again" should individuals be deprived of due process and of their dignity based on a rigged system.

An objective observer viewing the "massive resistance" to reform would change the university slogan to "See you next time." When next time comes, it won't be pretty.

Salukis deserve better.

PS: The campus unions were to bargain the procedures but they have been silent as a tomb. I'd love to hear their perspective and what they plan to do. As a Faculty Association member, I'm beginning to wonder if my dues money is well spent. Convince me that it is.

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.

It can happen here (because it is happening here!)

Massachusetts was once a cradle of liberty. In researching my book Race and Liberty in America, how uplifting it was to read those freedom fighters who fled to the more hospitable climate of Massachusetts where they could speak their mind on slavery and other civil rights issues.

Flash forward to 2009 and the thought police are busy quashing "quaint" notions of free speech, free press, and freedom of conscience. For the latest assault on campus freedom, read http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/10475.html

This incident, along with so many others, remind me of The Clash lyric:

"You have the right to free
Speech as long as you're not
Dumb enough to actually try it. . . "

"You have the right to remain silent
You are warned that anything you say
Can and will be taken down
And used as evidence against you."

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.

God and Man and U., Part 1

Every crisis provides "teachable moments": lessons forgotten or neglected in more placid times. Americans are now (re)learning the dangers of

"Moral hazard": the notion that people take excessive risk if they know they will be bailed out. Think Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, banks, S&L's (1980s), and the housing industry.

"Too-big-to-fail" principle: hence, the first in line for bailout money are the titans of finance (Citigroup, AIG) or the "Big Three" (not so big any more). Is this moral? Pundits are embroiled in debates over this very question.

This crisis is no different when it comes to economics or academic freedom. That brings us to the concept of

"Crossover sanctions": "force the implementation of federal requirements in one area or the states risk losing money in another, similar area. For instance, states may lose highway grants if they failed to follow certain health or safety requirements imposed by the federal government."

Some well-known crossover sanctions include the federal requirement that all states lower their maximum speed limit to 55 (since repealed) or raise the drinking age to 21. Crossover sanctions grew enormously from the 1970s onward, as Congress discovered the splendid power of "attaching strings" to federal aid. This has worked a quiet revolution in the relationship between the federal and state governments. "He who pays the bills calls the tunes."

So, what does this have to do with higher education? A lot.

The latest stimulus act, with billions for higher education, has come with some "crossover sanctions." One of the issues was whether the money violated the religious freedom of students on campuses. Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC)introduced an amendment "to allow the free exercise of religion at institutions of higher education that receive funding. . . ."

DeMint was responding to the following section of the act (the Demint amendment failed on a 43-54 roll call vote):

(2) PROHIBITED USES OF FUNDS.—No funds awarded under this section may be used for—(A) the maintenance of systems, equipment, or facilities, including maintenance associated with any permissible uses of funds described in paragraph (1); (B) modernization, renovation, or repair of stadiums or other facilities primarily used for athletic contests or exhibitions or other events for which admission is charged to the general public; (C) modernization, renovation, or repair of facilities— (i) used for sectarian instruction, religious worship, or a school or department of divinity; or (ii) in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a religious mission; or (D) construction of new facilities.

The usual suspects roared forth with the usual vitriol: The Right claimed that godless liberals and the ACLU were trying to scrub religion from the public square. The Left shouted back that the conservatives were a bunch of know-nothing theocrats.

The civil liberties group FIRE took a middle-of-the-road stance: Detailing concerns with the vague language, while urging a simple amendment--one that apparently was too "controversial" for passage.

The truth is state universities don't need this current law to restrict religious expression on campus. In fact, they have already found ways to punish, reprimand, and "decertify" Christian, Muslim, and Jewish groups on campus.

That is a story for my next post.

Big Brother and U, Part II: Is Your University Reading Your Email?

In a previous post, I discussed recent high-profile cases involving college surveillance and the use of email or Internet postings against students, faculty or staff. (Update: The Electronic Frontier Foundation effectively won its case defending the student leader who emailed her criticisms of Michigan State's calendar policy to faculty on campus. The university accused her of "spamming." FIRE referred the litigation to EFF, a civil liberties group specializing in electronic law).

In Part II, I offer the following information to shock you into how little privacy you have via e-mail or the Internet. In short, if you use a university email account--even off campus--the university owns that electronic "property" and may archive it for years.

Most universities have network policies that forbid anything even remotely personal via email or the Internet on campus. Of course, everybody breaks this rule because a) they are not trained to understand the limitations on email; and b) most people believe that "emailing home" about getting dinner for the family is much like calling the family on a university phone. We all do it and yet that too violates university policy. A few campuses allow reasonable private use of university email but my university, like most others, does not carve out that space for students or staff. (Correction: The main Carbondale campus does not allow personal use but the Edwardsville campus does allow "personal use").

The following guide by Tina Murch, "E-mail Privacy? Only a 'Virtual Reality'" is the best wake-up call that I have read on the Internet. I highly recommend it to any one who uses university email or equipment. If you use your own laptop, Murch notes, you are still using university wireless and can be busted. Moreover, if you email from a non .edu account to someone with a non .edu account but that recipient receives it on campus, you are still busted! University discretion is enormous. Since most people are unaware of the pitfalls of email and computer use, even when off campus, Murch offers tips on how to survive this Brave New World.

Her tips are not enough. I urge you to contact university officials and request several things:

1. Training and transparency: The rules on most campuses sound good but there is discretion to do just about anything, particularly when information is archived (my university states that privacy is a "basic right" but there are loopholes, including the unstated "gotcha" category of punishing people for private use of email. Also the catch-all "disclosure made for the purpose of resolving internal disputes," etc.)

2. Question authority: ask questions of campus authorities:

*How many monitoring cases have there been in the past five years?

*How long does your university archive email and other Internet usage logs?

*Campus newspapers need to ask whether their email correspondence is subject to surveillance. In one case, a university fired faculty, in part, because of "private" email sent to a student newspaper editor. Accused of trying to "discredit" an administrator, the campus president fired two faculty members!

For more on that case, read here. Apparently, bringing truthful information to the president, following procedure, and then having the local AAUP investigate when the president did nothing about a serious matter = termination of two tenured faculty. This case, and so many others, is why I have lost my capacity to be shocked but not to be outraged.

So, if you think it can't happen on your campus, it has and will if good people do nothing. Even on my own campus, high-profile termination cases left a lot of questions about the use of past email. But the investigation reports are sealed and heavily redacted, or so we are told. Who knows how far back universities go when retrieving email in cases against students or faculty.

Student email has been punished at my university because it "harassed" the recipient, who was so shattered she published it on her web magazine! Although the email was in poor taste, taking out an ad to decry anti-feminist ramblings sounded like overkill to our campus newspaper. One wonders when a college president will take similar action against some wild-eyed feminist bashing Republican women as "fascist sex-traitors." My guess is: never.

3. Statute of Limitations: Since most people are clueless, and have violated strict network policies, almost any one can have their electronic past used against them. Officials need to set a statute of limitations for violations, as they do in other university code violations. Currently, university network policies set "forever" as the default statute of limitation. That makes the IRS sound like a friendly agency by contrast!

4. Reasonable private use: Some universities take the "chill" off students and staff by allowing reasonable private use. The alternative is for people to avoid .edu email altogether--and that is not good for the university! God knows, this professor has to look up the preferred email of students on Facebook because I assume that .edu is not their primary address. This is an unproductive use of my time.

5. Offense is defense: if you are a free thinker--and who doesn't think freely from time to time?--and feel you may become a target, make a habit of archiving all of your email for contextual defense. Campus prosecutors routinely "cherry pick" email to cast the accused in the worst light. Don't let them do it.

If you become involved in controversies (or not), you may wish to retain certain information in case Big Brother tries to terminate you. Keep this information and your email archive in a safe place, preferably in an encrypted online storage site. (My home was burglarized but I had a backup AND certain information I may need in the future is in a place where burglars cannot get it).

Remember the line: "do not go gentle into that good night!" (Dylan Thomas)

Again, just to let you know what universities can do to you, check out the cases in my prior post and this explicit statement by Temple University in its email usage guide: Scroll down to 14.6 to read this:

"14.6 WORKPLACE SURVEILLANCE AND SEARCHES
Temple University may authorize the use of reasonable surveillance and search measures as necessary to ensure an appropriate work environment or compliance with University policies and applicable law. Subject to legal requirements, the University reserves the right to inspect and search all work areas, desks, computers, file cabinets, lockers, lunch boxes, or other containers, and personal vehicles in University parking lots or public streets within campus boundaries or any other area within University control. In addition, all records contained in computers (including voice mail and e-mail) and storage devices (including removable media) are open to inspection by the University in accordance with University policies, subject to applicable legal requirements."

Got your attention?

Part III (forthcoming) will be a guide to protecting your privacy when you are completely free of campus life. Even at home, you may be vulnerable to keylogging and other privacy-invading practices. Yes, even if you use a Mac!

Big Brother and U, Part I: Is Your University Reading your Email?

For many years, I have fought restrictions on academic freedom. As President of the Illinois Association of Scholars, an affiliate of the National Association of Scholars (NAS), I deal with these issues across the state. As a historian I am researching the past record of civil liberties on college campuses.

In a word, I have lost my capacity to be shocked at what some will do to others within the Ivory Tower of higher education.

While the issues remain the same, the techniques used to restrict academic liberty change. It might be a new area of law (sexual harassment codes) or a new technology (should college libraries censor Internet content)?

This column deals with a new reality that shocks people when they find out that their university may be reading their email, watching their screen activity, or even punishing students, staff or faculty for what they write on Facebook.

Most people are shocked when they learn how vulnerable they are to electronic surveillance. Consider this a primer on learning the tactics of surveillance and how to avoid becoming a victim of it.

General advice: Assume that Big Brother is reading or watching everything you write on a campus computer or email account. Using a non-academic email account is wise (see next post) but does not provide 100% protection.

Case Studies:: here are some real examples of the problem:

*Campus email ends up as evidence in a recent lawsuit involving tenure and promotion. The email was up to TEN YEARS OLD. My campus, probably typical, archives all administrator email. The university policy toward non-administrator email is unknown (as IAS president, I will be sending out a questionnaire to all state universities asking this question, among others).

*Facebook censorship:: A student at Valdosta State criticized new student fees for the building of a parking garage on campus. He used his Facebook page to create a satirical collage criticizing the university administration's move to impose fees to build this garage. Result: The administration cited the Facebook page as evidence that the dissident student was a "clear and present danger" and banished him from campus. FIRE brought a lawsuit and immense publicity to bear on the university (including Youtube video, legislative lobbying, and a full-page ad in the U.S. News & World Report college rankings issue). The university finally admitted it was wrong, hired a new president, and apologized to the student.

*Michigan State retaliated against an undergraduate student leader for distributing a questionnaire via email to faculty asking for their responses to a new school calendar. The university had encouraged constituency input but did not like the student's criticism of the proposed calendar. By invoking the obscure campus networking policy, the university punished her for "spamming!" Her "crime" was distributing email to individuals without first asking their permission! If that is a crime, we are all guilty. Together with other groups, FIRE has taken her case. You can't make this stuff up.

*Rumors are flying on one Illinois campus that the general counsel is trying to track down "whistleblowers" who divulged information resulting in lawsuits that the university lost or settled. Institutions hate to be embarrassed and will (or might) take steps to spy on a P.I.T.A. (Pain in the Ass). Whether the rumors are founded or not, an ounce of knowledge is helpful to prevent "The Man" (or "The Woman") from coming down on you for electronic speech.

A cautionary word to college snoops: be careful becausee FIRE is not the only civil liberties group defending people from e-censorship; my friends at the Electronic Frontier Foundation are also diligent.

In cases like this, knowledge is power. Know what to do (or not do), and who to call if you need help against Big Brother.

The second part of this primer on electronic surveillance will educate readers as to how universities may read email and "log" (transmit) all of your keystrokes to their administrative office for review.

(To be continued)

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.

Champions of Freedom: NAS and FIRE meet at D.C. Conference

If there are two organizations responsible for keeping the torch of academic freedom alive, they are the National Association of Scholars and FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education). The leaders of FIRE will be among the speakers at the NAS conference in Washington, DC 9-11 January 2009. Click here for more information.

The NAS membership includes thousands of faculty committed to high standards and free inquiry. (Disclosure: I am president of the Illinois state affiliate and we have many members on the SIU campuses). NAS reports have analyzed General Education requirements (woeful decline) and the current state of various disciplines. The web site contains this information gratis. "Know your rights!"

FIRE is focused on civil liberties of all concerned with higher education, with primary focus on student freedom to speak, demonstrate, and learn from faculty who are not chained by the speech police. They have many projects, including: videos on Youtube, a fast-growing Campus Freedom Network, Traffic Signs rating schools on freedom (see SIU's to the right), and Guides on various topics (available in PDF on their web site).

If you can't be in Washington, D.C., then join either group. Students ought to join the Campus Freedom Network of FIRE (click here). Or volunteer for NAS's Argus Project.

Both groups have email listservs keeping you abreast of the fight against absurdity on campus. As they say down here, the NAS and FIRE folk are "good people."

University loses harassment case: “arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable"

From the University of Georgia:

http://chronicle.com/news/index.php?id=5590&utm_source=pm&utm_medium=en

For the court documents, click here.

Colleges are increasingly being challenged in court when they act in an "arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable" manner. For many years, The Chronicle of Higher Education has highlighted the different ways that falsely accused, purged, and mobbed professors can "sue the bastards"--and win.

Why do university lawyers act as mouthpieces defending "egregious" actions? Do they give run-away administrators sound legal advice or simply defend the indefensible because they feel relatively immune as agents of the State? In the past, "sovereign immunity" shielded the government from lawsuits but those days are long past. Apparently old habits die hard.

Short of a lawsuit, there is adverse media attention (read FIRE's web site) and the mere prospect of being sued for improper attention to the law. As the Georgia case demonstrates, individual administrators may also be named in lawsuits.

This is a wake-up call for administrators and university lawyers. To date, their risk-aversion has erred on the side of Political Correctness: defending Star Chamber practices and adopting policies that they believe will scrub every instance of harassment, however slight or imaginary, from the face of the earth (or at least campus grounds). It is a dystopian project with a real downside if the person to be "executed" fights back.

Perhaps it is time for administrators to recalculate their risk aversion by balancing the rights of the accused with those of the accuser? What an old-fashioned concept.

To paraphrase Bill Clinton:

"it's due process, stupid."

Pro-Life Displays Smashed on Campuses

According to FIRE, dozens of campuses have allowed, encouraged, and refused to apologize when students, staff and professors have smashed or removed perfectly legal pro-life displays. In a recent case, Cornell relented and the police returned pro-life signs. Read

http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/9841.html

Cornell:

http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/9828.html

Missouri State:

http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/9833.html

Yet another example of the barbarians -- Vandals -- within the academic gates.

Little Red Schoolhouse: Teacher Education at SIU; Or, Why Bill Ayers Would Love this Place

"Capitalist hegemony," "white privilege," "teaching for social justice," "critical pedagogy," "liberation," "oppression studies," and classroom "resistance" (students who refuse to buy into all of the above).

What do these buzz words have to do with Bill Ayers? He is part of the movement for "revolutionary" education--and his work, and that of like-minded activists, is assigned in required "School and Society" courses at SIU and other colleges.

I first encountered the unbalanced, far-Left reading some years ago. SIU required education majors to read the Mao and Castro-worshipping Pedagogy of the Oppressed, a "classic manifesto" that has sold nearly one million copies. (For a description of the pedagogy, click here). I was stunned at the time warp: surely, Education Schools are not offering warmed-over sixties radicalism as the only source on "School and Society?" There is nothing wrong with assigning works from a Marxist or "critical pedagogy" perspective but that was all that was offered in a class that future teachers must take. When I searched other schools, I found much the same thing. Apparently, "queering" the curriculum, assaulting capitalism, and denouncing "color-blind racism" is de rigueur.

Flash forward to 2008. The name of Bill Ayers is in the air. Former member of Weather Underground and still committed to revolution--through the education schools. Read his blog: http://billayers.wordpress.com/

The troubling thing about Bill Ayers isn't his connection with Barack Obama (I'll leave that up to readers) but the fact that his approach to education is the only thing taught in many "school and society" courses. Check the reading list at SIU and elsewhere. There may be exceptions but judging from Amazon.com and course assignments, "teaching for social justice" is rampant.

It got so bad that FIRE and NAS had to successfully fight accreditation requirements that future teachers have the right "dispositions" (see here and here). I suspect we haven't heard the last of this indoctrination requirement.

Balance, not bias, is the issue. We are all "biased" which is why the curriculum ought to include opposing viewpoints, particularly in courses required to enter a profession. The notion that the classroom is a play tool for revolutionaries, Left or Right, is pernicious and disrespectful of the individual dignity of students.

Professors with Pitchforks: Faculty "Hot" Over Harassment Code

Professors with pitchforks!

What a difference a month of education and agitation makes when the administration is trying, by all appearances, to rush through a sexual harassment code that is even worse than our old code. Update:

I attended the Faculty Senate meeting, where University Legal Counsel (Phyleccia Cole) presented her office's proposed sexual harassment code. Professor Mary Lamb (English) made a brief, sharp presentation assailing the code. Then the senators started to say how "atrocious" the code was and Lamb asked for a show of hands whether people were as "hot" as the speakers (herself included)--most hands went up (the administrators did not raise their hands. LOL). Lamb posted a questionnaire for professors and everyone else to make their feelings known.

The constituency heads were there and one said his constituency was "very strongly" against the code and they didn't realize how bad it was until now. The senator from the medical school cited the NAS Statement I ran in the Daily Egyptian and used it to criticize the code and propose common-sense guidelines.

Professors were a bit taken aback by the Powerpoint slide indicating that Legal Counsel would hand over documents to the accused IF A COURT ORDERED THEM TO DO SO. Otherwise, everything is secret. Look up "Star Chamber".

The feminist president of the Faculty Senate (Peggy Stockdale) pooh-poohed the "legal" and emphasized the "psychological" -- even a "sexist joke" was on the slippery slope to x, y, z, then sexual assualt. Lordie, bring us back to the 1950s when comic books were a gateway to drugs, deviancy, communism!! Shades of "Reefer Madness!" It starts with Seinfeld jokes and leads to the worst of all sexual crimes.

The president then went on to say that we had to make it "easy and unrisky" for victims to file complaints without having to reveal their identity or even the location of the "crime." The hazier the better.

In the end, President Stockdale had to stew as the senators challenged the assumptions of the code and the abuse of power. Many feared a real "chilling effect." After the show of hands, the Faculty Senate agreed to draft a resolution strongly opposing the code revisions, to be presented at the next meeting.

Professors with pitchforks!

"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.

Police State? "Call off the Goons"

Below you will find Professor Mary Lamb's letter to the editor about another on-campus arrest of Cal Meyers for being . . . on campus.

[BACKGROUND: Cal Meyers was ousted for alleged violations of the sexual harassment code, accusations which Meyers never got to see until after he filed a multimillion dollar lawsuit, according to his attorney Rebecca Whittington. Even then, the charges were undated and he claims he still does not know his accuser. See http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/9590.html

Certainly, SIU isn't a police state but the police are busy with Professor Meyers, per the orders of "someone above." If Meyers is a "clear and present danger" to the campus community, why haven't workaday Salukis seen a poster warning that he poses a risk? Something along the lines of Public Enemy Number One? A report reading "The suspect is 81, bearing loose dentures and must be escorted off campus IMMEDIATELY. Persons with information shall contact 1-800-BUST-DOC."

I've seen Professor Meyers and chatted with him while he ate lunch in the Student Center, should I report him to the police? I can't imagine they enjoy carrying out this duty. But what is my/our duty? Am I an unwitting accomplice to his crime of being on campus? Inquiring minds need to know.

***************************
Daily Egyptian, 9 October 2008: http://tinyurl.com/4jec2z

Call off the goons

Mary Lamb

Dear Editor:

This letter is directed to interim Chancellor Goldman. Last week Cal Meyers (the retired chemistry professor who was banned from campus for alleged sexual harassment charges, much like the recently deceased John Simon) approached the law school to visit a colleague. He never saw him. Two security police escorted Meyers off campus instead. What a sight that must have been! Two burly guards, each taking an arm of this 81-year-old man, whose weight has dropped to 130 pounds, and who is obviously in poor health.

I am sure you would want such unfortunate events to cease. Who would want to assume moral responsibility for the bad effects on the health of an 81-year-old man? Is this the way you, or anyone at SIUC, believes we should treat an old man, who has given many years of his life (and $2.5 million) to SIUC? And, while we are at it, if you continue to ban him from his chemistry lab, funded by his own $2.5 million, at least give him a substantial portion of his money back! As Chancellor, you are ultimately responsible for what happens on campus. So call off the goons!

Mary Lamb
Professor in the English Department