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!

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."

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.

"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

Model Harassment Code: The Winner is . . .

The civil liberties group FIRE rates colleges from "Green Alert" (good record) to "Red Alert" (bad record). Among the "Red Alert" schools, FIRE shames the "Worst Five" by profiling them in a full-page ad of the U.S. News College Rankings issue. Public shaming led one of these schools (Valdosta State) to change its obnoxious policies censoring speech on Facebook (!). Valdosta was taken off Red Alert in recognition of its new found appreciation of civil liberties.

SIU-Carbondale is a "Red Alert" school. Here is the description of "Red Alert" status:

"FIRE adds a college or university to its Red Alert list when an institution acts with severe and ongoing disregard for the fundamental rights of its students or faculty members. While abuses occur on many campuses, Red Alert campuses have policies and/or practices that pose a particularly dangerous threat to basic freedoms; they are the 'worst of the worst' when it comes to liberty on campus."

But SIU-C can change its ways and avoid becoming a U.S. News poster child for suppression of "fundamental rights." One of the ways is to emulate the policies and practices of "Green Alert" schools. After reading the sexual harassment codes of "Green Alert" schools, I award the "best model for SIU-C" prize to . . .

Bucks County Community College! For its policy on sexual harassment, click this link.

(Honorable Mention: University of Pennsylvania)

Under the "Hostile Environment" category--the area resulting in the worst abuses by colleges--Bucks clearly defines what it is and is not: It is a "pattern" of severe, persistent, or pervasive behavior. It is NOT " every act that might be offensive to an individual or a group." Under both categories of sexual harassment, the code offers clear examples.

By contrast, SIU-C's current and proposed code is

*Expansive to the point of absurdity. Moreover, there is no discussion of what behavior is NOT sexual harassment.

*SIU's code does not include the "severe, persistent, or pervasive" legal standard. That standard must be hammered into the code and follow-up training.

*SIU's proposed code bans consensual relationships--a great way to deter potential hires who happen to be single. Where do people meet others for dating and mating? The workplace, of course. I suppose we will be treated next to a pre-dating contract requirement of what a person may or may not do on dates that fall in a gray zone?

*SIU's proposed changes add "sexually-explicit music" and computer images to the code. (Legal Counsel apparently copied this language from the SIUE code). Grab your Nanny Filter, men and women, and make sure you don't join a Facebook or Myspace group that is "sexually-explicit!" If uncertain, check with the bluenoses over at the proposed Office for Compliance.

The Sexual Harassment Working Group, SIU Legal Counsel, and constituency groups ought to "buck up" and read the model code discussed above.