William Robinson, a sociology professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara, may be the latest target of academic free speech in a college or university. The professor’s “harsh criticism of Israel in an e-mail message to students,” provoked the stormy response led by the Anti-Defamation League, according to Peter Schmidt (“Head of Anti-Defamation League Urged Santa Barbara to Act Against Critic of Israel,” Chronicle of Higher Education, April 29, 2009).
The same article details that 100 “faculty members at colleges around the state” urged that the investigation be stopped. Robinson’s e-mail to students, sent on January 19th, compared Nazi atrocities with Israeli action in the recent Gaza incursion. The issue should not be whether Robinson offended students or whether this was politically incorrect, but whether his analogy was historically accurate and appropriate.
Deconstructing Classroom Academic Speech
Even a novice in historical studies will conclude that Nazi atrocities in World War Two do not compare with any contemporary military actions, even the recent Israeli actions in Gaza. Israel has acknowledged mistakes and admitted to killing civilians, but this in no way compares to the Nazi actions of the Second World War.
College and university instructors often believe that by virtue of their academic positions, they are entitled to prognosticate or criticize public policy. This may not always be true; should a biology instructor comment publicly in class or endorse in class a Supreme Court nominee? Certainly a professor of politics or history can do so. Further, students are subjected to a view they may personally reject, forcing them into silence in order to preserve their grades and not be singled out for retribution.
In 2003 English instructor Elizabeth Ito was reprimanded for using her English class to vent against the war in Iraq. Her contract with Forsyth Community College in Winston Salem, NC was not renewed. Although the college cited incompetence, the real issue and question was whether Ito used her podium as a soap box in a class that had nothing to do with the war.
Students want answers from instructors. Professors are viewed as highly educated. Students desire earnest opinions about on-going events in the everyday affairs of the world. How those answers are given should determine the neutrality of debate and discussion. Congresswoman Virginia Foxx (R-5th District, NC) recently referred to the motivation for Matthew Shepard’s murder as a “hoax.” Foxx, a former educator, would have been censured and possibly fired had she used the same phrases in a classroom setting
Instructors Fight Back
Hardy v. Jefferson Community College (2001 FED App. 0267P, 6th Cir.) highlights the struggle of Kenneth Hardy, a communications adjunct instructor, who was reprimanded and not offered any future classes because he used offensive terms (the “n” word, as example) in his class. According to the court opinion, Hardy’s lecture “included a discussion and analysis of words that have historically served the interests of the dominant culture in which they arise.”
As in the case of Robinson and Ito, students in Hardy’s class complained to appropriate deans. In 2005, Alan Temes, an assistant professor of health and physical education at the University of Pennsylvania, was denied tenure because of his views of the Iraqi War, despite good evaluations and reviews.
Limitations on Free Speech
Although “PC” still rules, academic free speech must be tempered. Holding a doctorate degree does not necessarily entitle an instructor to publicize political views in a classroom setting, particularly when the class may have nothing to do with the issue.
At the same time, instructors in a clear position to raise contemporary issues must give both sides of the issue and endeavor to appear neutral. The best compliment any instructor can receive is: “I could never figure out your political or religious leanings. You were always transparent.” Transparency ensures student openness and dispels fears of grade reprisal.
 |
