David Kopel writes on the topic at the Volokh Conspiracy. Although not an attorney, and as a result taking a little bit longer to weed through the jargon, there appears to be precedent for disciplining a university professor for speech which may be problematic. And, by Mr. Kopel's analysis at least, it appears that termination may be allowed.
Kopel details many of the particulars in the case against Churchill, including likely false claims of Indian heritage, academic fraud and misrepresentation, threats, vindictiveness against his students, art fraud, and so on. I've discussed many of these issues before also.
Then 199 University of Colorado professors petition the Regents to lay off Churchill. I don't think the Regents are cowed, though.
CU Regent Pete Steinhauer said the ad does not change anything.
"We are not going to stop our investigation," he said. "Tenure does not give a person license that grants him impunity from his actions."
In any event, Mr. Kopel notes the precedent of a Second Circuit Court case, Jeffries, wherein a professor at CCNY was stripped of his chairmanship of the Black Studies Department due to off-campus racist speech. The discussion hinges on whether the same ruling would have been reached had Jeffries been terminated, rather than demoted.
The Second Circuit declined to do so, explaining that there was no need to consider the issue, because Jeffries had not lost his academic freedom; he was still teaching at CCNY. Stone Court argues that Jeffries stands for the proposition that Ward Churchill cannot be fired...
That the Second Circuit declined, on the facts of the case, to consider whether to create an academic exception to Waters v. Churchill does not mean that the Second Circuit (or, more relevantly, the Tenth Circuit) would create such an exception in a case where the issue was properly before the court. There is no such exception currently in the law, although the Second Circuit's statement in Jeffries does at least imply that creating an exception would be worth a court's consideration, in a proper case.
This is interesting for a non-attorney, in that there does not appear to be a legal prohibition on termination of even a tenured professor for such problematic behavior. Jeffries held that CCNY was within it's rights to discipline Jeffries - they chose demotion - simply because of the Regents concerns that his speech could disrupt the operation of CCNY.
As regards "academic freedom", it is beyond my grasp to see how even termination squelches it. Mr Churchill would be free to espouse and preach the same sentiments. It just wouldn't be on the state's dime at the U of C.
Of course, you attorneys out there should feel free to lecture me on my lack of understanding.
UPDATE: On the other hand, some professors get suspended immediately, without review, for "offending" muslim students.
Last fall, DePaul University professor Thomas Klocek was suspended without a hearing for challenging the viewpoints of certain Muslim students on campus at a student activities fair. He is now demanding a public apology from the university president in order to avoid litigation.
Klocek showed up to the news conference bound and gagged, illustrating what he believes the university did to him by censoring his views on the Middle East. Klocek says he was unfairly suspended for his views on the Muslim and Palestinian people.
"The students claimed professor Klocek's arguments were racist and hurt their feelings. They went to the dean of the school and 10 days after the debate the professor was suspended without a hearing," said John Mauck, Klocek's attorney.
DePaul University released a statement Tuesday that said the "case is not one of academic freedom, but rather one of inappropriate behavior outside the classroom by a university professional. His attitude was threatening and disrespectful to students."
hat tip: Michelle Malkin. What did Mr. Klocek do?
DePaul student Ben Myer witnessed Klocek arguing with the group students for justice in Palestine.
"As I was walking over, professor Klocek was explaining to my colleagues that there was no such thing as Palestinians, that they don't exist. He made aggressive gestures toward the students. He approached in a very confrontational way," Myer said.
I guess had Mr. Klocek supported the rights of Palestinian suicide bombers to kill innocent Israeli civilians this would never have happened.
UPDATE: John Bono at Minion of the Great Satan blog goes the extra step, discovering that, lo and behold, Depaul student Ben M[e]yer is not just another passerby, or a disinterested observer. Nice work, there.
Comments