State of Academic Freedom, 2001-2002: A Report

By John K. Wilson, www.collegefreedom.org

The attacks of September 11 shocked America, and the world. College campuses reacted to terrorist acts with rallies, vigils, discussions, and a wide range of debates about the causes and cures for terrorism. And sometimes the reactions of individuals included threats and hatred toward Arabs and Muslims, as well as censorship of those who opposed war. At other times, censorship on college campuses was aimed at enthusiastic supporters of war.

Yet the story told about academia in the media was often quite different. Conservatives claimed that the reaction to Sept. 11 in academia was yet another tale of “political correctness” run amuck. Jonathan Yardley wrote in the Washington Post, “While most of the nation has been roused to a revival of patriotism and stiffened resolve by the terrorist attacks and their aftermath, the thought police have launched a new onslaught on free speech and revived the anti-Americanism that was pandemic on the campuses in the age of political correctness. Now as in the not-so-distant past, speech on campus is free mainly for those with whom the thought police agree.”(Nov. 12, 2001) Yardley noted the “violations of free-speech rights that have been committed on the campuses since Sept. 11, mostly against faculty and students who have had the effrontery to speak out against terrorism and in favor of the military action in Afghanistan.”(Nov. 26, 2001)

From a purely factual perspective, Yardley is clearly wrong. All of the reported incidents of censorship indicate violations of free speech rights have happened to people holding a wide variety of views, but more often those who opposed war. Given the fact that conservatives on college campuses have a much more extensive network for reporting incidents of censorship (including organizations such as FIRE, Young Americans for Freedom, Accuracy in Academia, Intercollegiate Studies Institute, the National Association of Scholars, and others), it is likely that these reports represent (or even overrepresent) the cases of pro-war or conservative speech being repressed. Considering that most Americans, including those on college campuses, have expressed support for the war in Afghanistan, the fact that they were less often censored also indicates a much stronger regime of censorship against anti-war views in academia.

Liberal academics have been blamed for destroying free speech on college campuses. "Universities have thrown away free speech for the last 15 years, and now one stares into the abyss of what they've created," declared Alan Charles Kors, a history professor at the University of Pennsylvania and a co-founder of FIRE . "We've been in this mad cycle where university administrators have felt obliged to selectively criticize or denounce the viewpoints of others. It's not unreasonable now for students to turn to these authorities for the repression of views."(Chronicle of Higher Education, 10/5/01) Stanley Kurtz wrote in the Oct. 26, 2001, Chronicle of Higher Education, “In large measure, responsibility for the tattered condition of our campus culture of free speech must be assigned to the very professoriate that now seeks the shelter of that tradition's tolerance.” Kurtz contended, “The calls for campus free speech continue to ignore the fact that our intellectually and politically one-sided campus climate has contributed to the problem.”

In fact, academic censorship during wartime is a long-standing American tradition. While a greater respect for academic freedom might help avoid overreactions that led to censorship, the degree of repression on campuses today should not be exaggerated. But San Francisco Chronicle columnist Debra Saunders declared, “Kors noted that for every professor in trouble for criticizing U.S. policy from the left, there were five or 10 students in hot water for supporting the war on terrorism.”(8/13/02) There is no factual basis for this claim that supporters of war faced more suppression on college campuses. To the contrary, despite the fact that surveys showed an overwhelming majority of students supported the war on terrorism, more threats to academic freedom were reported by the opponents of the war on terrorism.

Michael Barone of U.S. News and World Report claimed, “When I talk of suppression of speech on campus, most people of my acquaintance, of whatever political persuasion, say this simply can't be true, or it can't be this bad. The response to September 11 shows that it is true and it is this bad.” Harry Silverglate of FIRE claimed, "it seems now the place where you see the most obvious censorship is on college campuses--the precise place where you would expect to see the least." Far from being the center of repression, college campuses were often the only places in America where the US response to terrorism was analyzed and debated. While some academics were quoted as saying some silly things, they were minor in comparison to the bad history, poor logic, and occasional xenophobia of the pundits in America. Indeed, conservatives attacked academia because at a time of flag-waving and national unity, colleges were often the one place in America society where a debate about public policy occurred and dissent from the Bush Administration’s foreign policy was permitted. Examples of censorship on college campuses were noteworthy only because higher education is one of the few places where such dissent is typically allowed at all.

Many conservative campus groups denounced academic freedom after Sept. 11. Young Americans for Freedom declared, “Professors are leading radical left-wing students in a campaign to attack America's sacred institutions of capitalism and civic duty, and student columnists are serving as daily catalysts for anti-American sentiment.”(10/3/01) Winfield Myers of the right-wing Intercollegiate Studies Institute declared, "Uttering irresponsible phrases may not raise an eyebrow in the perpetually adolescent land inhabited by too many academics, but in the world where most people live, such language is unwise at best, traitorous at worst."(Andrea Billups, “Campus hawks and doves find speech is not so free,” Washington Times, 10/1/01) In one infamous case, the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) presented a list of statements made by scholars deemed unpatriotic. While not censorship in itself, the list raised alarms because ACTA made no attempt to refute any of these statements (suggesting that they ought to be beyond the scope of any debate) and because ACTA helps to influence and train trustees who might attempt to censor these academics or others. "No one should have the license to hunt unpatriotic speech," said George Borts, an economics professor at Brown University whose positive comment about the CIA was misinterpreted by ACTA and later excised from the report. Perhaps not coincidentally, the trustees at the University of South Florida who sought to fire tenured professor Sami Al-Arian had undergone training by ACTA just a few months earlier.

The threat to academic freedom should not be exaggerated. Compared to earlier “wartime” situations, academic freedom is far more protected today than at any time in the past. However, the danger posed to academic freedom cannot be ignored. Efforts to silence faculty and students, even when they fail, can make others around the country more reluctant to speak openly. After Sept. 11, academic freedom in America encountered some of the most serious threats in a generation. It is only by denouncing these efforts at censorship, and vigorously defending the right of freedom on college campuses, that we can continue to protect academic freedom.

Ten Threats to Academic Freedom in America, 2001-2002

1. The Firing of Sami Al-Arian

2. Censorship of Anti-War Views

3. Censorship of Pro-War Views

4. Political Interference in Academia

5. Censorship of College Student Newspapers

6. Campus Disciplinary Systems

7. Anti-Union Intimidation

8. Anti-Gay Bias

9. Disinvited Speakers

10. Unfree Speech Zones

1. The Firing of Sami Al-Arian

Academic freedom in America suffered a serious blow after Sept. 11. Death threats, denunciations of faculty by trustees and politicians, and suspensions by administrators all restricted the ability of faculty and students across the country to speak freely.

There is perhaps no better example of how academic freedom was restricted than Sami Al-Arian, a computer science professor at the University of South Florida (USF), who was summarily fired on Dec. 19, 2001. Al-Arian’s dismissal marks one of the most grotesque violations of academic freedom in recent memory; Mary Burgan, general secretary of the American Association of University Professors could not recall a similar case in the past decade. Indeed, this is probably the first time that a tenured professor has ever been fired for receiving a death threat.

Worst of all, USF administrators and trustees claimed that they were defending academic freedom while they tossed out Al-Arian. In a university, the only thing worse than an opponent of academic freedom is a hypocritical and dishonest enemy of academic freedom. If the claims of USF administrators are not firmly refuted, the concept of academic freedom may be severely weakened.

Al-Arian’s trouble began on Sept. 26, 2001, when he appeared the Fox News Channel show, “The O’Reilly Factor” to discuss the Muslim community’s response to the Sept. 11 attacks. During the show, Bill O’Reilly criticized Al-Arian’s alleged past links to Palestinian terrorists.

The next day, Al-Arian received dozens of threats and hate messages that would be used by USF as the primary excuse to fire him. Yet at the time that Genshaft announced plans to fire Al-Arian, the university had not received a threat of any kind for seven weeks. Out of all the threats reported by USF, only three actually mentioned bodily harm to Al-Arian (no one else was ever threatened), and the Hillsborough County state attorney's office did not find that any of the messages amounted to a death threat that could be prosecuted. The most serious threat came the day after the O’Reilly interview, when someone called for Al-Arian and declared, "I'm going to come and kill him." USF evacuated the engineering building, although the caller called 25 minutes later to apologize and say, "I just called a minute ago, and I was very upset. I was out of line and said some things that I shouldn't have said." Death threats are a serious matter, but numerous faculty around the country have received death threats (or have been attacked), and not one has ever been fired for it before.

USF officials claimed that merely receiving the death threats because of a public comment justified Al-Arian’s dismissal. According to President Genshaft, "He violated the collective-bargaining agreement: His outside activities adversely affected the university.” Genshaft told the media that Al-Arian’s activities have adversely affected USF, citing "whatever he has been doing outside for a long time. For speaking activities." Genshaft pointed to his appearances on talk shows and a recent speech to Amnesty International. This explicit admission that Al-Arian is being fired for his speaking activities on matters of public concern virtually assures USF of losing any lawsuit that will be brought on the matter.

The Collective Bargaining agreement cited by USF as grounds for Al-Arian’s dismissal declares that “Academic freedom is accompanied by the corresponding responsibility” to “indicate when appropriate that one is not an institutional representative unless specifically authorized as such” and “contribute to the orderly and effective functioning of the employee's academic unit (program, department, school, and/or college) and/or the university.”

A clause demanding “responsibility” cannot give a university the power to fire professors, particularly on such vague and arbitrary grounds as “orderly and effective functioning” of the university. By this standard, a tenured professor with a messy office who misplaces a form could be fired for making the university less orderly and effective. Academic freedom under the USF contract creates a moral, but not a legal, duty upon professors to act responsibly.

If the contract could be interpreted to compel an enforceable responsibility, then it would be in violation of the First Amendment when applied to a professor’s speeches on matters of public concern, which the Supreme Court has ruled is clearly protected for all public employees, and particularly university professors.

Second, USF officials accused Al-Arian of failing to renounce the idea that he might be speaking for the university. USF’s claim that Al-Arian can be fired for failing to declare that his views do not represent the university must also be rejected. Compelling speech is as much a violation of the First Amendment as censoring it. Forcing all professors to risk dismissal unless they disassociate themselves from their own university in every speech, public comment, academic conference, or published writing is irrational, unconstitutional, and impossible to obey.

Suppose that a journalist rightly refuses to include such an inane statement in a news story identifying the professor’s affiliation. Is a professor to be subject to firing for this offense, even if, as happened to Al-Arian at Fox News Channel, he requested not be identified as a USF professor? Accurately describing one’s institutional affiliation has never been and will never be regarded as an endorsement of a professor’s views by the entire university.

Third, USF officials accused Al-Arian of violating their order for him not to come to campus. USF provost David Stamps claims he told Al-Arian to stay away from campus when putting him on paid leave. Al-Arian claims he was only told not to attend his classes, so he came to an Oct. 5 meeting of the Muslim Students Association which he advises. (It is particularly strange that Al-Arian was summoned to campus in order to pick up the letter accusing him of violating the order not to come to campus.) It is highly questionable whether any public college has the right to order a professor who has done nothing wrong to never set foot on campus. At most, a college worried about safety could, in an emergency, require Al-Arian to inform them of any visits in advance to allow for proper security. Even if a total ban was legal, a written order would be required, and the violation of such a ban cannot justify firing a tenured professor.

Clearly, Al-Arian did nothing to justify dismissal by USF. Appearing on a talk show, being identified as a USF professor, receiving threats, and attending a meeting on campus are all utterly ludicrous grounds for the punishment of anyone, and the firing of a tenured professor on this basis cannot be sustained.

Is Al-Arian a Terrorist?

USF officials have repeatedly claimed that the allegations of terrorism had nothing to do with Al-Arian’s firing. If anything, this denial increased the threat to academic freedom, since it meant that anyone who received a death threat could, according to USF’s criteria, be fired. However, it is clear that allegations of terrorism against Al-Arian was the secret reason for his dismissal. Board of Trustees Chairman Richard Beard declared, “the real reason is he's a terrorist.” President Genshaft hinted that Al-Arian should have been fired years ago because "he has been known to have ties to terrorists. It's been willful, organized, repeated."

Even though USF officially has refused to say that Al-Arian is being fired for his links to terrorism, this is clearly the underlying reason. Can the accusation of terrorism, if proven true, justify any action against Al-Arian?

It should be clear that Al-Arian is not himself a terrorist. No one has ever accused him of carrying out or masterminding terrorist attacks. Instead, Al-Arian is being accused of supporting terrorism with his words, his activities, and his fundraising. The case for firing Al-Arian because “he is a terrorist” relies on three arguments. First, it is claimed that Al-Arian’s speeches more than a decade ago against Israel justify his firing. Second, it is claimed that the organizations Al-Arian helped to found were linked to terrorism. Third, it is claimed that Al-Arian raised money for terrorist organizations. None of these arguments are convincing: Al-Arian did nothing illegal, and certainly nothing to justify his firing.

First of all, Al-Arian is condemned for what he said more than a decade ago about Israel at conferences among pro-Palestinian groups. In 1991, Al-Arian declared in a speech, “God warns us in the Koran from the sons of Israel, and cursed them in the holy Koran. In 1991, Al-Arian also said, "Let us damn America, let us damn Israel, let us damn them and their allies until death.” But the right to condemn a government is a part of free speech. Even the phrase, “Death to Israel,” used in a 1988 speech, is legitimate: urging the death of a government does not necessarily entail violence toward any human beings. All of these views may be despicable. But they cannot justify the dismissal of a tenured professor.

The firing of Al-Arian for the thought crime of “supporting terrorism” is untenable for several reasons. First of all, Al-Arian has repeatedly condemned terrorism. Al-Arian has said, “What happened on Sept. 11 is a criminal act against humanity and I have supported the efforts to bring these criminals to justice.” Al-Arian has also denounced the suicide bombings against innocent civilians in Israel, which he says “is inexcusable and is wrong and should never be allowed."

Vincent M. Cannistraro, who was Director of Intelligence Programs in the Reagan Administration and the CIA's Chief of Counterterrorism Operations, wrote to Genshaft: “There is no connection between anything al-Arian is or was connected to that has any bearing whatsoever on the events of 9/11….Your action is both a blow to academic freedom and, dare I say it, a cowardly act that reflects poorly on both the University and your own lack of convictions.”

Even if Al-Arian had supported terrorism, that would be well within his rights to free speech. Tenured professors cannot be fired for their foreign policy opinions; the Supreme Court has ruled that teachers cannot be dismissed for expressing ideas on matters of public concern, no matter how unpopular those views might be.

(The existence of this videotape used to discredit Al-Arian also raises a troubling picture of the FBI involvement in this case. The FBI raided Al-Arian’s home and WISE and seized 500 videotapes of his conferences and meetings. Although no crimes were committed, the FBI shut down a university-based think tank and seized its assets as a terrorist organization. Unable to get any indictments against Al-Arian or others, federal officials imprisoned Al-Arian’s friend and brother-in-law for immigration violations for more than three years without any charges, based on secret evidence. Then the FBI created a 13-minute compilation tape of Al-Arian’s most offensive statements and leaked it to the media in an attempt to embarrass Al-Arian and have him fired. Then, at the urging of a USF trustee, the FBI extended the investigation of Al-Arian in order to help provide support for his firing. In 2000, the FBI sent seven investigators to Israel to examine the questionable secret evidence of Israeli intelligence officials. These actions bear a disturbing resemblance to the FBI’s COINTELPRO activities during the 1960s and 1970s, when the FBI used disinformation to have students expelled and teachers fired, such as University of California chancellor Clark Kerr.)

Guilt by Association with Terrorism

Second, advocates for firing Al-Arian claim that his association with terrorism justifies dismissal. In 1990, Al-Arian founded the World and Islam Studies Enterprises (WISE), a think tank based at USF until it was raided in 1995 by the FBI for terrorist links and had its assets frozen. One WISE conference included Sheik Omar Abdul-Rahman, the blind sheik who was later convicted for the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993. Abdul-Rahman came to an Islamic Committee for Palestine (ICP) conference uninvited. Although Al-Arian disagreed with Abdul-Rahman, he felt obligated to allow him to speak at an open conference. This is no different from a professor holding a conference on abortion at which a radical attends, expresses his view that abortion is murder, and then later bombs an abortion clinic. The organizers of a conference cannot be held responsible for later terrorist acts made by attendees, particularly those who were never invited to appear.

A former head of WISE, Ramadan Abdulah Shallah, left in 1995 to take charge of the Palestinian terrorist group Islamic Jihad. was “very innocuous and scholarly” according to Arthur Lowry, the former political adviser to U.S. Central Command who co-founded USF’s Committee for Middle Eastern Studies. Al-Arian and others report being shocked when Shallah left USF and became the head of Islamic Jihad. A professor cannot be fired simply because a future terrorist once ran an organization he started.

WISE once held an event with Hassan Turabi, a Sudanese scholar sometimes linked to terrorism, although at the time the event was considered a major success by USF. Al-Arian was also linked to Tariq Hamdi, who once worked as ICP’s office manager, and went on to be a journalist who worked with ABC News to arrange an interview with Osama Bin-Laden. However, if Hamdi is deemed a terrorist for his journalistic work, then everyone at ABC News is guilty of supporting terrorism by being linked to him.

Al-Arian has never been detained or charged with a crime. Instead, he is only accused of guilt by association. He has denounced terrorism, including the Sept. 11 attacks, and expressed shock at the terrorist links of those he was once associated with. An independent investigation by former USF president William Reese Smith Jr. concluded that WISE was a scholarly organization and a benefit to the university.

Al-Arian’s brother-in-law, Mazen Al-Najjar, was jailed for three years on secret evidence as a threat to national security before being released a year ago for lack of evidence (but he was imprisoned again after Sept. 11, despite no plausible links with terrorist activities, and then deported in August, 2002). An immigration judge who reviewed Al-Najjar’s case found that WISE was a legitimate scholarly operation, not a terrorist front group.

Fundraising for Terrorism

Finally, Al-Arian is accused of raising money for terrorist groups. Al-Arian’s group, Islamic Committee for Palestine, helped raise $20,000-$30,000 a year for Palestinian charities. Israeli officials claim to have evidence that $8,000 of the money Al-Arian and some of his associates sent in 1993 to the Middle East ended up transferred to the families of four terrorists. Even if this is true, there is no evidence Al-Arian knew about it, or that a small grant of money to the families of terrorists amounts to funding terrorism.

Israel intelligence officials have also reportedly claimed that Al-Arian helped to create a consulting board to Islamic Jihad, and gave them computer equipment in 1994, although no evidence has been presented for these charges, nor do they justify any firing.

Al-Arian says that he did not aid the terrorist group Hamas personally, although he encouraged others to do so. Al-Arian wrote to a friend on Feb. 1, 1995, after a terrorist attack killed 19 Israeli soldiers, "The link with the brothers in Hamas is very good and making steady progress…. I call upon you to try to extend true support to the jihad effort so that operations such as these can continue." However, Al-Arian has always defended the right of Palestinians to attack Israeli soldiers.

All of Al-Arian’s fundraising was legal, since it was done before a 1996 law banned donations to groups deemed terrorists by the U.S. State Department.

There is no evidence that any money raised by Al-Arian went to support terrorism. Even if a small amount of money without his knowledge was used to aid families of suicide bombers, this is not tantamount to supporting terrorism. Even financial support for terrorism, if proven, cannot be cause for firing a tenured professor. One problem is defining what terrorism is. One person’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter. Both sides in the war in Nicaragua accused the other of killing innocent people. Should a professor who gave humanitarian aid to the either side be fired? Consider also the case of Henry Kissinger. As Christopher Hitchens notes in The Trial of Henry Kissinger, Kissinger supported regimes that murdered innocents and even helped overthrow democracies to install terrorist states. Yet a university could not fire Kissinger for his actions as Secretary of State.

The Peril to Academic Freedom

This is not the first time the University of South Florida has violated Al-Arian’s academic freedom. He was put on paid leave by USF administrators from 1996 to 1998 while under investigation by the FBI (who found no criminal behavior). Putting a professor on paid leave for years due to unfounded suspicion of a crime is a serious threat to academic freedom, but it is mild in comparison to firing a professor without any accusation of misbehavior.

The process used to fire Al-Arian was itself deeply flawed. In an Oct. 14 editorial she wrote for the Tampa Tribune, USF president Judy Genshaft practically announced that she was searching for an excuse to fire Al-Arian: “I understand the anger. But the fact is there are no currently known grounds for firing Al-Arian.” The grounds for dismissal were quickly discovered as USF found that donors were withholding money because of the publicity surrounding Al-Arian.

Trustee Steve Burton asked school officials in October to hire an outside attorney to find legal grounds to fire Al-Arian. Trustee chair Richard Beard III, a real estate adviser, spoke to the FBI about Al-Arian. On November 1, local attorney Thomas Gonzalez was hired at the request of the trustees to determine if USF could fire Al-Arian. On December 18, Gonzalez noted that USF had suffered a decline in fundraising because of the controversy and issued his legal opinion claiming “strong and compelling grounds for taking disciplinary action against Dr. Al-Arian, up to and including dismissal from his employment.”

The trustees were so anxious to fire Al-Arian that they called an emergency meeting on Dec. 19 where they passed a resolution recommending termination. Only one trustee opposed the measure: Howard University president J. Patrick Swygert, the only academic on the board, who wanted to punish Al-Arian by suspending him without pay. Genshaft, who had consulted with Gov. Jeb Bush and trustees, but not faculty and academic freedom experts, issued a "letter of intent to terminate" Al-Arian that same day.

If Genshaft had honestly declared that Al-Arian was fired because of the public outrage over his beliefs, she could at least be praised for forthrightness. Instead, Genshaft sought to narrow the idea of academic freedom and declared: “Interestingly, because academic freedom is so revered and because we have such widespread general agreement about it, academic freedom is a term that is often used without regard to its long-established, specific definitions. Academic freedom protects the pursuit of ideas in a faculty member's field of academic expertise.”

Academic freedom has never been limited to speech in the area of academic expertise. It also protects faculty from arbitrary punishment for their views on matters of public concern. The AAUP Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure declares that faculty do not abandon their rights as citizens to speak publicly.

President Genshaft claimed, “If we are to protect academic freedom, if we are to protect freedom of expression, if we are to maintain a learning environment in which expression and examination of ideas can flourish, our students, faculty and staff must know they can come to our campuses and work, study and talk in safety.… if people fear harm on campus, they will either stay away or be so distracted by anxiety that they cannot give proper attention to their academic tasks.” Here is the ultimate Orwellian logic: we must destroy academic freedom in order to save academic freedom.

It is true that fear can infringe upon academic freedom. That is why we outlaw death threats rather than protecting them as free speech. However, USF students and faculty now have much more to fear than ever before. Now they know that if they don’t like the views of a professor, an anonymous death threat will be sufficient grounds to fire that professor. Faculty and students who receive a death threat now will be reluctant to report it, lest they find themselves protectively banished from campus. Faculty who have ever dared to speak on a matter of public concern beyond their narrow academic field without denying their link to USF must be afraid that they, too, will be fired if the administration doesn’t like them.

While death threats are a serious matter, a university—and a country--cannot live in fear. More importantly, a university cannot cave in to terrorist threats and start dismissing professors due to that fear. If Genshaft received a death threat for firing Al-Arian, would she ban herself permanently from campus to protect the safety of students?

Gonzalez wrote in his legal opinion, “Dr. Al-Arian has caused a substantial disruption to the University's operations.” Of course, Al-Arian did not cause the disruption. Appearing on a TV show is not in any way a disruption of University operations. Sami Al-Arian lost his job because he dared to speak out and a dozen people sought to silence him with death threats.

The American Association of University Professors and the American Federation of Teachers both condemned the firing. Elizabeth Bird, a professor of anthropology, resigned as an adviser to the USF provost to protest Al-Arian’s firing. USF’s chapter of the United Faculty of Florida declared, “the actions and activities of Professor Sami al-Arian did not constitute misconduct, conflict of interest, or a breach of academic responsibility pursuant to the terms of the collective bargaining agreement.” The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education noted, “If USF's justification for firing Dr. Al-Arian is deemed legitimate, both free speech and academic freedom on college campuses will be devastated.”

Even Bill O’Reilly, who urged that the CIA should follow Al-Arian 24 hours a day (apparently unaware that the CIA is banned from spying in America), condemned the firing: "You don't sack a tenured professor for saying stuff you don't like. This president of the University of South Florida should resign. She's a coward."

The assertion that Al-Arian disrupted USF by speaking out publicly for Palestinians cannot be justified. This may be one of the flimsiest excuses for firing a professor in the long and ugly history of academic freedom in America.

Everyone concerned about academic freedom should express outrage at what happened at USF. They should assist USF professors in finding employment at universities where academic freedom is protected. If invited to speak at USF, they should express their dismay at the administration’s misconduct. And, since USF is clearly moved by money more than principle, they should urge a boycott of USF by all donors who support the idea of academic freedom.

If trustees and the presidents they hire are incapable of protecting academic freedom, then it is time for faculty and students to demand greater representation on Boards of Trustees. When political connections and money are the primary qualifications for becoming a trustee, we should not be surprised to find universities run by people who do not understand what a university is or why academic freedom is essential.

Academic freedom is not merely a good idea to be followed when it is convenient and comfortable. Academic freedom must be the foundation of an institution’s values in order for it to be a university. Sadly, the University of South Florida has abandoned the idea of academic freedom for the sake of political expediency.

(New York Times, 3/1/02, 7/23/02, 8/20/02; O’Reilly Factor, 3/4/02, 3/11/02, 3/21/02, 7/1/02, 7/3/02; St. Petersburg Times, 2/22/02, 2/23/02, 3/10/02, 3/21/02, 3/22/02, 3/27/92, 3/28/02, 5/7/02, 6/1/02, 6/9/02, 7/28/02, 8/12/02; Tampa Tribune, 2/22/02, 3/3/02, 3/15/02, 3/21/02, 4/25/02, 5/7/02, 6/23/02, 6/25/02, 6/30/02, 7/28/02, 8/20/02; USF Oracle, 4/2/02, 4/9/02, 6/13/02, 6/24/02, 7/8/02; Washington Post, 3/15/02, 6/25/02, 7/28/02; Weekly Planet, 3/28/02, 6/27/02; www.academicfreespeech.com)

2. Censorship of Anti-War Views

2(a) University of New Mexico: History professor Richard Berthold told two of his classes on September 11 what he thought to be a joke, "Anyone who would blow up the Pentagon would have my vote.” Berthold has received death threats, keeping him off campus; on Sept. 27, an unidentified person left a message on the provost's voicemail saying if Berthold was not "ousted" within 24 hours, Berthold would be ousted by other sources. State politicians demanded his firing and accuse him of committing treason.

An alum sued the university, claiming this violated a state law that forbids government employees from teaching or advocating "sabotage, force and violence, sedition, or treason." Berthold declared, "I was a jerk," but noted that the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of free speech "protects my right to be a jerk."

In a letter outlining its investigation, the university called Berthold's comment not a question of free speech but an ethical violation. The school said the professor failed to adhere to his role as an "intellectual" guide.

Berthold was threatened in front of his home by a biker who came at him screaming obscenities, and received several angry e-mails and letters with messages such as “I'd like to blow you up.” He agreed to stay away from campus for a week for safety reasons while campus police investigated the threats.

New Mexico state rep. William Fuller declared, "Treason is giving aide or comfort to the enemy. Any terrorist who heard Berthold's comment was comforted." According to Fuller, “If you read the Constitution, you'll see that the freedom of speech, what it says is that you cannot be imprisoned for what you say. And it doesn't say a thing about you can't be fired. We encourage you continue to fight for this professor's termination.”

"Academic freedom requires a free exchange of ideas - no matter how controversial," said ACTA vice president Anne Neal, opposing UNM’s investigation. The conservative National Association of Scholars—which Berthold once actively participated in—wrote to the president, “We strongly urge you to protect Professor Berthold's freedom of speech from any and all efforts to impose official censure of any kind on him.”

University President William Gordon said, "The university will deal with a remark made by one of its professors on the day of the tragic events of Sept. 11 . . . through its internal disciplinary procedures.” "We are, of course, mindful of the First Amendment protection of freedom of speech . . . and the faculty's guidelines for professional conduct in the classroom." Gordon had promised to "vigorously pursue" disciplinary action against the professor.

Berthold will be barred from teaching freshmen for a year. A letter of reprimand also will be placed in Berthold's personnel file, and he will undergo an in-depth post-tenure review following the comment he made after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, said Brian L. Foster, university provost, who had earlier noted that "There are a lot of things you can't say with impunity, even on a college campus.” Berthold also will follow a specific plan for complying with the standards of professional behavior for the classroom that are described in the faculty handbook.

Berthold called the reprimand "an entirely appropriate response to the stupidity and callousness of those remarks." Gordon declared, "Our decision to take action in this case was based on our conclusion that Professor Berthold had, indeed, failed to carry out his responsibility to his students, when he made gratuitous remarks that were needlessly offensive and potentially hurtful in the classroom.”

(Daily Lobo, 10/3/01; Washington Post, 10/30/01)

2(b) City University of New York: faculty who participated in an Oct. 2 forum criticizing U.S. foreign policy for the attacks were denounced by CUNY Chancellor Matthew Goldstein for making "lame excuses" for the terrorists, and condemned as seditious by the CUNY Board of Trustees.

Math lecturer Walter Daum called the Sept. 11 killers "mass murderers," but added: "The ultimate responsibility for the attacks lies with the rulers of this country, the capitalist ruling class of this country." In response, CUNY trustee Jeffrey Wiesenfeld said: "These people should be ashamed of themselves. While recognizing their right to be stupid, their opinions render ill repute to the university. They're fortunate it's not up to me. I would consider that behavior seditious at this time."

A university trustee drafted a resolution condemning the professors’ remarks, although the final version did not name them. Chancellor Matthew Goldstein condemned the professors’ comments, but noted that they had free-speech rights.

John Nidiry argued, “Naturally, trustees too have free speech rights. But they ought to be aware of the chilling effects and the perils such condemnation can have on students and particularly untenured faculty members, who want to contribute to the public weal.”

(Newsday, 10/19/01)

2(c) University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: When four leftist faculty at the University of North Carolina criticized US foreign policy at a teach-in, Scott Rubush, associate editor of David Horowitz's FrontPage magazine, told National Public Radio, "They're using state resources to the practical effect of aiding and abetting the Taliban"--and should be fired. FrontPage urged, "Tell the good folks at UNC-Chapel Hill what you think of their decision to allow anti-American rallies on their state-supported campus." The administration received hundreds of angry emails, and was denounced on the floor of the North Carolina legislature. Several antiwar faculty members received death threats, including anthropologist Catherine Lutz.

(The Nation, 12/3/01)

2(d) University of California at Los Angeles: Library assistant Jonnie Hargis was suspended without pay for one week after sending a mass email response criticizing American policies in Iraq and Israel. On September 12 one of Hargis' colleagues sent around an email titled "America: The Good Neighbor." Hargis replied: "This is all well and good but avoids the fact that U.S. taxpayers fund and arm an apartheid state called Israel, which is responsible for untold thousands upon thousands of deaths of Muslim Palestinian children and civilians. So, who are the 'terrorists' anyway?" Hargis was charged with "contribut[ing] to a hostile and threatening environment" for his colleagues who have "ethnic, religious, and family ties to Israel." The staff was also told library policy forbids using its email to send unsolicited political or patriotic messages. Hargis’ union, the Coalition of University Employees, successfully pursued a grievance when senior administrators learned of the suspension. Hargis will be repaid for his lost income, the incident will be stricken from his job record and the university has been forced to clarify its e-mail policies. "An error was made," says Joseph Mandel, vice chancellor for legal affairs.

(Nation, 12/3/01; USA Today, 12/7/01; Daily Bruin, 10/4/01; American Libraries, 10/15/01)

2(e) University of Texas at Austin: Journalism professor Robert Jensen received threats and hate email after he published an op-ed in the Sept. 17 Houston Chronicle criticizing American foreign policy: "My anger on this day is directed not only at individuals who engineered the September 11 tragedy but at those who have held power in the United States and have engineered attacks on civilians every bit as tragic.” President Larry Faulkner received emails and calls demanding that he fire Jensen and threatening to withhold donations. Faulkner wrote to the newspaper, “No aspect of his remarks is supported, condoned or officially recognized by The University of Texas at Austin. He does not speak in the University's name and may not speak in its name. Using the same liberty, I convey my personal judgment that Jensen is not only misguided, but has become a fountain of undiluted foolishness on issues of public policy. Students must learn that there is a good deal of foolish opinion in the popular media and they must become skilled at recognizing and discounting it. I, too, was disgusted by Jensen's article, but I also must defend his freedom to state his opinion. The First Amendment is the bedrock of American liberty.” Faulkner said, “There is some comfort in the fact that practically no one here takes his outbursts seriously.”

"The faculty felt there was a very clear message that if you stick your neck out, we will disown you," says Dana L. Cloud, an associate professor of communication studies. "This was a symbolic casting out of Bob Jensen from our intellectual community."

Jensen argues, “As president of the university, Faulkner has considerable power--the power to hire and fire, to dictate policy, and to set the intellectual tone on campus.” Jensen makes the analogy of a student in his class who says something stupid; according to Jensen, it would be wrong for a professor to ridicule that student because “it would inhibit other students from speaking.” Jensen said the public rebuke had little effect on him. "But the question is how do students and junior faculty respond to such a public humiliation?"

Jensen says he cannot even convince colleagues to go on stage with him to debate the pros of cons of U.S. policy.

(Houston Chronicle, 9/19/01; Chronicle of Higher Education, 10/5/01)

2(f) California State University at Sacramento: During a Sept. 15 commencement speech, when Janis Besler Heaphy, president and publisher of the Sacramento Bee, urged that citizens safeguard their rights to free speech and a fair trial, the audience booed her. The crowd cheered the idea of racial profiling, and then when Heaphy argued that "the Constitution makes it our right to challenge government policies," the crowd started clapping, foot-stomping, and heckling her. When the interruption went on for five minutes, and university president Don Gerth unsuccessfully tried to quiet the audience, Heaphy gave up speaking.

One student wrote to the Sacramento Bee, "Although I think it was a shame that she was unable to finish the speech, I feel that she brought the reaction of the crowd on herself," wrote Jason Collins. "The consensus was that this forum was neither the time nor the place to be making such strong political statements as she did."

(Sacramento Bee, 12/21/01)

2(g) University of Miami: Mohammad Rahat, an Iranian citizen and University of Miami medical technician who turned 22 on Sept. 11, 2001, declared in a meeting that day, “Some birthday gift from Osama bin Laden.” Although Rahat said that he meant it “in a sarcastic way,” Rahat was suspended and then fired on Sept. 25, 2001 for his words. Vice president of university relations Paula Musto declared that Rahat’s "comments were deeply disturbing to his co-workers and superiors at the medical school. They were inappropriate and unbecoming for someone working in a research laboratory. He was fired because he made those comments, certainly not because of his ethnic background." Rahat had received only positive evaluation in 13 months working in the lab.

(Miami Herald, November 16, 2001)

2(h) California State University at Chico: some students heckled a professor during a speech at a peace rally, and he received at least 70 hate emails, with threatening subject headings like "Dead Man Walking." As George Wright spoke during a vigil at Cal State's Chico campus, students began interrupting him. "I'm here for the victims," yelled one. "My sister was on that island," shouted another. "His comments were not timely, in the sense that nerves were very raw, and obviously an effort is being made throughout the country for everybody to be behind the president," says Manuel Esteban, the president, who defended Wright’s right to speak. "There is a time and a place for his position, and one needs to be careful when one speaks."

(Chronicle of Higher Education, 10/5/01)

2(i) Attacks on Peace Camps.

Ohio State University: On November 10, 2001, protesters noted that “the ‘Peace Camp’ (An anti-war protest encampment at the Ohio State University in Columbus Ohio), was attacked twice by separate groups of rowdy football fans. One person suffered minor scrapes & bruises as a result of being stepped on while inside their tent as it was being attacked, one tent was destroyed, and two tents suffered substantial damages.” The Washington Post reported that students had bombarded protesters with water balloons, and twice ran through the camp, toppling and breaking tents.

At the University of Wisconsin at Stevens Point: a peace camp with members of the Peace and Unity Coalition was attacked by homemade bombs made with Drano and aluminum foil, firecrackers, and egg throwing.

At Indiana University: a peace camp was attacked repeatedly, with protestors shot at with beebee guns, and tents vandalized. A peace symbol was set on fire and later destroyed.

(Washington Post, 11/23/01)

2(j) St. Olaf College: On September 13, 2001, two resident assistants complained to the dean of students that undergraduates felt fearful and uneasy because some professors questioned the competence of the Bush administration. According to the RAs, "The recent attacks extend beyond political debate, and for professors to make negative judgments on our government before any action has taken place only fosters a cynical attitude in the classroom." The administration asked faculty to think hard about what they said. Contact Greg Kneser, dean of students: “There were students who were just scared, and an intellectual discussion of the political ramifications of this was not helpful for them. They were frightened, and they look to their faculty not just for intellectual debate" but as "people they trust."

"Students spent the morning watching planes hitting buildings and blowing up," says Greg Kneser, the dean. "They weren't prepared for this political analysis critical of the US government. When your house is on fire, you don't want individuals standing there saying how stupid the firefighters are."

(Chronicle of Higher Education, 10/5/01; Minneapolis Star-Tribune, 9/24/01)

2(k) Washington University: Campus officials prohibited the news media and any outsiders from attending an anti-war protest on campus. Administrators claimed that they closed the campus to protect “nervous and concerned” students and acting “in their best interest." Boston University also reportedly closed its campus to the media.

(St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 9/21/01)

2(l) Harvard University: 4,000 faculty, staff, and students signed a petition objecting to allowing Harvard senior Zayed Yasin to give his commencement address, "Of Faith and Citizenship: My American Jihad." Yasin argued that “jihad” referred to a personal struggle for faith, and had been misinterpreted by Muslims and non-Muslims. Yasin was allowed to give his address in June, 2002, but compromised by adding the first title and leaving “My American Jihad” out of the printed name.

(Commondreams.org, June 7, 2002)

2(m) Investigations of Arab and Muslim College Students

An October 2001 survey by the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, "Campus Consequences of the Sept. 11 Attacks," found that at least 220 colleges had been contacted by law enforcement since Sept. 11. Police or FBI agents made 99 requests for private “non-directory” information, such as course schedules, that under law cannot be released without student consent, a subpoena, or a pending danger (only 12 of the requests had a subpoena, although the Immigration and Naturalization Service doesn’t require consent for information on foreign students). Most requests were for individual students, although 16 requests for student records were “based on ethnicity.” Law enforcement received the information from 159 schools, and only eight denied any requests.

The Muslim Student Association has been targeted for investigation by the US government because it has urged donations to the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, and the Benevolence International and Global Relief foundations, three organizations which have had their assets seized for allegedly supporting terrorism.

At the University of Colorado at Denver, federal agents visited at least five times, interviewed at least 50 Arab students, and detained two of them briefly because they had been observed taking photographs of an arena for a photography class.

A Saudi Arabian student at San Diego State, Yazeed al-Salmi, spent 17 days in custody in San Diego, Oklahoma and New York even though he was not a suspect. He was held as a material witness because he had once lived in the same house as one of the terrorist attackers. He was denied contact with his family, held in solitary confinement, and prevented from washing or brushing his teeth. Al-Salmi reported: "No phone call. I can't contact my attorney. I only see him like 10 minutes before I have court." Al-Salmi said he was strip-searched twice a day while officers videotaped the procedure, and couldn't take a shower for nine days. When he was in New York, he said, "They don't call you by name, they call you 'f****** terrorist'."

Osama Awadallah, a Jordanian college student at Grossmont College, was held as a material witness for a month and then charged Oct. 19 with lying to a grand jury about whether he knew one of the hijackers. His attorney reported that guards kept him from sleeping and "roughed him up." Business senior Nabeel Khalid and computer engineering senior Mohammad Imran Shaikh were once roommates of a suspected terrorist. University College senior Hussein Al-Attas and Mukkaram Ali were under arrest since the week after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks because of their friendship with suspected terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui.

In Mississippi, a 20-year-old student from Pakistan said he was stripped and beaten in his cell by inmates who were angry about the attacks, while jail guards failed to intervene.

Ramez Noaman, a Yemeni student at California Polytechnic University at Pomona, was held as a material witness in Manhattan for 12 days, then released.

(New York Daily News, 10/12/01; San Diego Union-Tribune, 10/12/01; Washington Post, 10/15/01; Chronicle of Higher Education, 10/12/01; New York Times, 11/12/01; Oklahoma Daily, 11/14/01)

ANALYSIS: The use of colleges and universities to spy on their own students sets a dangerous precedent that threatens student privacy and institutional autonomy. While authorized information about individual suspects is correctly released, the broad racial profiling of foreign-born students cannot be permitted.

Most colleges would object if one of their students was wrongly detained, illegally held for days without charges, or abused while in custody. Students of Arab origin are entitled to equal protection, and colleges must be careful to protect their rights.

2(n) Anti-Arab and Anti-Muslim Violence and Discrimination

The following attacks on Arab and Muslim college students were reported by national and campus media around the country, representing only a small part of all the threats and attacks against such students, and Arabs and Muslims generally:

A Muslim student at Arizona State University was attacked.

University of Arizona President Peter Likins declared: "I have been receiving reports that my fears of irrational retribution against members of our community are being realized in the form of death threats and harassment of Islamic students. This behavior is a disgrace to our university and will not be tolerated."

Two people wrote "die" on a Persian Club booth at Pierce College in Woodland Hills. An altercation ensued.

Several Muslim women at Oakland's Laney College report being harassed on campus. They were stopped by police officers, asked to provide identification, and searched. One student's head scarf was ripped off, and a woman wearing traditional Muslim dress reported someone on campus shouted, "She's got a bomb underneath there!" Another woman on campus was subject to Anti-Arab and Anti-Muslim comments from a professor in one of her classes. She eventually fled the classroom with classmates chasing her.

Unidentified men beat two Muslim women near Moraine Valley Community College on Sept. 12. Two Arab men assaulted the offenders in defense of the two students.

In Evanston, a Chicago taxi driver and college student, Mustapha Zemkour, was injured Sept. 17 when two men--including a Cook County corrections officer--chased him on motorcycles, hit him in the face and yelled, "This is what you get, you mass murderer."

An Arab college student in Kansas City reported that strangers approached him menacingly and asked if he knew "the ones who did it."

A 20-year-old Boston University Saudi Arabian student was stabbed three times as he left a nightclub Sept. 16 by assailants who yelled "You Arab [expletive]."

Windows at the Muslim Students Association at Wayne State University were broken.

Areej El-Jawahri, a first-year student at the University of Michigan, received a threatening email on Sept. 11, including one that said, “We will fuck you bastards for doing this.” Brenda Abdelall, president of the Arab Students Association, received a death threat within two hours of the attack.(Newsweek, Nov. 12, 2001) Arab-American and Muslim students at the University of Michigan receive e-mailed death threats, some signed by "a Christian American." Other anonymous e-mails warned "your life will be a living hell," and "this is war."

At the University of Minnesota, the Arab Student Association received threatening messages on its answering machine, and some Arab students have been called "terrorists" or cursed at on campus.

At Syracuse University, a flier was posted on campus that declared, "An Orange a day keeps the Arabs away.”

At Duke University, junior Hazim El-Haddad said: "My friends have been telling me to stay in my room and to lock my door. I overheard stuff like 'fucking Palestinians,' and 'damn Arabs.'"

At North Carolina State University in Raleigh, a student who wore a black scarf said she had been spat upon, and many Arab students reported harassment.

A professor of Middle Eastern languages and cultures at the University of Texas was spat on by a pedestrian. At the University of Texas in Austin, students wearing Islamic garb said their bags were searched by university police before they were admitted to classrooms and they were told to leave the student union because of "anti-Muslim sentiment."

At University of Utah (where a press conference by the mayor against intolerance was delayed by a bomb threat), doctoral student Farah Ramezanzadeh reported two students directed hateful statements toward her: "One person told me, 'How dare you show your face at the university.'"

At Washington State University in Pulliam, Adly Natsheh, president of Friends of Palestine, said he spoke with several upset students who were called terrorists, told to go back to their country or heard other comments. Anita Rao, a member of the Indian Students Association, reported: "A couple of my friends were walking down the mall and some people called them 'Palestinian bitches.’"

In Alabama, an Indian medical student's car was vandalized.

The president of University of California-Berkeley's Muslim Student Association said the group has received hate e-mail. One student reported, “I was walking out of class and I heard somebody tell this guy, 'Stop looking at me, you barbaric Arab,'” and noted, “Somebody said to me 'Bring all your friends, we're going to bomb your ass.' I said, 'I'm from Puerto Rico --you've been bombing Vieques for the last 25 years.'” There have also been reports from Muslim and Arab American students who have received insulting hand gestures while driving. Muslim women wearing hijabs reported being harassed.(Alternet)

Two University of Connecticut students of Middle Eastern descent decided to return to their home countries after encountering harassment after Sept. 11. Rashed Alvaabi reported his physics professor asked the class what they thought about Islamic people, and approximately five people responded: "We hate the Islamic people." Alvaabi said the professor told these students that they should not have said that and the discussion of Islamic people did not continue. Mark Wentzel, director of the department of international services and programs, said his office received several complaints of harassment. On the north side of campus, people in a vehicle drove by a female who appeared to be of Middle Eastern descent and shouted intimidating comments at her.

An Arab-American student at the University of Illinois at Chicago, reported that a girl in his English class had said "she was sure 95 per cent of Arabs were terrorists."

An Indian student in Kentucky was attacked when he was mistaken for an Arab.

At MIT, Muslim Students Association spokesman Numan Waheed said students there have also been threatened, "But for every bit of hate mail, we've received so much support from the community. We're not going to let that interfere with our standing up for justice on our campus."

University of Southern California: a student of Arab descent reported that someone scrawled "Osama" in the paint of his car. One Arab woman reported that some men had yelled obscenities at her from their car as she walked nearby off campus.(Daily Trojan, October 19, 2001)

At Washington State’s Pullman campus, 57 students who have decided to leave, about half of the Arabs enrolled. Obscenities were spray-painted outside one student's apartment. One student got in a scuffle outside the campus bookstore with a group of 10 men after one of them used an expletive and said, ‘you Arabians bombed our country.'" A student speaking Arabic with his mother on his cell phone outside a supermarket was attacked by a man who ripped the phone out of his hand and threw it on the ground, saying, “Speak in English next time.” The co-chairman of the university's Middle Eastern Students Association was stopped by police four times after Sept. 11, due to complaints from drivers, until he removed the Palestinian flag from his car.(Chronicle of Higher Education, 9/27/01)

At Fort Lewis College, during an anti-war teach-in, a student in a dorm yelled “kill the ragheads.”(Durango Herald, 10/31/01)

At John Jay College, part of CUNY, a Muslim woman was shot in the eye with a bee-bee gun outside of the school.(John Jay Times, 11/14/01)

University of Connecticut: Flor Amaro, a student at the University of Connecticut, has received harassment and a death threat for wearing a hijab to protest the attacks on Muslims. "There has been physical harassment where women have had scarves snatched from their heads. Male students have been physically attacked and there has been lot of verbal harassment," said Anne D'Alleva, assistant professor of art and art history and women's studies. University of Connecticut police received about six reports of harassment aimed at Muslim and Middle Eastern students, but many incidents were not reported.(Hartford Courant, 10/3/01)

University of Oklahoma: Mohammad Yaseen Haider, president of the Pakistan Student Association at the University of Oklahoma, was assaulted by three men on Sept. 16, who shouted racial slurs, kicked him, and punched him in the parking lot of a convenience store where he worked because he refused to sell them beer: "At first, they just verbally attacked me and kept calling me a foreigner," Haider said. "Then, they began pushing, kicking and beating me and I was pretty much in shock. The men said, 'Get out of our country.'" Two of the attackers were students, and one was expelled and the other subjected to discipline. After the attack, the Immigration and Naturalization Service filed charges against Haider.(New York Times, 11/15/01)

University of Michigan: Areej El-Jawahri, a first-year student at the University of Michigan, received a threatening email on Sept. 11, including one that said, “We will fuck you bastards for doing this.” Brenda Abdelall, president of the Arab Students Association, received a death threat within two hours of the attack.(Newsweek, 11/12/01)

3. Censorship of Pro-War Views

3(a) Orange Coast Community College: On Sept. 20, government professor Ken Hearlson was suspended for 11 weeks after Muslim students accused him of being biased against them and calling them “terrorists” in a Sept. 18 lecture, which Hearlson denies.

Ken Hearlson told the Los Angeles Times he started his lecture on September 18 with an intentionally provocative question, “why do Muslims condemn the terrorist attacks in New York and at the Pentagon but never denounce terrorist attacks in Israel?” According to OCC, “The students accused Hearlson of pointing at them in class during a heated discussion and calling them terrorists, murders and Nazis.”

Hearlson was immediately suspended with pay pending an investigation of the racial harassment charges. President Margaret Gratton said, "Under normal conditions, there would have been more extensive consultation" before placing a professor on leave, but because of the terrorist attacks, "this occurred in an exceptional environment." The vice president for instruction declared in a memo to faculty right after September 11, "Be especially concerned that Middle Eastern students are not made to feel scrutinized, blamed for the incident, or threatened.”

"No due process. Nothing," said Hearlson, who has taught at the school for 18 years. "Nobody has ever been hurt at that school by a debate, best I can tell. Students should hear things in a classroom that they may never hear again. If you disagree, you can stand up and do so as long as you don't commit violence."

Ruth Flower of the American Association of University Professors noted, “The process appears to be severely flawed." More than 340 of Hearlson’s students signed a petition calling for his reinstatement.

College officials denied that academic freedom was involved. "This is not an academic freedom issue. It is an issue of classroom comportment and how he treats students," said Jim Carnett, a college spokesman. "It is beyond the bounds of academic freedom. And with what's been occurring beyond the boundaries of our campus, you can't ignore that."

At OCC, 24 faculty wrote a statement declaring, “We do not believe the decision for Ken Hearlson to leave the classroom for the semester created what our union president called a ‘chilling effect’ on instruction or curtailed a provocative approach to teaching. Academic freedom is alive and well under our current administration. We believe there is a strong possibility that Ken Hearlson exercised poor judgment in class, going beyond ‘shock teaching’ to create a hostile environment in class. Ken Hearlson entered into an agreement with the administration to be removed from the classroom, throwing doubt on whether his due process was violated. We regard Ken Hearlson's recent disparaging remarks to be an attempt to smear Orange Coast College's reputation for his own personal benefit.”

P. Kevin Parker, an assistant professor of English, said: "The four students who raised complaints were factually wrong in their accusations. However, they were inferentially correct." According to Parker, “Professor Hearlson never directly called the students terrorists, Nazis, or murderers. But wasn't he doing it by inference?"

Orange County Department of Education attorney Geraldine Jaffe reviewed tapes of the class and wrote in her 73-page report, released by the college on Dec. 11: "Based on my interviews with 19 students, three district administrators, the course assistant, teacher's aide, one professor, the interview with Ken Hearlson, and my review of all the documents including e-mails, letters, and the three transcripts, my conclusions are that most of the allegations made by the Muslim students against Ken Hearlson are unsubstantiated.”

Jaffe could find no evidence to back the Muslim students' claims that Hearlson had told them "You killed 5,000 people" and "You drove two planes into the World Trade Center." Hearlson did apparently point a finger at Middle Eastern students while he blamed Arab countries for fomenting terrorism.

The tapes revealed that when a Muslim student told Hearlson that she doesn't condone violence, Hearlson replied, "You don't believe in that and I agree with you. And I agree with what President Bush said, 'It is not a condemnation of the Muslim. It is a condemnation of those who carried out the attack.'" Another student said about Muslims, "they are not all killers." Hearlson replied, "That's exactly right….What I am saying is that I want to see the Arab world stand up and say, 'This is wrong. What was done to America. This is wrong.'…And what I have told you tonight--and I may be wrong, I have been wrong a lot of times--I have not seen that happen." When a student clarified that Hearlson must be talking about nations, not individuals, Hearlson replied, “Absolutely, I am talking about Arab nations.” Hearlson did use the word "you" when talking to one of the students, Mooath Saidi, about terrorism, but after that was pointed out to him in class, he immediately apologized.

"He pointed at me and called me a terrorist," Saidi said. "I stand by what I have believed from day one. He should be fired." Saidi said Hearlson “has a history, and he obviously hasn't learned and needs to be taught a lesson." The previous winter, a debate between Hearlson and his Muslim students got so heated that campus security was called. "He is very biased against Muslim students and very open about it," said one of the students, Salha Abdelmuti, about Hearlson. "The week after, everybody in the class had us in a circle after class and was yelling at us. Some of them were saying, 'Go back to your country.'" One student sent an email to school administrators alleging that a Muslim classmate had said, "Don't hold your breath [that Hearlson's coming back]. He might not live."

Hearlson has often made controversial statements on various topics. One student told the Los Angeles Times, "Hearlson said that if he ever caught a homosexual teaching sex education to his child, he would want to 'string him up by his toes and shoot him in the face with a .357 magnum.'"

Hearlson plans to appeal a letter from the administration that he terms a reprimand, which Gratton has called a "confidential personnel letter to Mr. Hearlson." Kristina Bruning, president of the teachers union, said the letter, which she also described as a reprimand, will have a "chilling effect" on academic freedom. She said professors on campus have already complained to her that they've curtailed classroom debate because of the administration's response to the controversy. Faculty also have objected to the college's decision to place Hearlson on extended leave without a hearing. Gratton declared, "Academic freedom bears the responsibility of respectful and objective discourse that is embedded in the faculty contract," she said. "It's protected by law, and we fully support academic freedom at Orange Coast College."

ANALYSIS: The lack of due process in the Hearlson case led to a clear violation of academic freedom. It was reasonable for the administration to make an investigation of student claims that they were being targeted and denounced in class by their professor solely because of their race. However, any investigation must be done with a presumption of innocence. Because the tape of the class conclusively exonerated Hearlson of wrongdoing, the investigation should have been completed much more quickly and without any disruption of the class. There was never any immediate threat posed or any reason to suspend Hearlson. Although Hearlson was not deprived of pay, he was deprived of his right to teach his class.

(Chronicle of Higher Education, 10/5/01; Los Angeles Times, 9/30/01, 12/12/01; Weekly Standard.com, 1129/01, 12/21/01; Washington Post, 10/30/01)

3(b) Johns Hopkins University: Charles H. Fairbanks Jr., Director of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), was demoted (but later reinstated) after a Sept. 14 panel discussion on terrorism in which he criticized Iraq, Pakistan, and Palestinians.

Fairbanks argued for retaliation against the governments that supported the attack because bin Laden could not be found. Fairbanks said, "I'll bet anyone here a Koran on that." Fairbanks also said, "Unfortunately, Palestinians hate us and that's a painful fact." A woman in the crowd accused Fairbanks of "innuendos intended to encourage and to assist people in conducting hate crimes...toward Muslims." Fairbanks apologized, but after she interrupted him twice, he called for her to be removed, although security never came.

Stephen Szabo, interim dean of SAIS, got Fairbanks to agree to write a letter of regret about what he said, which was sent out. But two days later, Szabo decided to eliminate Fairbanks’ administrator position (although remained a research professor), claiming that the chaos of the panel showed that Fairbanks couldn’t do a good job. After publicity about the dismissal, Szabo gave Fairbanks his job back.

(New Republic, 10/22/01)

3(c) Fear of Websites

Penn State University: Some students complained about math professor Stephen Simpson's pro-war personal website. Vice provost Robert Secor passed on comments to Simpson and called the site "insensitive and perhaps even intimidating." Secor said, "There's no action, there's no reprimand. We have to be very careful about protecting the rights of free speech, and we do." "These are real conflicts," Secor also noted, between "what universities feel is civilized behavior--and free speech that they feel we must protect. I think we still haven't sorted it out yet."

(Associated Press, 10/13/01)

Duke University: After professor Gary Hull posted an article on his website titled "Terrorism and Its Appeasement," calling for a military response to the attacks, the website was shut down, and then required to include a disclaimer stating that it did not reflect Duke’s views.

(Boston Herald, 12/16/01)

ANALYSIS: A website is no different from any other kind of expression, and all students and faculty should be free to express their ideas publicly, even if the website is on the university server. No disclaimer is needed to make the obvious point that a faculty member’s beliefs do not represent the university.

3(d) University of North Carolina at Wilmington: On Sept. 15, student Rosa Fuller sent an email to students and faculty condemning the terrorist attacks but also denouncing US “occupation and imperialist warfare in the Middle East.” Fuller concluded by urging recipients to “forward this e-mail to friends and acquaintances both on and off campus.”

Mike Adams, an associate professor in the Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice, sent a reply sharply criticizing Fuller for writing “an intentionally divisive diatribe.” Adams forwarded her email and his reply to others, some of whom responded directly to Fuller. Fuller received critical email, including an email that said Fuller should be hit with a baseball bat. Two students were questioned by the university, but Adams was never accused of anything or questioned. However, Adams objected that his email was not considered private.

Fuller’s complaint against Adams for sending an abusive email was found groundless. Fuller then asked for the university to provide Adams’ email to her, but they refused. However, when Fuller made a formal request for Adams’ emails as “public records” not covered by state and federal privacy laws and university policy, Mark Lanier, special assistant to Chancellor James Leutze, reported that they had to release a log of whom Adams sent email to, although not the email itself. However, the university legal counsel did read Adams’ available emails to determine that they did not meet the request. Provost John Cavanaugh declared, “Dr. Adams was never investigated, threatened, or sanctioned for saying anything by this administration. In fact, the administration on three occasions refused to grant a request filed to us under the Public Records Law of North Carolina seeking blanket access to his correspondence….Even after we were forced to respond to a narrowly framed request for certain records, we did not turn over any records to the requestor because none were relevant. The bottom line is that Dr. Adams has not ever been stifled by this administration….”

(Wilmington Star, 11/3/01)

ANALYSIS: The fact that someone expresses a critical opinion about a writer, and then forwards this opinion to others who express their views in unacceptable or threatening ways, should not lead to an investigation. There is no evidence that Adams organized a conspiracy to intimidate the student. He merely replied harshly to an email with his personal opinion.

Could a university read a professor’s ingoing and outgoing snail mail with the excuse that its university mail system had delivered the mail, and the university owned the mailbox into which it was deposited? Of course not. The fact that a university provides an email network is no different. Privately expressed views should not be subjected to public records laws that were never intended to intrude upon the personal email of faculty or students.

3(e) San Diego State University: An Arabic-speaking Ethiopian student, Zewdalem Kebede, overheard three Saudi Arabian students in the library expressing their support for the Sept. 11 attacks in Arabic: “they were very pleased. They were happy.” Kebede angrily confronted them in Arabic: “You are proud of them. You should have to feel shame." After a “heated exchange,” the Saudi Arabian students summoned the university police, who cautioned both parties.

After being ordered to an informal meeting with Antionette Jones, the university judicial officer, Kebede received an Oct. 5 letter from Jones that declared: "No disciplinary action will be taken by this office at this time, but you are admonished to conduct yourself as a responsible member of the campus community in the future. Specifically, confronting members of the campus community in a manner that is found to be aggressive or abusive is serious. Consider this letter to be your only warning that future incidents, where your involvement is proven, will result in you facing serious disciplinary sanctions."

Jack Beresford, the university's director of marketing and communications, said, "We still have to have a civil campus where people can feel free to speak whatever their mind is in a private conversation and not feel threatened by other students."

(UPI, 10/25/01; Daily Aztec, 10/17/01)

ANALYSIS: When a private conversation can reasonably be overheard, offended students also have a right to feel free to speak. Angry or aggressive confrontations are far from ideal, but they cannot be prohibited without infringing upon protected speech. While physical threats are not permitted, there is no evidence of this happening in Kebede’s case. A warning of harsher penalties in case of future incidents is a form of disciplinary action (a type of probation) that should not be exercised without an adequate hearing.

3(f) Central Michigan University: On Oct. 8, four roommates in Emmons Hall (Don Pasco, Jeff Cech, Adam Trumble and Nick Dear) placed an American Flag and pro-war pictures and articles on the front of their door. Resident Assistant Kari Buchanan told them to remove the items because it might be “offensive” to some students. After an article about the incident appeared in the campus newspaper, on Oct. 10, Residence Hall Director Albert Nowak and two other administrators told the four students that they could repost all their images except things deemed “hate related items and ... profanity.” These included the San Francisco Chronicle headline "Bastards!" a column by Leonard Pitts with some strong language, and a picture of the Statue of Liberty "giving terrorists the finger."

President Michael Rao reversed the decision, declaring students could post anything on their doors. Rao wrote: "The university's removal of any items considered offensive or vulgar by some is not condoned. The university is taking steps to assure students in the residence halls that their right to post materials and express opinion on their room doors is protected….I value everything the American flag stands for. To request its removal from anyplace on our campus would violate my personal standards and the values of the university."

(FIRE, 11/7/02)

ANALYSIS: Although this case was presented as censorship of pro-war views, the offending aspects of the display were apparently not the flag or pro-war ideas, but the “vulgar” speech in a quasi-public area that was regulated. “Door” free speech in residence halls is one of the most contentious areas of debate because it represents individual expression to a captive audience. At Yale University, a sign declaring "Kill 'em all, Let God sort 'em out," was reportedly banned from a residence hall, presumably because the “all” might be interpreted to be a death threat to all Arabs and Muslims. However, the banning of merely “vulgar” speech because it might be deemed to offensive is far too strict a regulation of student expression.

3(g) Fear of Flags

Lehigh University: On Sept. 13, Vice Provost of Student Affairs John Smeaton ordered removal of the American flag from the campus bus. Smeaton publicly apologized: "In a momentary lapse of judgment, which I deeply regret, I suggested the flag be removed from inside the bus. An hour later, when I had time to reflect on that request, I realized that my decision was absolutely wrong. I immediately asked that the flag be returned."(FIRE, 10/24/01)

College of the Holy Cross: Sociology department chair Royce Singleton told a secretary to take down a flag she had hung in the office in honor of a friend who died on one of the hijacked airliners. After the incident became public, the flag was moved to the psychology department and the secretary was allowed to put a flag on her desk.

Texas A & M: administrators ordered flags hanging from dorm windows taken down because of a general prohibition on items hanging from windows. When students complained that the university allowed residence halls to hang spirit banners outside windows of residence halls, the Office of Student Affairs issued a "zero prohibition clarification" allowing items if officials assisted the students in hanging them from windows.(Dallas Morning News, 10/13/01; 10/17/01)

Florida Gulf Coast University: Dean of Library Services Kathleen Hoeth told employees to remove stickers saying "Proud to be an American" from their workspace. After public pressure, President William Merwin revoked the policy. "We've tried really hard to make sure people on our campus don't feel like they're looked at differently because they come from different religious or ethnic backgrounds," said a spokeswoman. "If a mistake was made, it was made out of a very pure motive."

(City Journal, Autumn 2001)

3(h) Columbus State Community College temporarily barred Christian evangelist Jed Smock from speaking on campus because of concerns that his criticism of the Koran would lead to violence. Columbus State police cut short Smock’s appearance in a designated free-speech area on campus after an argument with one of the students started heating up. Smock also lacked a speaking permit that campus authorities say is required, but was denied by Columbus State President Val Moeller out of concerns for Smock’s safety.

(Associated Press, 10/11/01)

4. Political Interference in Academia

At a time of budget cuts, the threat of political intervention in colleges and universities has increased, and political groups are seeking more power over academia. In 2001, Florida’s Board of Regents was replaced by a Board of Trustees at each state university campus, with the members appointed by Gov. Jeb Bush who remain at his will. Faculty and others worried about the politicization of higher education because most trustees were friends of or donors to Gov. Bush. In the summer of 2001, the conservative American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) was hired to hold training sessions for all trustees. There is a danger whenever a small group of politically motivated trustees or legislators, often lacking any understanding of the importance of academic freedom, seek to control higher education.

4(a) University of Pittsburgh: A year after it was started with a $2 million endowment from the Heinz Foundation, the University of Pittsburgh’s Environmental Law Clinic came under attack for representing a group opposed to the Mon-Fayette Expressway.

After Pitt Chancellor Mark Nordenberg refused demands to fire the law professors, state legislators, led by Sen. Joseph Scarnati, R-Clearfield, amended the university's appropriations bill to prohibit Pitt's environmental law clinic from using public money, which accounts for about 20 percent of the university's budget and a lesser percentage of the law school's. It seemed to be a largely symbolic gesture, and the clinic, which gets almost all of its direct support from the Heinz Foundation, was assured by law school administrators that the appropriations restriction would not affect the program.

But in 2001, after a state Supreme Court justice, Mon Valley legislators and development leaders publicly questioned the clinic's decision to represent opponents of the expressway, university administrators announced they would comply with the legislative funding restriction by assessing the clinic for overhead costs totaling $62,000 a year. Because of restrictions in how much of its endowment money the clinic can use each year, those overhead charges would bankrupt the program in 18 months unless additional funding were found. Nordenberg, in a memo to university employees Nov. 7, 2001, called the dismissive response to legislators' concerns "politically unfortunate," and said the clinic's present setup within the university's law school "clearly is not working" and that it was time to explore "other alternatives." On Nov. 19, 2001, Pitt Provost James Maher said in a meeting with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette editorial board that the university had made a mistake in setting up the clinic within the law school. In an opinion page article published that day, he said that if the clinic was changed into a "separate, nonprofit entity," Pitt would be following the examples of "most other public law schools."

In 2002, the University of Pittsburgh finally agreed not to punish the environmental law clinic, and any overhead expenses will not be paid with state appropriations.

Environmental law clinics at Colorado, Michigan, Oregon, Rutgers, Texas Southern, Maryland and Tulane have been attacked for their work in recent years. In 1993, after the Oregon Legislature proposed withdrawing all funding from the law school, the clinic’s litigation unit was moved off campus to become the nonprofit Western Environmental Law Center. At Tulane, the chemical industry refused to hire Tulane graduates and attacked the law clinic for representing a poor, minority community opposed to a new chemical plant. The legislature imposed new rules preventing students from representing clients, which were upheld in 1998 by the Louisiana Supreme Court.

(Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 12/2/01, 3/15/02)

ANALYSIS: The University of Pittsburgh should have protected academic freedom by filing a lawsuit against the General Assembly to challenge this unconstitutional attempt to infringe academic freedom. Of course, such courage of their convictions would be difficult to expect of many university administrators. However, the University of Pittsburgh could easily have re-arranged its budgeting procedures (as it ultimately did) to ensure that the environmental law clinic overhead was paid for exclusively by student tuition, without any state funding provided. This would follow the letter of the law and the spirit of the Constitution. The legislature cannot be forced to maintain a certain program. But when it specifically targets a university program because of the views expressed, it is a violation of the First Amendment. And when the administration participates in an unconstitutional abuse of power, it is derelict in its duties.

4(b) University of Missouri at Columbia: On Sept. 17 at KOMU-TV, the TV station of the University of Missouri School of Journalism, news director Stacey Woelfel emailed the news staff: "Our news broadcasts are not the place for personal statements of support for any cause--no matter how deserving the cause seems to be. This includes the little red, white and blue ribbons that a lot of people are sporting these days. Our job is to deliver the news as free from outside influences as possible."

Missouri legislator Matt Bartle heard about the policy and declared, “I am going to be evaluating far more carefully state funding that goes to the School of Journalism. If this is what you are teaching the next generation of journalists, I question whether the taxpayers of this state will support it." Bartle called the ribbon ban (but not his threat to cut off funding) “censorship of journalists.” The journalism school faculty declared that they “strongly support the right of faculty editors to make editorial decisions and policies in our newsrooms.”

Chancellor Richard Wallace apologized to the legislature for the decision: "MU deeply regrets that this policy has caused offense to KOMU viewers and other citizens. This was an action taken in the TV news room to assure editorial independence that did not in any way reflect a policy of the University."

However, in April 2002, the Missouri House of Representatives voted to cut $500,000 from the University of Missouri budget because of the pin decision.

(Chicago Reader, 10/12/01; Chronicle of Higher Education, 10/12/01)

4(c) In April 2002, Missouri legislators voted overwhelmingly to cut $100,000 from the University of Missouri at Kansas City budget because professor Harris Mirkin published an article in the Journal of Homosexuality in 1999 criticizing the “moral panic” over pedophilia and arguing for the need to distinguish between sexual assault of children and consensual intergeneration sex.

(New York Times, 4/30/02; New Yorker, 5/13/02)

4(d) Medaille College: in February 2002, acting president John Donahue fired tenured professors Therese Warden and Uhuru Watson “for turpitude and for active and voluntary participation in activities deliberately and specifically designed to bring discredit to the College." The faculty were fired for possessing typed notes from a meeting of the Tenure and Promotions Committee where Donahue tried to gain support for the removal of the business department chair. Warden had anonymously received the document, and then distributed it to two other faculty, who received reprimands for possessing the letter even though they returned it to the administration.

(Buffalo News, Feb. 20, 2002)

4(e) Riverside Community College: Frank Stearns, a tenured accounting professor, was removed from campus for poor performance. He was suspended days after he conducted an audit for the teachers union and accused the administration of violating a state law that requires at least 50% of school funds must be spent in the classroom and on teacher salaries.

(Los Angeles Times, May 23, 2002)

4(f) University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: After opponents of the school mascot Chief Illiniwek indicated plans to contact athletic recruits and inform them about the controversy, on March 2, 2001, Chancellor Aiken sent an email message to all faculty, staff, and students at the University: “No contacts are permitted with prospective student athletes, including high school and junior college students, by University students, employees or others associated with the University without express authorization of the Director of Athletics or his designee. The University faces potentially serious sanctions for violation of NCAA or Big Ten rules. All members of the University community are expected to abide by these rules, and certainly any intentional violations will not be condoned.”

On March 19, 2001, Chancellor Aiken addressed the faculty senate: “The University values and defends the principles of free speech and academic freedom for members of the University community. The University does not seek to interfere with the expression of views regarding matters of public concern. However, we also are a member of the NCAA, and are committed to controlling our intercollegiate athletics program in compliance with the rules and regulations of the NCAA.”

On May 24, 2002, a court ruled that the university had violated the free speech rights of faculty, staff, and students, which supercede any NCAA rules.

(Crue v. Aiken, May 24, 2002)

4(g) University of North Carolina: in August 2002, the Family Policy Network, a conservative Christian group, sued the university for assigning incoming students to read the book Approaching the Qur'an: The Early Revelations translated by Michael A. Sells. The suit argues that it is unconstitutional for a public university to require students to study a specific religion. After a flood of angry calls and emails, the university agreed to let students not read the book and write a one-page paper about it, and instead will allow them to write a one-page paper about why they didn’t want to read the book. However, the lawsuit continues because the assignment of the book is "religious bigotry enforced with intimidation." A majority of the North Carolina House of Representatives voted to prevent UNC from using state funds on the assignment, one of whom declared that it was "insensitive … to allow students to read about our attackers." Republican State Rep. Sam Ellis declared that students should not be "required to study this evil."

(Washington Post, 8/7/02; Slate, 8/9/02; Chicago Tribune, 8/12/02)

ANALYSIS: Clearly, the scholarly reading of religious texts is not an establishment of religion, and this is a frivolous lawsuit. For a university to give into this intimidation by encouraging students to avoid doing any reading is unfortunate. Students should learn that part of college education is reading books with new ideas, not avoiding different beliefs and reading only what confirms what they already think. At the University of North Carolina, no students were actually compelled to read the book; no student would be expelled or given an “F” for failing to complete the assignment. Yet this voluntary intellectual activity is being denounced and, in all likelihood, future orientation sessions will have no reading of any controversial books.

4(h) The Middle Eastern Studies Summer Institute for Teachers, held at Central Connecticut State University in July 2002, was condemned for being pro-Palestinian. The Jewish Ledger published an article demanding equal time for a speaker approved by the Anti-Defamation League or the cancellation of the workshop. The Connecticut Humanities Council, which funded the event, promised to monitor it. U.S. Rep. Nancy Johnson (R-Ct.) attacked the seminar: "My concern is that the presentation of issues in the Middle East is not balanced. Intellectual honesty requires that there be a presentation of both sides." Threatening emails and phone calls were delivered to CCSU president Richard Judd and the professors teaching the seminar.

(Hartford Courant, 8/11/02, 8/12/02)

ANALYSIS: While balance in a workshop may be desirable, it becomes a threat to academic freedom when imposed by threats or demands by politicians, particularly when these are made before the event ever occurs, with no knowledge of what will be presented.

4(i) Not all interventions by presidents and trustees endanger academic freedom (although that is the typical result). There are some examples of presidents who have strongly defended free speech against even the hint of any restriction on campus:

Penn State: In December 2000, the Undergraduate Student Government informed the Young Americans for Freedom that its mission statement referring to "God-given" rights was religious discrimination. In January 2001, the student-faculty appeals board decreed that unless YAF dropped the religious reference it would lose its status as a student organization. President Graham Spanier ordered the student-faculty board to reverse the decision.

Poet Linda McCarriston at the University of Alaska at Anchorage was criticized after her poem “Indian Girls,” dealing with the sexual abuse of children, appeared in the journal Ice Floe in December 2000. The Chancellor reported that the dean "is now actively dealing with the issues and events involved and is working toward a positive and appropriate result." However, President Mark Hamilton declared in a memo, "Responses to complaints of demands for action regarding constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech CANNOT BE QUALIFIED." According to Hamilton, "There is nothing to 'check into,' nothing to 'investigate.'….Opinions expressed by our employees, students, faculty or administrators don't have to be politic or polite. However personally offended we might be, I insist that we remain a certain trumpet on this most precious of Constitutional rights."

College of the Mainland: the college board unanimously voted to grant tenure to David Michael Smith despite efforts to have him dismissed for his Marxist and anti-war views. A popular teacher, Smith has been nominated as "Outstanding Teacher of the Year" each year.

Retired professor Howard Katz led the crusade against Smith: "I'm a strong defender of free speech and of academic freedom. David Smith has a right to stand on any corner and say anything he wants. But in a classroom, teachers are held to a higher standard by the principles of academic freedom." Katz and a former judge were among a small group who urged the board at a March 18 meeting to deny tenure to Smith.

Smith angered conservatives on campus when he wrote a column in the Galveston County Daily News opposing the use of atomic weapons against Japan. Some of Smith’s students criticized a ceremony for veterans held on campus and handed out fliers promoting a demonstration against the war in Afghanistan. According to Katz, "I can judge David Smith by his writings and the writings of his students.” Katz claimed about the anti-war students, "They didn't get that at high school. They didn't get that at home, I don't think. There's only one place they could have gotten that, and that's in David Smith's class."

Smith calls himself “totally opposed to capitalism” and urges democratic socialism as a more just system. But Smith says, “I actively encourage people to question my views - to express their own different views.”

(Houston Chronicle, 3/24/02; 3/28/02; Chronicle of Higher Education, 3/27/01)

5. Censorship of College Student Newspapers

5(a) Administrative Censorship of the College Press

Although most of the attention about the college press focuses on the common problem of newspaper trashings, administrative censorship often poses the greatest threat to campus publications:

Governors State University: Jeni Porche and Margaret Hosty, editors of the Innovator student newspaper, have sued Governors State University, accusing university officials of tampering with their mail, locking them out of their office, replacing a computer without consent and calling the paper's printer to demand prior review of the paper. The Oct. 31, 2000 issue included an article about a grievance filed by Innovator’s faculty advisor who had been dismissed. GSU president Stuart Fagan declared that the editors "failed to meet basic journalistic standards." The administration ordered the printer not to print any further issues of the Innovator until an administrator had read over the issue in advance to ensure it met “journalistic standards.” Since that date, the Innovator has not been published. In response to the lawsuit, Governors State University asserts that the 1988 Hazelwood high school newspaper case gives the administration near-total authority to control a college newspaper.(Student Press Law Center, 3/30/01)

Florida A & M University: The administration in 2002 finally allowed the distribution of the 2000-01 Rattler yearbook, despite concerns about the title, color of the cover, grammatical errors, and missing photo captions. However, some suspect that the administration objected to Holly McGee’s editor’s note: "To the sneaky, back-handed and disrespectful person who simply moved more than $10,000 from the yearbook budget without so much as a 'by your leave,' you should be ashamed of yourself. What gave you the right to cheat both the yearbook staff and the students of this institution?" (Yearbook victory, 2002) The university initially said that it would not purchase stickers to be placed over the 15 grammatical errors Lewis found, but offered to pay yearbook staff members to apply them to about 1,000 copies. The cost to make the stickers is $ 2,000. Armed with a list of rights provided by the Student Press Law Center, Hayes worked toward a solution after a meeting with administrators on Jan. 30. Administrators agreed to foot the bill for the stickers. After the stickers are placed on the corrections, yearbook distribution will follow.

James Madison University: the administration decided not to cut funding of The Breeze by 8%, despite a member of the board of visitors who objected to an insert in the paper for not being a “positive representation" of the university.(Student Press Law Center, 6/18/01)

At the University of Northern Colorado in June 2001, the board of trustees voted to approve a student government recommendation to eliminate all funding for the Mirror as part of a reduction in student fees. The newspaper claimed that it was being targeted for running editorials critical of student government.(Student Press Law Center, 6/13/01)

May, 2001: West Chester University: three staff members of the Quad were charged with disorderly conduct, academic misconduct, dishonesty and failure to comply. The staffer investigated a tip that students could register early by changing one character in the online system’s web address. Although they informed university officials about the flaw and claim that they registered only to test the system and later removed the classes, they were given the same punishment as other students who used the flaw to register early: placed on disciplinary probation, required to write a three-page paper, and forced to re-register for classes in the fall. The administration said they hoped that punishment taught the student journalists a lesson about "responsible newsgathering techniques." In addition, 5,000 copies of the issue discussing possible penalties for the incident were stolen.(Student Press Law Center, 6/4/01)

April, 2001: Texas Tech University’s School of Medicine expelled a medical student for writing editorials in the student newspaper critical of the administration, including an article criticizing the county medical examiner’s conduct during an autopsy.(Academe, July/August 2002)

Feb. 23, 2001. Portland State University officials padlocked the door of The Rearguard, an alternative student publication, after discovering the paper had decided to pursue an investigative story involving a box of six-year-old university confidential files labeled "to be destroyed" that an unknown individual had left in front of the publication's office. Campus police followed the editor around campus for two hours and threatened to arrest him until he agreed to turn over the box.(Student Press Law Center, 3/7/01)

Spring, 2000: President Arnold Speert of William Paterson University threatened to no longer recognize The Beacon as the student newspaper because a May satire edition, The Bacon, was racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-Semetic and "antithetical to the values that are at the heart of this University." Speert said the administration would no longer advertise with the paper or grant interviews to its reporters, and might try to discourage other advertisers.(SPLC, Fall, 2000)

Feb. 13, 2000: The Hudson Valley Community College's Hudsonian staff was locked out of their office for eight days after publishing a full-page help wanted ad from a strip club showing a woman in a bikini. Editor Tony Gray said that the administration has "vociferously objected to editorials and news coverage for the last semester and are trying to use this for justifying shutting down the paper," but reached a compromise banning future ads in order to reopen the newspaper.

5(b) Anonymous Publications

Oct., 2001: Georgetown University: Administrators enacted a new policy saying anonymous publications that "target identifiable individual members of the university community may be taken from public distribution places by the Vice President." An anonymous satirical newspaper in the spring criticized some university officials.(Student Press Law Center, 10/30/01)

Oct., 2001: Christendom College: junior Michael Marschner-Coyne was suspended for the remainder of the fall semester in 2001 after he published an anonymous newsletter following Sept. 11 that criticized a group of students and faculty (nicknamed “the monarchists” for their study of Aristotle and his critiques of democracy) for being “plagued with several obnoxious political views, such as: America is evil, and a Catholic King is what the world needs now.” A Disciplinary Board unanimously ordered Marschner-Coyne’s suspension because of a) his lack of repentance; b) he was reprimanded for an earlier newsletter attacking the organization; c) lying directly to the Dean of Student Life about his involvement in the newsletter.

Christendom College declared about Marschner-Coyne’s accusations, “If the accusations were true, then the speakers would have been at least strongly reprimanded by the College for the patently evil and utterly obnoxious nature of their remarks. If the accusations were false, the accuser would face disciplinary proceedings due to the fact there is no free-speech value in anonymous, false, and defamatory statements, and such statements are particularly pernicious in a small, close-knit community such as Christendom College.”

(“Statement from Christendom College Regarding Michael Marschner-Coyne’s suspension,” 2001; New York Post, )

ANALYSIS: Academic freedom must protect the liberty of students and faculty to make statements, even when they are deemed “evil” and “utterly obnoxious.” It is untrue that anonymous, false, and defamatory statements have “no free-speech value,” although they are given less weight. Students are entitled to have opinions about student groups on campus, even if these opinions may be inaccurate. They are also entitled to produce student publications expressing these opinions. The question is whether anonymous publications are permitted; if they are, then punishing students for lying about their involvement would defeat the whole purpose of anonymity. Marschner-Coyne only lied about his involvement and created an anonymous newsletter because he had been reprimanded earlier for producing a newsletter. If Christendom College protected the freedom of the press, no anonymity would have been needed. A genuinely defamatory publication (which has not been proven in this case) can be dealt with through existing libel law; it does not require the involvement of a college and its disciplinary process.

5(c) Threats to Faculty Advisers

Perhaps the most vulnerable faculty job in academia is the faculty adviser to a student publication. Non-tenure-track faculty who advise college newspapers frequently bear the brunt of administrative anger, even though advisers at public colleges cannot constitutionally demand prior review, and legal precedents establish that a university becomes liable for defamation in a student newspaper only if it control the publication.

Mount St. Mary’s College: William Lawbaugh, a professor at Mount St. Mary's College and faculty adviser to the Mountain Echo, on Oct. 3, 2001 finally received a $3,800 pay raise awarded to the rest of the faculty in early 2000. Lawbaugh had refused to review the paper's content and screen “juicy stories” before it goes to press. However, administrators are also hiring a consultant to investigate Lawbaugh and enforce new sanctions that demand "appropriate respect and loyalty to Mount St. Mary's College" in the paper.(Student Press Law Center, 10/4/01) Mount St. Mary's President George R. Houston Jr. said Lawbaugh’s punishment was for "mismanagement" because Lawbaugh allowed student editors to use advertising revenue to fund staff salaries, which administrators claim is a violation of school policy. However, College Media Advisers voted in August, 2001 to censure Mount St. Mary's after determining in an investigation that the real cause was Lawbaugh's refusal to review the content of the paper, which is sometimes seen as offensive and sexually explicit by some Mount alumni. Houston wrote on Sept. 1, 2001 that "Mount St. Mary's College does not agree with your organization's belief that 'student media must be free from all forms of external interference designed to regulate content.'"

Columbia College: Jim Sulski, a professor at Columbia College in Chicago and faculty advisor to the Columbia Chronicle, lost his advisor job in May, 2001 for allowing the paper's editors to run an anonymous letter on May 14 that attacked Zafra Lerman, director of the Institute for Science Education and Science Communication. Editors admitted they made a mistake, but defended Sulski, who was finally reinstated as advisor in September, 2001.(Student Press Law Center, 9/21/01, 6/14/01)

Central Missouri State University: Muleskinner faculty advisor Barbara Lach-Smith sued Central Missouri State in June 2000, claiming the university did not renew her contract in June 2000 because she refused to do prior review of the newspaper. Shortly after stories revealed the generous contract for the outgoing president (which prompted a state audit), Lach-Smith’s job was reclassified, and she was not even interviewed for the new position.(Student Press Law Center, 5/24/01)

University of Texas at Tyler: after dismissing a faculty adviso