5. Judge Upholds Punishment of Jeffries' Speech

In 1995, a federal court of appeals ruled that City College of New York professor Leonard Jeffries could be deprived of the chairmanship of the black studies department solely because of the protests against a 1991 speech he made. Professors from all ideological backgrounds should be concerned that punishment for their public speeches has been found constitutional by a federal court. However offensive and ignorant Jeffries' ideas are, this is a dangerous precedent that allows controversy to be an excuse for disposing of unpopular views.

In his July 20, 1991 speech at the Empire State Black Arts and Cultural Festival in Albany, Jeffries contended that Jews were major figures in the slave trade, said historian Arthur Schlesinger was "a weakling" and "slick and devilish," and called professor Bernard Somer "the head Jew at City College." Jeffries said that the denigration of blacks in movies was "a conspiracy, planned and plotted and programmed out of Hollywood, where people called Greenberg and Weisberg and Trigliani and whatnot... Russian Jewry had a particular control over the movies, and their financial partners, the Media, put together a system of destruction of black people." (New York Times, 4/5/95)

After this speech became publicized, there was a loud public outcry, with several politicians calling for Jeffries' dismissal. In response to these complaints, City College decided to punish Jeffries by stripping him of his chairmanship in the black studies department, a position that is normally not taken away without evidence of incompetence at the job. A jury determined that City College had violated Jeffries' First Amendment rights. As a juror in cases noted, "Much as I would like to have ruled otherwise, because he was sort of an odious individual, they definitely violated his rights as far as I could see." (Congress Monthly, 7/93) However, the jury's verdict of $360,000 was overturned on appeal.

The U.S. Court of Appeals Second Circuit found that City College did not violate Mr. Jeffries' free-speech rights because it was reasonable to believe that his speech would "likely be disruptive." This is a dangerous standard; under it, Michael Levin in a similar case surely could not have won his lawsuit, since his remarks (and the response to them) could be considered destructive. Anyone who wants to censor an opponent need only be "disruptive" to provide an excuse for administrators to remove the controversial professor.

The New York Times concluded that being a department chair was "a special credential" and "a leadership position" whose holders "represent the university's values to the public," and therefore is not entitled to protection by academic freedom. (11/17/94) However, the key issue here is not the nature of a department chair, but the plain reasons why Jeffries was removed from it. His political views, not his administrative competence (which is very much in doubt), was the only reason for City College's retaliation.

The decision overturning Jeffries' victory sets a dangerous precedent that even opponents of Jeffries' bigotry must understand. A federal court has established that faculty may be punished (and perhaps, by the same principle, even fired) for expressing unpopular views of any kind in public.

If free speech is to be defended and bigotry condemned -- and both ought to be our goals -- then there should be no more double standards, no more demands that ever black intellectual and political leader stand up to condemn every racist who happens to have a black face, no more accusations of political correctness when white bigotry is challenged, and no more attacks on those who defend the free speech of black bigots. If academic freedom means anything, it is the right to speak of those we hate and condemn.