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)