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)