I was intrigued by a college professor who had personal difficulties and was Triggered and Violent (June 2023). That story was about violence and untoward behavior of a pedagogue who struggled with anyone having a different view of things. She was so troubled that students were distributing anti-abortion materials that she labeled them as "triggering" and engaged in violence. It cost her a job in academia. But whether it will impact a career remains to be seen.
The idea of free speech on American college campuses is not novel or unique. There are periodic discussions of professorial censorship. A tenured professor in California was recently terminated by Bakersfield College. The school alleges a history of behavior, the professor contends the school is merely punishing his speech and association freedoms.
An academic advocacy group contends that "targeting" of speech in academia is becoming more prevalent. While that is seemingly supported by their statistics, it is possible that reporting of such targeting perceptions is becoming more ready. Perhaps people are speaking up more than they used to? This group notes that "Targeting incidents occurred most often in the disciplines of law, English, political science, and medicine," and "Scholars were most often targeted for comments made in the classroom."
I spend a great deal of time in classrooms, lecture halls, and programs. I am nearing my 2,000th professional lecture. I am fundamentally certain that I have made references and contentions somewhere that someone found uncomfortable, troubling, or even offensive. That is going to happen when the environment is one in which we would like to challenge minds. That said, classrooms are not a place for violence and vitriol.
And more recently there were opportunities to consider whether they are a place for humor. Funny or Offensive (October 2022). Some believe that making fun of others is ok for some people, but not for others. In a world in which some will discuss inclusion, do we each persistently question our personal attitudes toward it? Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (October 2022). When it is discussed, is it about treating people equally, or is it about treating me (the speaker in any setting) better than others? Speech. What does it mean, and is it truly free?
A professor is suing Pennsylvania State Univerisity (you remember the home of Joe Paterno and Jerry Sandusky), an educational institution venerated by some. The professor contends the school "pressured him to ensure consistent grades for students across 'color line[s]." He alleges that the school concluded that if persons of the same race received different class grades reflecting their individual performance, that "would demonstrate racism and he would be condemned as a racist." The Philadelphia Enquirer reported on this July 5, 2023. The professor claims "he and other white professors were targeted as racist simply by virtue of teaching while ‘white.’”
Meanwhile, in Colorado, a professor is suing a law school alleging pay discrimination based on race. Reuters reports that one of the allegations there involves retaliation in terms of a teaching assignment. The school has apparently responded and alleged that action was taken because the professor "used 'racially offensive and gender biased' comments in class the previous year." Speech, on a college campus, causing concerns and offense? Is the view of speech consistent regardless of the speaker? Should it be?
Also in July, a "pro-abortion" professor filed a lawsuit against a student publication at Notre Dame in Indiana. She alleges that her free speech has been constrained and that this newspaper has published stories that included “defamatory and false statements.” The National Review reported that the newspaper intends to seek protection from an "anti-SLAPP" lawsuit (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) against the professor. Only in America would the response to a lawsuit be another lawsuit. Intriguing indeed.
This professor was apparently engaged in activities regarding abortion and might be viewed as advocating for the procedure. Some might even perceive her as offering medical advice, though she is not apparently a physician. See Is there a Doctor in the House (June 2022), or I'm a Doctor Too? (April 2023). Regardless of academic credentials or licensure, the reporting is silent as to any potential recent temporary residency at a Holiday Inn Express.
The National Review article supports that since the press coverage of her activities she "changed her Twitter display name," "updated her bio," "removed signs from her office door," and "deleted tweets." Notably, the professor is at a private, catholic university. It is likely that her described views run counter to those of her employer. She complains she “has been harassed, threatened, and experienced damage to her residential property" since she spoke her mind and publicly advocated a position. Did she make her comments as a private person or as (even purportedly) an employee of that university?
As regards the allegation of defamation, The National Review reports that original recordings of the Notre Dame professor may substantiate that she actually said things that support the student publication's reporting. Truth, if proven, is a strong defense to defamation claims. When we say things, there may be repercussions. That we believe things is not necessarily wrong. It is possible that we are merely different in our beliefs or perspectives.
Do we want college environments in which teachers and students fear? Do we want professors to self-censor? Close to half say they do so. One survey found 83% of college students self-censor. That may be normal angst about public speaking (many a shy student hates speaking in class). But 83%? Is cancel culture a must or even a desire in education? Who benefits from students who are afraid to speak?
As a side note, there is suggestion here that "triggering" maybe goes in more than one direction? That said, there is never room for threatening or physical violence. The Hunter College professor with the machete cannot be condoned, and that is an extreme example. But likewise, no physical violence or property damage can be condoned regardless of "triggering" ("I was triggered" is nothing but an excuse, and a bad one). Similarly, there are those who perceive the news as labeling with editorial aplomb using "peaceful" regarding violence or "riot" regarding dissension. Those labels perhaps influence public perceptions, feelings, and credibility.
Is this all new? Are dissent and disagreement in educational settings a "new normal?" Or, has there been persistent discord and discussion in classrooms and lecture halls? A Google search for "professor sues college" or "professor sues university" might yield results that would surprise. Possibly, there is a fair volume of dissent and disagreement regarding speech. Do institutions threaten their own credibility when they label speech whether to condone or suppress it?
Should all speech be protected? The Supreme Court long ago dispelled that. Should all speech be welcomed? That is a different question. Should speech be answered with violence or threats? That is an easy "no." Should we all be conscious of the potential that speech has to reflect upon us? Absolutely. Will the world be fair in its judgment of us? Really? Will social media, the press, and the public provide us each unerring and faithful coverage? Well, "no."
Bill Watterson, a comic artist and commentator included an exchange between the strip's protagonist Calvin and his father:
Father "the world is not fair Calvin."
Calving "I know, Dad, but why isn't it ever unfair in my favor"
The world is not fair. As TayTay mentioned once, "Don't say I didn't, say I didn't warn ya." Blank Space, Republic (2014). Are we seeking it to be fair in some objective sense, or are we each looking for it to be in our own favor?
Freedom of speech is important. Speech should not result in threats, violence, or property damage. But speech may have consequences. You may be criticized, ridiculed, or even sued. There may be repercussions. You may be "Cancelled" for speaking your mind. Think about the patriots who signed the Declaration of Independence. That was speech. Many suffered greatly for their decision to speak out. They did so knowing the potential for detriment.
In its broadest context, as noted by Ronald Reagan, "Freedom is not free." That also applies to Freedom of speech. If you hear things with which you disagree then you may voice your disagreement. If you wish not to speak, then remain silent, that is your right. If you choose to speak, don't expect universal acclaim or acceptance. It is beyond belief that everyone, everywhere, will agree with one another and live in harmony. That is a fool's errand. But, it is imperative that we find room to speak with one another.
For my critics (there are many) who are sometimes quick to remind me that this "is a workers' compensation blog," this space is about workers' compensation, the law, education, community, and more. That does not mean you cannot criticize. I welcome your thoughts and responses.
