Higher Ed Law Prof Blog

Ward Churchill: Culprit or Victim?

His university has finally fired him, following years of controversy and investigations. A day after the firing, Churchill's attorneys were in court filing his lawsuit. Is he a culprit who deserves to lose tenure, or a victim whose academic freedom has been abridged... or a bit of both?Ward Churchill's web site.

Temple Law Professor Argues Supreme Court Narrows Academic Freedom. Is He Right?

"The Roberts Court and Academic Freedom"
Professor Mark Rahdert is to be commended for raising a red flag in the name of academic freedom in the July 27th issue of the Chronicle Review.

However, I find his essay straining a little too hard to pull three disparate threads --- three very diverse Supreme Court decisions --- together in support of his sounding an alarm. I can understand his concern for the potentially broader implications of Morse v. Frederick, the case in which a high school student was disciplined for displaying a banner which read "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" at a school event, and Garcetti v. Ceballos in which a government attorney was disciplined for speaking up about what he deemed a spurious search warrant.

What I can't fit into Prof. Rahdert's perceived pattern of attacks on academic freedom and free speech is Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc.This is the case in which colleges were told by the high court that they must permit U.S. military recruiters to interview students on their campuses, this despite the differences between the military's position on sexual preference and that of many higher education institutions.

Prof. Rahdert worries that the decision narrows the notion of "speech" dangerously. I wonder, though, if his solution --- allowing universities to ban recruiters --- wouldn't narrow campus speech even more.

The solution to bad speech, it has been said ad nauseum, is more speech. If faculty and students dislike Uncle Sam's position on sexual preference, picket the campus interviews.

Just as Professor Rahdert illustrates how each of the decisions he discusses can be stretched to cover, and narrow or restrict, traditional notions of academic freedom, I think an opposite outcome in Forum for Academic and Institutional Rightscould lead to a much worse outcome. Let me illustrate.

In 2002 the New Jersey poet laureate, Amiri Baraka --- a former Black Panther --- shocked Garden State residents and politicians with his repeated public readings of "Somebody Blew Up America," in which he implied that Israel was somehow involved in the Twin Towers attacks.

At some New Jersey universities, where Baraka was scheduled to read his poems, some faculty attempted to have the events cancelled. At one such school, about which I have personal knowledge, the adminsitration to its credit refused to ban Baraka. Instead an area was set aside near the performance venue, where faculty, students and staff were permitted to picket in protest of Baraka's appearance. Many did. As an aside, Baraka didn't read "Someone Blew Up America."

My point, if it's not obvious, is that a decision to sanction the banning of military recruiters from college campuses --- or, more accurately, to condemn Congress's decision to require collegiate compliance with recruiter requests --- could lead quite seemlessly to sanctioning the boycotting of Baraka.

Whether the speaker is Uncle Sam or Amiri Baraka, the solution is more speech... not the banning of the speaker.

To that extent I must take exception to Professor Rahdert's thesis, albeit I understand that he criticizes theForumdecision on different grounds.
--- Jim Castagnera

No charges filed in Villanova Rape Case

Last week three freshman football players were sent home from their two-week summer program and their admissions were withdrawn by Villanova University in suburban Philadelphia, after the three were accused of raping another student.Philadelphia Inquirer