Liberals give lip service to free speech

[TitanTiger 21,238]

I'd be willing to bet this same group of libbies are decrying the "chilling effect" that the PATRIOT Act is having on free speech. But, as usual, free speech only applies to those they agree with. In other words, don't criticize or boycott the Dixie Chicks, thereby shaving a few million off the millions they make each year...but go right ahead and abuse your position of authority to ruin the career of a tenured professor that doesn't toe the line.

Oklahoma U Crushes A Prof's Free Speech

By David Deming

FrontPageMagazine.com | February 2, 2004

I am associate professor of geology and geophysics at the University of Oklahoma in Norman. I receive teaching evaluations that run from average to outstanding.  I have more scholarly publications than half the full professors in my department. But as I sit here writing, three of my four classes have been cancelled. I am scheduled to be moved out of the office I have occupied for the last twelve years into a dank hole in the basement that was never intended to be used as office space. Recent events are the culmination of four years of retaliation, intimidation, and harassment. You see, I don't have the right politics.  What's worse is that I'm not submissive and I refuse to be bullied and intimidated.

My troubles began in March of 2000 when I published a "letter to the editor" in the campus newspaper that some people found offensive. Responding to a female columnist who claimed that possession of a firearm made every gun owner a potential murderer, I pointed out by way of analogy that her possession of an unregistered sexual organ made her a potential prostitute. For writing this letter, twenty-five charges of sexual harassment were filed against me by people I had never met. My attitudes, convictions, and beliefs were put on trial in a secret Star Chamber proceeding. After I admitted (gasp) that I was a member of the National Rifle Association, I was asked this question:  do you think the Nazis were bad people?

For publishing "the letter," I received a formal letter of reprimand from Dean John T. Snow. After receiving the reprimand, I asked Dean Snow how the publication of my controversial letter would affect my position at OU with regard to issues such as promotion and raises.  Instead of reassuring me that my expression of a political opinion would not affect my professional career, Snow said that the answer was "unclear." In a statement that I believe was intended to intimidate me, Snow said that in making future decisions he would "weigh in" how much I had learned from past experiences.

I forwarded a copy of Dean Snow's letter of reprimand to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). Alan Kors, co-founder of FIRE, read Snow's remarks and said he found them to be "alarming." He wrote to Dean Snow:

"(Y)our letter and other communications to Professor Deming strike at the heart of his, the university’s, Oklahoma’s, and this nation’s freedom of thought and expression."

Dean Snow retaliated for the FIRE letter by refusing to forward a routine application I made for funding. If I had received the funding, it would have benefited not just me but Snow's own College. 

This was not my first experience with Dean Snow's intolerance. Years earlier, I had attended a College faculty meeting where Snow suggested that the University of Oklahoma should model itself after Pennsylvania State University. I naively pointed out that the expectation was unrealistic, as Pennsylvania was a much wealthier and populous state than Oklahoma. In retort, Snow glared at me and said that what was wrong with the College was attitudes held by "people like you." In other words, anyone who disagreed with John Snow was a problem—dissent would not be tolerated in Dean Snow's College.

Other faculty members at the University of Oklahoma have had similar experiences with Dean John T. Snow. A few years ago, the unanimous faculty of the Geology Department sent a letter to Dean Snow that said, "We question your willingness to work with us rather than dictate to us, and your respect for us as a faculty and as individuals." A professor who is now at a different institution said that he left OU because he was told bluntly that if he criticized the administration of Dean Snow's College he would "never get tenure" no matter how good his teaching and research were. When I questioned Snow's commitment to intellectual diversity, a colleague warned me that he expected Snow to "put your severed head on a spike."

In April of 2001, OU President David Boren proclaimed that a policy of "complete free speech" applied to the entire OU campus, but Boren's policy is nothing but empty rhetoric and public relations. Under David Boren's leadership, the degree to which academic freedom and free speech at OU have been suppressed is breathtaking, and perhaps unprecedented at an American university.

The archives for the campus newspaper, The Oklahoma Daily, that published my original letter and articles on the resulting controversy, have been deleted from the Daily's website. The records for the months covered by the controversy, February, March, and April, of the year 2000 are conspicuous by their absence. Columnist Wendy McElroy wrote that this was one example of "a politically-correct pattern of purging conservative views from student newspapers [that] seems to be spreading across American campuses."  She went on to note that a central theme of George Orwell's classic novel 1984 was the falsifying of history by the Ministry of Truth. People who said or wrote the wrong things were simply purged from the historical archives.

OU vigorously pursued sexual harassment charges against me for writing the aforementioned "letter to the editor." The charges were only dismissed when my attorneys threatened a First Amendment lawsuit. OU agreed not to retaliate against me, but I have never been treated the same since. Now, when I write a "letter to the editor," it is cut out of the newspaper and placed in my personnel file.

On my professional evaluation for 2001, the Chairman of the OU Geology Department, Roger Slatt, marked me down for publishing a letter in the Oklahoma City newspaper that criticized OU's sexual harassment policy. In his words, my rhetoric showed "contempt and resentment" toward the University. I am sure there are numerous instances where a professor has claimed political bias in matters such as promotion, raises, and tenure. But I have never heard of another instance where an administrator openly discussed a professor's politics on his professional evaluation.

On October 15, 2002, several OU faculty published a letter in the campus newspaper that criticized President Bush's policy on Iraq. None of them were punished for doing so. The letter began with the statement that the signers were "dedicated to the idea that the university is one of the last places where free speech and open debate and dissent are possible.…" I noted with some astonishment that at least one of the signatories was a professor who had filed sexual harassment charges against me for doing the same thing she was now doing—expressing a controversial opinion.

That same year, it was shown to me in no uncertain terms what was expected of me. I published a letter in the campus newspaper that complimented President Boren's free speech policy. But my statement was interpreted by Geology Chairman Roger Slatt as a personal compliment for President Boren. He promptly rewarded me with an "outstanding" evaluation for "praising President Boren." I am not aware of any other American university where faculty are rewarded on their professional evaluations for publicly praising the university president. I know this sounds unbelievable, but it was done in writing—and I can produce copies.

In the spring of 2003 I went through post-tenure review. My "letters to the editor," written on political subjects totally unrelated to my professional work, were cut out of the newspaper and appended to my dossier by Geology Chairman Roger Slatt. They are still there. This unprecedented action was completely analogous to a professor stapling a student's political letters to their examinations. In a subsequent meeting, Dr. Slatt told me that in his opinion it is impossible for a faculty member to speak as an individual. I protested to OU Provost Nancy Mergler. She admitted to me that if I had used a student's political views as the basis for assigning a grade I would have been crucified. But she refused to reprimand Dr. Slatt or even ask him to apologize.

On November 21, 2003, Dean Snow's office circulated by e-mail an article that claimed there were not enough women faculty in the geosciences. The authors argued that women should not have to meet the same standards as men. I responded by circulating—on the same email list—an editorial I had written that argued against Affirmative Action for women. The gist of my argument was that inequalities in numbers do not necessarily imply inequities. I pointed out that although there may be relatively few women in disciplines like geoscience and engineering, females have advantages in other areas. For example, women live longer than men, receive higher grades in college, and are much less likely than men to end up in prison. Instead of addressing the issues, Geology Chairman Roger Slatt responded to my editorial with a personal attack. Acting with the imprimatur of his administrative authority, Roger Slatt circulated to all faculty, staff, and students in the College of Geoscience a statement that implied because I was against affirmative action I had dysfunctional relationships with women. I protested to Dean John Snow. But Chairman Slatt was not punished—I was.

Seven days before Christmas, I was summoned into the office of Dean John T. Snow. My tenure in the geology department was abrogated without due process. My geophysics class—for which I receive outstanding student evaluations—was taken from me without explanation. I was stripped of my right to supervise graduate students in geology and geophysics. I was evicted from my office and relegated to a small, dark room in a corner of the basement. No other faculty member in the entire College has office space assigned in the basement. Dean Snow glared at me and said that the fundamental problem was that I was not submissive to authority

The administration of the University of Oklahoma seems to want a generation of faculty that are servile, apathetic, and obsequious. No doubt that is what they will get.

After I contacted the media, two of my remaining classes were taken from me. Dean Snow has informed me that he nevertheless expects me to remain fully productive. The situation is not without precedent. The Egyptian Pharaoh punished rebellious Israelite slaves by requiring them to "make bricks without straw."

After taking office several years ago, OU President David Boren announced that the new mission of the University of Oklahoma was to attain "excellence," a goal which heretofore had been more commonly associated with companies that manufacture small kitchen appliances. For hundreds of years, it was universally understood that the mission of our universities was to pass on the core values of Western civilization through liberal education. The most important of these values are freedom of speech and thought; without them no scholarly pursuit or education is possible. My experience indicates that these values are now foreign to the University of Oklahoma.

David Deming is Associate Professor of Geology and Geophysics at the University of Oklahoma.

[Donutboy 0]

Saying that a female with a sex organ is a potential prostitute IS free speech, but it also is a very crass, stupid statement that, coming from a university professor, reflects badly on the University. I don't think this is a "liberal" vs. "conservative" issue but one of the university punishing a professor for behaviour unbecoming of a representative of that school.... Kinda like what Mike Riley got busted for at Alabama. If he'd said that everyone with a bottle of liqour and a car was a possible drunk driver, I don't think the consequences of his letter would have been the same as proposing that all women are potential prostitutes!!.

[TitanTiger 21,238]

The stupid girl said that mere possession of a firearm made the owner a potential murderer. The analogy, while shocking, was dead on. And the article goes on to cite many more instances of the university's stifling of free speech. Not to mention, OU didn't take this a mere case of bad taste, being crude, or reflecting poorly on the university. They vigorously pursued sexual harassment charges against him:

OU vigorously pursued sexual harassment charges against me for writing the aforementioned "letter to the editor." The charges were only dismissed when my attorneys threatened a First Amendment lawsuit. OU agreed not to retaliate against me, but I have never been treated the same since. Now, when I write a "letter to the editor," it is cut out of the newspaper and placed in my personnel file.

It just so happened that a girl was the one making the idiotic statement about gun owners being potential murderers. If it had been a guy, he could have (and probably would have) just as easily said that the guy's possession of a penis makes him a potential rapist, if the murderer logic is held to be valid reasoning.

And if you'll read on, you'll see that there were many other instances of conservative political views being stifled on the OU campus before this.

[Tiger Al 0]

I'd be willing to bet this same group of libbies are decrying the "chilling effect" that the PATRIOT Act is having on free speech. But, as usual, free speech only applies to those they agree with. In other words, don't criticize or boycott the Dixie Chicks, thereby shaving a few million off the millions they make each year...but go right ahead and abuse your position of authority to ruin the career of a tenured professor that doesn't toe the line.

The problem most people have with the PATRIOT Act isn't first amendment infringement so much as it infringes on the fourth, fifth, sixth, eighth and fourteenth amendments. That's probably neither here nor there, as I understand your statements about free speech were merely meant to frame your disdain for liberals.

About boycotting the Dixie Chicks, or anyone else for that matter; as I've said before, it seems kind of silly to me to boycott someone I otherwise would not because they hold a different social or political ideology than I do. Arnold Schwarzenegger has different opinions than I do but as an actor he's fine. Before he was governer, if he wanted to talk politically or criticize our government, that's fine, too. I won't stop seeing his movies because of it. If someone wants to stop buying Dixie Chicks music or going to Disneyworld because they disagree with something they've said or done, that's fine, too. As I said, it seems silly to me. If I want to boycott someone, I'd more likely boycott Nike and other apparel manufacturers who exploit their workers. But, that's just me.

While I probably agree with you in principle about the professor, let me play devil's advocate for a second. If this were a minority writing an article about how he was being discriminated against at work, or from getting work, what would the usual conservative response be? I'll try to remember some of the ones I've seen here. That person probably wasn't qualified to get or keep the job and his complaints are evidence that he's not employable. He might need to pray a little harder. He should buckle down and work harder. He's a typical conservative whiner who's being pushed out because he can't cut it at his job and is looking for an excuse now to file a lawsuit so he can get a big payday and not work anymore. Maybe he should just go somewhere to work. After all, I wouldn't want a job where I wasn't accepted. He's been studying victimology too long. Etc., etc.

Not very valid arguments, are they?

[Donutboy 0]

The stupid girl said that mere possession of a firearm made the owner a potential murderer. The analogy, while shocking, was dead on. And the article goes on to cite many more instances of the university's stifling of free speech. Not to mention, OU didn't take this a mere case of bad taste, being crude, or reflecting poorly on the university. They vigorously pursued sexual harassment charges against him:

OU vigorously pursued sexual harassment charges against me for writing the aforementioned "letter to the editor." The charges were only dismissed when my attorneys threatened a First Amendment lawsuit. OU agreed not to retaliate against me, but I have never been treated the same since. Now, when I write a "letter to the editor," it is cut out of the newspaper and placed in my personnel file.

It just so happened that a girl was the one making the idiotic statement about gun owners being potential murderers. If it had been a guy, he could have (and probably would have) just as easily said that the guy's possession of a penis makes him a potential rapist, if the murderer logic is held to be valid reasoning.

And if you'll read on, you'll see that there were many other instances of conservative political views being stifled on the OU campus before this.

Why does he need to use sexual deviations for a comparison? That's what I see as his biggest problem. Why wouldn't students of his file sexual harrassment charges against him? They're there to get an education and now they think their professor sees them as potential prostitutes? He has a problem other than free speech.

[TitanTiger 21,238]

While I probably agree with you in principle about the professor, let me play devil's advocate for a second. If this were a minority writing an article about how he was being discriminated against at work, or from getting work, what would the usual conservative response be? I'll try to remember some of the ones I've seen here. That person probably wasn't qualified to get or keep the job and his complaints are evidence that he's not employable. He might need to pray a little harder. He should buckle down and work harder. He's a typical conservative whiner who's being pushed out because he can't cut it at his job and is looking for an excuse now to file a lawsuit so he can get a big payday and not work anymore. Maybe he should just go somewhere to work. After all, I wouldn't want a job where I wasn't accepted. He's been studying victimology too long. Etc., etc.

Not very valid arguments, are they?

My question would be, if he's such a rotten professor:

--Why does he publish more as an associate professor than over half his full professor collegues?

--Why give him tenure?

--Why does he get such good evaluations (by his own words, he's been rated from "average to outstanding")? Doesn't sound like someone who doesn't do a good job?

That's not to say you don't make some valid arguments in some situations, but I just don't think they stick in this situation.

[TitanTiger 21,238]

Why does he need to use sexual deviations for a comparison? That's what I see as his biggest problem. Why wouldn't students of his file sexual harrassment charges against him? They're there to get an education and now they think their professor sees them as potential prostitutes? He has a problem other than free speech.

That's what you see as the problem, but the pattern of the administration at OU seems to show that the sexual reference wasn't really the problem for them. Like I said, there were other episodes that have nothing to do with this situation that show their contempt for political views other than their own.

And I think that the sexual comparison was a good one to go for because it starkly shows the ludicrous logic being employed. If you think he really believes his female students are potential prostitutes, your mental abilities are cause for concern. He was using the girl's own faulty logic to show how her statement was invalid. He doesn't believe mere possession of something that could be used in illegal ways makes the possessor a potential criminal. That goes for the possession of a vagina or the possession of a firearm.

Please tell me you grasp this.

[Tigermike 3,711]

Why does he need to use sexual deviations for a comparison? That's what I see as his biggest problem. Why wouldn't students of his file sexual harrassment charges against him? They're there to get an education and now they think their professor sees them as potential prostitutes? He has a problem other than free speech.

Are you saying that being a prostitute is deviant behavior?

As Titan pointed out He was using the girl's own faulty logic to show how her statement was invalid. He used an analogy to point out her faulty logic. A teachers job is to teach. He was doing that.

[TitanTiger 21,238]

Apparently, some of her past teachers...like the English teacher who was in charge of helping impart reading comprehension...didn't teach her very well.

[Tigermike 3,711]

For writing this letter, twenty-five charges of sexual harassment were filed against me by people I had never met. My attitudes, convictions, and beliefs were put on trial in a secret Star Chamber proceeding. After I admitted (gasp) that I was a member of the National Rifle Association, I was asked this question:  do you think the Nazis were bad people?

I am still confused how he could sexually harrass someone he had never met.

If attitudes, convictions, and beliefs can be grounds for sexual harassment then we all are in trouble.

do you think the Nazis were bad people?

Al and Donut must have been asking the questions.

[Tiger Al 0]

My question would be, if he's such a rotten professor:

--Why does he publish more as an associate professor than over half his full professor collegues?

--Why give him tenure?

--Why does he get such good evaluations (by his own words, he's been rated from "average to outstanding")? Doesn't sound like someone who doesn't do a good job?

That's not to say you don't make some valid arguments in some situations, but I just don't think they stick in this situation.

His publishing record, while impressive, isn't relevant to his defense. Tenure and ratings can be dismissed because, as a minority, his superiors at the university would've been afraid of the ramifications from the NAACP and the ACLU if they fired him or didn't give him tenure, so that's not relevant to his defense, either.

See how this goes when we refuse to look at the issue at hand and, instead, look look for superficial reasons to corroborate our beliefs?