The Interim Policy on Discriminatory Harassment by Faculty and Staff in the University Environment has been suspended, by the action of the central administration, “as it applies to the academic setting.”
All of us who have objected strongly to this policy will find this action promising, and will surely want to express our support for the freedom it seeks to encourage.
Several observations about the resultant situation are in order:
First, note that the policy remains in effect “in the context of employment, housing or University activities…” Why? Is it because the freedom to speak one’s mind on controversial matters is to be enjoyed less fully by an office worker or cafeteria employee than by those who enjoy the perquisites of the “academic setting”? The policy—which (still!) makes verbal conduct that may be construed to create an “intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment” subject to discipline—purports to make the University the judge of what content speech may have to be permissible in these precincts. But this is not within our constitutional authority; policing the speech, even of menial workers, is not our duty or our right; we ought to get out of the business of regulating what people say, even if they say offensive things, and we ought to get out of that business completely. Until we do we will remain the butt of national humor. Assaults on individuals are neither invited nor permitted; unlawful assaultive activity on the job is readily punishable without any need for University right-thinking rules.
Second, note that the very commendable partial suspension of the policy is only possible because that very bad interim policy was improperly instituted in the first place. Malicious accusations against faculty members have been encouraged by such policies, as we have learned to our sorrow. Professors Duderstadt and Whitaker come now, thoughtfully and happily, to recognize the ineffectiveness of such policies, and their other evils (in the academic setting, at least). But it was, after all, their own role as authorities behind such policies that led to the evil they now seek to mitigate. We must be fair in commendation and in criticism alike.
Third and finally: Prof. Whitaker asked, rightly and wisely, for continued dialogue about free speech and civility. Restrictive “policies” and “speech codes” may be thankfully allowed to rest in peace. We have got on quite well nearly two centuries without them, and we can totter along without them for a while yet. But we ought to recognize that there is, on our campus, an unfortunate escalation of active intolerance for the expression of views that are not shared, and intolerance even for the use of words that are not liked. Some who express unpopular views are explicitly threatened with physical attacks. Faculty members who introduce the wrong subject in their classes, or do so in the wrong way, may have their reputations ruined and their lives devastated. This is not hypothetical; most of us know that this a real and dreadful turn of events in a free university. But we may expect this spirit of intolerance to be overcome only with the outspoken leadership of our administrative officers. It is a very good thing for administrators to express support for free speech. But it is essential, if that support is to be effective, for those same administrators to spring visibly to the defense of persons (whom they may not like!) abused because they exercised that freedom. I wait hopefully for that.
Carl Cohen,
professor of philosophy
Living in a free society implies a willingness to be insulted in the cause of an unfettered exchange of information. Because that is the raison d’etre of a university, we would do best to use the laws of common courtesy rather than enact codes. In the end, being respected beats being protected, just as being offended beats being silenced. And history shows clearly that in censored systems, the censors eventually fall victim to censorship themselves.
Charles R. Eisendrath,
associate professor of communications and director, Michigan Journalism Fellows Program
The University says it’s about change, about preparing students for a changing world. We need to reconcile this with a better understanding of how society has changed, we need to examine values as they change.
At the U-M, “tradition” at one time meant exclusion, exclusion of women and people of color. Does that mean we have to hold on to that tradition?
People are going to be challenged, are going to be offended and be more vocal about it. If we value a climate that respects and appreciates different cultures, we have to be sensitive to this.
The classroom should not be a forum to denigrate others’ beliefs. It should offer an environment that welcomes an intellectual exchange of ideas, a place in which students should be comfortable in challenging, asking for clarification without fear of penalties imposed by faculty or ridicule by other students. People are definitely entitled to their opinions, but opinions can be challenged.
If we have an open university and open discussion, it has to be more than just student-to-student. It has to be honest discussion that involves the whole academic enterprise.
John H. Matlock, director,
Office of Academic Multicultural Initiatives
We first must look at the issue from the point of view of the receivers. People get hurt and offended and upset when others says things they perceive as denigrating. That unfortunately happens to be the price one pays for living in a world with the First Amendment.
People have to learn to have thicker skins. As educators, we help people deal with bigotry and other issues, and we must give them skills to deal with a confusing world that is sometimes painful to live in.
If faculty members are saying offensive things to students, offending students in their classes, we can turn it into a First Amendment issue, but it doesn’t have to be that. It’s a management problem.
The first time managers hear of such incidents, it is their responsibility to address them. They have to call the person in and let him or her know that such language will not be tolerated. If it happens again, the chair has to have the support of the dean and provost in addressing the problem if it is a clear violation of professional standards.
Our chairs are not professional middle managers, get no management training whatsoever, especially in personnel matters. If indeed we’re concerned, these are the people who have to monitor what’s going on. This is a management problem and should be addressed as such. We have to provide people with some good management training.
It seems to me that we may want to look at this from an educational standpoint also. There is no way to make a world in which everyone is nice to one another. Therefore we need to help people learn to deal with the fact that they will occasionally be offended, rather than increase their sensitivity.
The issue is teaching and a management function for people who are really out of line. I surely don’t think that a policy approach is a good idea. It won’t work legally and is divisive.”
Daniel E. Moerman,
professor of anthropology, U-M-Dearborn
Articulating an acceptable harassment policy really requires very careful attention to not only free speech values but also to academic values.
I do believe that there are actions faculty can take even in the classroom that the University can properly regulate, or prohibit. Defining that behavior is the great problem, of course. I have no doubt that if a male faculty member offered to raise the grade of a female student in return for sex that the University can and should prohibit that behavior even if it occurs in the classroom.
I very much applaud Gil Whitaker’s suspension of the existing code, which I thought was problematic at best. I think there should be some structure to the discussion. I think it is important for the University to not only encourage discussion but to actively seek to organize responsible
discussion about the issues.”
Lee C. Bollinger,
professor and dean of the Law School
I think that we as faculty should be able to come up with guidelines for appropriate faculty conduct in the classroom.
It is difficult to develop law that might lead to penalties. It is not a subject well handled by a static statement. I think we need to enter the discussion and inform ourselves about what we consider to be appropriate. If we find there is enough of a core of agreement, that might lead to some kind of statement that would be a guide to classroom conduct.
Henry C. Griffin,
professor of chemistry and chair,t
Senate Advisory Committee on University Affairs
I think it an area that takes some serious consideration because harassment can be very detrimental to particular individuals, particularly when a person in a dominant position uses that position to deprive individuals who are a captive audience, to the extent that these individuals can’t function effectively in this institution.
Faculty members should be able to state their views but not impede other people’s progress in the institution. We need academic freedom but we also need responsible citizens who can exercise that freedom in an academic framework.
If an individual uses his position to harass someone, it is detrimental to everyone.
Sometimes it is not clear, when talking about harassment, what the focus is. Often people don’t talk about harassment in the same breath as sexual harassment. The same principles apply. We might make progress if we talk about both types of harassment in the same sentence.
I came as a student in 1957 and have been here ever since. When I was here as a student, no one talked about harassment in the same light as today. Times might have been better. The University was a place where if you attended to your business and program, there was no interference. Now things are more heavily politicized. Harassment can be used almost as a weapon to exclude people, to interfere with people carrying on with their activities in a normal way. Used that way, it is very detrimental.
There is not much dialogue on these issues. Most people don’t want to face it. That is the easiest way to deal with it. I want to say that academic freedom should prevail. I do question if there should be some limit, if faculty should be able to say anything they want, even when students are a captive audience—when they need the class to meet a requirement. Do students have to stay there and accept it?
When speaking about race and gender, things get quiet. People are looking for ways to protect their image. People would rather pretend that these controversial issues based on race don’t exist.
Donald R. Deskins Jr.,
professor of urban geography and sociology
There is good reason for us to have a carefully drawn policy. We have a history at the University of a lot of disagreement between students and faculty, especially over how it is appropriate to conduct intellectual conversation, teaching, what kind of comportment faculty and students should have toward one another on campus.
By setting a bright line for what kinds of conduct and treatment of people on the grounds of race, ethnicity or gender would be clearly unacceptable, you would at least have a starting point that enables people to understand what clearly is unacceptable.
It is important to set up arrangements where people can talk frankly but safely about disagreements of pedagogical style.
A good policy would have two aspects: a small portion would include punishments for harassment, including threats, singling out individual students for vilification, openly ridiculing students in the classroom on the basis of race and gender. The grounds for prohibiting those kinds of behavior is based on faculty member’s obligations to provide equal education for everyone. Faculty have a legal and moral obligation to treat students as equals.
The second reason why some behaviors have to be prohibited is that students have academic freedoms. Certain kinds of humiliating behavior effectively excludes their targets from participating in research and education opportunities and make a public declaration that they are not welcome here. This is a violation of academic freedom.
Certain kinds of personally abusive speech are really out of bounds. That’s the speech that should be kept out of bounds to allow people in positions of less power to speak openly and frankly and sometimes harshly about the problems this campus confronts.
No regime will maximize speech. Every rule will silence some speech to enable other kinds of speech.
Faculty ought to be free to make highly controversial claims that will be upsetting to students. It is important to distinguish between harassment and engaging in highly controversial theorizing. In the name of faculty obligation to promote freedom, the freedom for everyone to participate as equals in education and research opportunities, it is important for the University to say certain kinds of discourse that silence people should not be tolerated.
Faculty members should have the freedom to pursue very controversial research programs, including ones that may be racist and sexist. That freedom doesn’t insulate them from criticism. A faculty member has a right to say Blacks are less intelligent than whites. It is also protected speech for students to argue that research is racist. Faculty can’t be insulated from harsh, bitter criticism of their methods, assumptions and conclusions. It is important to preserve room to make that criticism.
The key points I would like to make are:
1. A good policy has to draw a clear distinction between making controversial and possibly offensive claims of a general and theoretical nature and on the other hand engaging in vilification on discriminatory grounds.
Theoretical statements, no matter how offensive, need to be protected. Personal attacks on students should not.
2. A policy needs to provide two alternative pathways: For very egregious behavior, repeated personal attacks on members of University community, there should be room to impose sanctions. A sound policy also has to provide a mechanism that allows people to think through these pedagogical styles, and include a variety of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms through which people can operate without threat of sanctions. We need to give people the opportunity to explore other ways to engage students more effectively, in ways that don’t inflame massive distrust and resentment and thereby shut down the learning process.
3. There are two major reasons why faculty should feel an obligation to live up to certain standards of discourse and why a policy can be justified. Faculty have legal, moral and professional obligations to provide equal education to everyone. With the increased diversity of the student body, faculty have to think about their conduct, how to change to provide a productive and effective learning situation for everyone.
The second reason that justifies it is academic freedom itself. No regime of rules maximizes freedom of speech. Freedom of some to use speech to silence others through ridicule or abuse implies that some others will not be free to speak. The lines have to be drawn very carefully. We have to be careful about what speech is going to be permitted. Speech that has to be permitted is academic speech: trying to figure out how the world works; general, theoretical speech, oriented to discovering truth, explaining phenomena, whether spoken by faculty or students. That is the aim of academic freedom. Other kinds of speech—threats or personal vilification of individuals on discriminatory grounds—have no cognitive value. Speech that undermines the aims of the University in producing theories or interferes with the research and education missions of the University may be restricted.
Elizabeth S. Anderson,
assistant professor of philosophy
