Marquette Misleads: Why Cheryl Abbate Left the University

Cheryl Abbate, readers of this blog will remember, was the Marquette graduate instructor who was approached after class one day by a student who noted she had briefly mentioned gay marriage, and seemed to endorse it. The student made it clear he would have liked an opportunity to oppose gay marriage. She told him:

• “some opinions are not appropriate, such as racist opinions, sexist opinions”
•  “do you know if anyone in your class is homosexual?” . . . “don’t you think it would be offensive to them”
• “you don’t have a right in this class to make homophobic comments.” 
• “In this class, homophobic comments, racist comments, will not be tolerated.”

We blogged about the issue, and an uproar ensued. Abbate got some rather nasty e-mail messages (and noticed some rather unkind comments about herself surfing Internet discussion boards). But she got no actual threats.

Claiming to feel “unsafe,” she left Marquette for the University of Colorado, and Marquette, blaming us for the e-mails, began the process of revoking our tenure and firing us.

Marquette on Abbate’s Departure

Marquette claims it is all our fault that she left a cushy, comfortable position in Marquette’s Philosophy Department for the wilds of Colorado. For example, a Marquette “FAQ” claims that:

The graduate student left the university . . .  after she  was subject to a stream of threats and hateful messages.

A letter to us from Dean Rick Holz, dated January 31, 2015 outlines some of the unkind e-mails Abbate got, and claims:

Accordingly, and understandably, the student feared for her personal safety, and we posted a Public Safety Officer outside her classroom. In addition, as a result of your conduct and its consequences, Ms. Cheryl Abbate now has withdrawn from our graduate program and moved to another University to continue her academic career.

The Reality

The first thing that might raise some suspicion about Marquette’s claim is the simple fact that Colorado’s Philosophy Ph.D. programs ranks much higher than Marquette’s. One site that lists several different ranking metrics puts Colorado consistently in the top 40 programs in the country, and Marquette barely in the top 100.

Other sites ranking the top programs list Colorado, but fail to list Marquette at all, apparently because it is not in the top 60, and in another case because it is not in the top 50.

The Inside Story

More direct evidence comes from documents produced during the “discovery” process in our suit against Marquette.  James South, Associate Dean of Arts and Sciences, and former Chair of the Philosophy Department explained in an e-mail to Dean Holz:

Friday, December 5, 2014 5:11 PM

Rick,

It’s complicated, but the short version is Cheryl is planning to leave Marquette and go to a different Ph.D. Program, which has offered her significant financial aid and is reputationally superior to MU. She’s working on a letter to Nancy [Snow] about this, which she is also going to send to Jeanne.

We can talk more on Monday. But several programs reached out to her and offered her aid and [she] finds MU to be very uncomfortable and toxic. She walks around afraid for her safety and feels unsupported by the senior faculty of the department.

James

Another e-mail on December 9, also from South to Holz, responds to Philosophy Chair Nancy Show’s version of events:

Hi Rick,

If you have a few minutes, could we talk about this tomorrow? Cheryl is not just leaving because of McAdams, but because she did not feel comfortable in the department — for several reasons, not least because of how Nancy [Snow] treated her, her research area, and her mentor, Susanne [Foster].

Anyway, I resent Nancy saying I felt threatened by McAdams and none of the senior faculty she mentioned have been harmed by McAdams in the way she suggests. Indeed, I’ve always felt much more annoyed by Nancy than by anything McAdams said and I’ve seen her intimidate and belittle her colleagues more than McAdams has ever done.

Sorry to unload on you, but I don’t want Nancy giving the wrong impression to people, and at some point she needs to be called to her own account.
Best,
James

We can’t speak to Abbate’s feeling of being “unsafe,” except to repeat that she received no actual threats, and to note that politically correct people on college campuses have weaponized fragility by claiming to feel “unsafe” in all sorts of circumstances.

It seems that on this, as on so many issues, Marquette has intentionally issued misleading and (in some cases) flatly false statements. All the while exuding pious rhetoric about its “Catholic mission.”

Marquette’s Hypocritical Claim to Care For Students

From Rick Esenberg, on Right Wisconsin:

Cura Personalis is a Latin phrase that translates as “Care for the Whole Person.” Marquette uses the term to claim that it will support each student based on their unique talents, challenges, needs and possibilities. But does Marquette practice what it preaches?

This question brings us to the controversy surrounding Marquette’s suspension and termination of Professor John McAdams. Little attention has been paid to the heart of the story: a complaint by a Marquette undergraduate about his Marquette Instructor. How did cura personalis apply to this student?

The student came to Professor McAdams with a complaint about the way he was treated by his philosophy instructor and the way his complaint was handled by Marquette administrators. His instructor, Cheryl Abbate, made it clear to him that expressing opposition to gay marriage was not just mistaken but “homophobic” and “offensive.” As such his views would not be tolerated. There is no dispute about this. The exchange was recorded. The Instructor informed her student that his traditional Catholic beliefs were beyond the pale.

Although the University refers to Ms. Abbate as a “student,” she was a paid employee of the University responsible for delivering a required philosophy course and grading the students who took it. In fact, she invoked her authority as a “professor of ethics” when talking to this student. Her treatment of her student was anything but an exercise of cura personalis.

The student complained to Dr. Susanne Foster in the College of Arts & Sciences, and was sent to the Philosophy Department where he spoke with then-chair Dr. Nancy Snow and Dr. Sebastian Luft. Neither Dr. Snow nor Dr. Luft took any action on behalf of the student. In fact, Dr. Snow referred to him as an “insolent little twerp” in a communication with the College of Arts & Sciences. What Dr. Snow did do was communicate immediately with Ms. Abbate to tell her, in essence, that they had her back. Dr. Snow reported to Ms. Abbate that she told the student that he “needed to change his attitude” and that she would be “monitoring” the situation. Dr. Snow told Ms. Abbate to let her know if the student did anything that Ms. Abbate found objectionable. Ms. Abbate thanked Dr. Snow and said that hopefully the student learned that “oppressive discourse is not acceptable.”

So what we have thus far is the administration at the university calling an undergraduate student names behind his back and circling the wagons against the undergraduate.

But it gets worse. The student returned to Arts and Sciences and spoke to Associate Dean James South. Dr. South recorded the interview without the student’s knowledge or consent. The recording shows that Dr. South lied to the student, telling him he had not listened to the student’s recording of the conversation with Ms. Abbate even though he had. Subsequently, in explaining why he did not tell the truth, Dr. South said that he had “used [his] prudential judgment to try to keep him [the student] at ease.” In other words, he could dismiss the student’s concerns if he pretended not to know the facts.

No one in the University Administration has ever addressed the student’s complaint or publicly (or privately to the student) expressed any concern for the way the student was treated. Dean of Arts & Sciences Richard Holz and President Lovell are both aware of all of these facts and have done nothing. The only person at Marquette who did stand up for the student was Professor McAdams. For this he was suspended, banished from campus and is going to be fired.

And that brings us back to academic freedom. This demonstrates why robust protection of free expression is required. The student has conservative Catholic views that are unpopular with many. Ms. Abbate was part of the faculty with contrary views. Marquette believes that an instructor was entitled to be protected from accurate criticism. It apparently believes the undergraduate student deserved to be told that his views could not be expressed in polite society.

Freedom of speech is an essential remedy for hypocrisy. Sadly, Marquette does not understand that.

Esenberg is the President and General Counsel of the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, and head of the legal team representing us in our battle with Marquette.

James South and “Girls”

We recently blogged about a male professor in Marquette’s Philosophy Department who was reprimanded by then department chair James South for referring to an event attended by female faculty as a “girls night out.”

The professor contested the reprimand, and got it overturned.

But now an e-mail correspondent brings something to our attention.

On James South’s personal web page, he lists one of his “Top Five Xena Episodes” as “Girls Just Want to Have Fun.”

In fact, it’s listed as number one, his absolute favorite!

So he doesn’t really seem to mind referring to adult women as “girls” so long as he is doing it.

So is it really “offensive” to refer to grown women as “girls?”

This came up in a conversation with a feminist colleague of ours (a sensible woman, now retired) and she pointed out that nobody seems to mind The Spice Girls or The Indigo Girls.

But what about calling grown men “boys?”  Well, there are “good ol’ boys,” which a Google search shows to be very widely used.

And the greatest Bluegrass band in history was The Foggy Mountain Boys with Lester Flatt and Earl Scruggs.  And the Oak Ridge Boys have been a fixture in country music for decades.

No doubt in some contexts calling adult women “girls” would be demeaning.  But context matters, and stock phrases like “girls night out” are not offensive. 

Feminists running around looking for a grievance are offensive.

Marquette Philosophy Professor Reprimanded for “Sexism” for Using the Phrase “Girls Night Out”

Eventually Vindicated

This isn’t new (it happened in the spring semester 2013), but it just got brought to our attention, and it’s too important (and outrageous) to pass up.

It started when the male Philosophy professor and a female faculty member (Susanne Foster), happened to meet, and discussion turned to an event which, by happenstance, was attended by several female faculty members. The male professor referred to the event as a “girls night out.”

Foster apparently took umbrage at the phrase “girls night out.”

And there it all should have ended. Except that Philosophy is one of the most leftist and politically correct departments in the university, and academic feminists are always on the lookout for a grievance.

Taking it to the Department Chair

So Foster contacted Department Chair James South, complaining about the incident.

South wrote a letter to the male professor, accusing him of “sexual harassment,” and placed it in his personnel file. South also apparently reported the incident to Human Resources, noting a supposed pattern of “sexism” on the part of the professor.

Vindication in Two Steps

First, the accused professor filed a grievance with South, giving his side of the story. South agreed to remove the letter from the professor’s file, and to retract the claims made to Human Resources.

South declined to comment to The Marquette Warrior about this incident, and it’s unclear whether he actually repented of what he had done, or merely came to realize that he had no leg to stand on under university rules. No charge of sexual harassment had been made through official channels, much less adjudicated to be true.

The Money Issue

The professor also demanded that Marquette pay the $1,000 in legal fees he had incurred. The University refused, saying that university procedures do not require that one have legal representation.

This was the position taken by then Arts & Sciences Dean Phil Rossi, and then Provost John Pauly. So the professor appealed to the Faculty Hearing Committee. In May, 2013, it issued its verdict.

On the professor’s request legal fees, the committee concluded “that university policies were violated by the actions taken by Dr. South against [the professor], and that his request for reimbursement of legal expenses is warranted.”

This verdict, communicated to the new acting Provost, Margaret Callahan, resulted in the professor’s legal bills being paid. This was an important action. It established the precedent that someone in a university, faced with charges against them, is not required to master the arcane rules of university procedure and employment law unassisted.

This should have ended it, but even a year later (February, 2014) some faculty members in Philosophy were spreading the story that the professor had been officially reprimanded for sexist behavior. He felt the need to send out a circular letter to faculty and teaching assistants in Philosophy refuting that charge.

So What is Going On Here?

In part, this is simply the political correctness typical of academia, especially from feminists, and especially in humanities departments.

They actually consider the phrase “girls night out” to be offensive. But the entire rest of the world does not.

One can simply Google the phrase “girls night out.”

The search turns out a massive number of results. Events titled “Girls’ Night Out” are sponsored by about every reputable, mainstream organization one can imagine.

Just the uses of the phrase important enough to be mentioned in Wikipedia are:

• Girls’ Night Out is the name of:
• Girls’ Night Out (The Judds song), a 1985 number one country hit by The Judds
• Girls’ Night Out (film), a Korean movie
• Girls’ Night Out (album), an album by Toronto
• Girls’ Night Out (album), an album by Candy Dulfer
• “Girls’ Night Out” (Danny Phantom), a Danny Phantom episode
• “Girls’ Night Out” (The New Batman Adventures), an episode from the TV series The New Batman Adventures
• “Girl’s Night Out” is an episode from the fourth series of Ally McBeal
• Girls’ Night Out, a song by Miley Cyrus from the album Hannah Montana 2: Meet Miley Cyrus
• Girls Night Out, an anthology by Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez

Wikipedia defines the phrase as follows: “A ‘girls’ night out’ is a gender-exclusive activity where women meet to engage in social activities.”

It seems that only in the rarified world of academic feminism is “girls night out” a sexist phrase.

James South, remember, is the fellow who ripped down from a graduate student’s office door a quote from libertarian humorist Dave Berry.

 The quote read:

“As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful, and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government.”

South insisted this was “patently offensive” and that “hallways and office doors are not ‘free-speech zones.’”

But It’s More Complicated Than This

The Philosophy Department has been riven by a deep divide between more traditional scholars and a more trendy, leftist and politically correct faction.

The latter group (which includes South and Foster) have generally been in control. Increasingly, they have a voting majority of faculty since, after all, they control hiring, and hire people like themselves. When they have lacked a majority they have often engaged in manipulation: votes have been taken, and if the vote turns out the “wrong way” it is declared to be “inoperative.”

With some frequency, the Arts & Sciences Dean’s office has intervened to dictate decisions, and impose the desires of the politically correct faction.

In one recent case, such an intervention had the Philosophy Department on track to have two experts on Buddhism, but no expert on Plato! Happily, this fell through.

The professor changed with sexism has been among the group critical of South and his allies, and this looks for all the world like a form of retaliation for the professor’s opposition in departmental politics.

Vindicated, but So What?

One of the more disturbing things about this incident is that both South and Foster now have positions in the Office of the Dean of Arts & Sciences. Which suggests they have the ear of Arts & Science Dean Rick Holz. Our interaction with Holz suggests that he’s an intelligent and competent technocrat. But does he have the savvy (and the vision) to avoid being manipulated by his staffers to intervene in the affairs of the Philosophy Department to move the department further in a direction contrary to what should be the norm in such a department in a Catholic university?

Time will tell.

But at the moment, internal politics in the Philosophy Department is a mess. An external search for a faculty hire to come in an take the job of Department Chair is underway. Under better circumstances, departments can reach a fairly easy consensus on a current faculty member that faculty trust to take that role.

But Marquette’s Philosophy Department is an example of what happens when traditionally Catholic universities are infiltrated and then taken over by the dominant ideologies of broader academia.

Marquette Philosophy Department Censorship Continues To Reverberate

It was a huge fiasco last fall: James South, Chair of the Philosophy Department at Marquette, ripped down from the door of a graduate student a quote from humorist Dave Barry.

South said it was “patently offensive.”

In Monday’s New York Post, an Op-Ed column from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education rehashes the story.

Of course, Marquette’s behavior sounds as sordid now as it did when the story broke.

Marquette, and especially the Marquette Philosophy Department will have a hard time living this one down.

Ideological Bias in Marquette’s Philosophy Department

Stu Ditsler is the Philosophy graduate student who had an “offensive” quote on the door of his office last fall. On September 5th, it was torn down by Department Chair James South, who claimed that several people had objected.

What terribly offensive thing did Ditsler post? Here it is:

“As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful, and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government.”

It appears that this particular act of ideological bias was just the tip of the iceberg.

Ditsler had earlier been chastised for his libertarian views. In an e-mail he sent us yesterday, he explained.

I’ve been holding onto this for a while, but I feel compelled to write about it now in light of the events of last semester and my impending graduation. Some background first. At the end of every semester the faculty members in the Philosophy Department have a meeting to discuss the performance of the graduate students in their classes that semester. Each graduate student subsequently receives an individual evaluation from an advisor based on the comments made at the meeting. Here are some of the comments reported about me in my review following the Fall 2005 semester.

“The general impression of the Department is that you are a good student who has the potential to do good philosophical work. It was also mentioned that you are for the most part a strong writer. There are some ways, however, in which you could improve your abilities as a philosopher. First, it was mentioned that it is sometimes the case that you interpret a view you do not like in a terribly unsympathetic manner. This is not a virtue, in philosophy, because we want to get at what is being said for or against the strongest arguments an author presents. Starting from an unsympathetic position short-circuits this sort of discussion. On a related note, it was also suggested that you think about setting your philosophical and ideological commitments to the side while assessing the views of others, and be a bit more flexible about what is valuable and what is not.”

First of all, this is a completely inappropriate review that amounts to a blatant attempt at intimidation. Were other graduate students in the department with different views than my own asked to set aside their “philosophical and ideological commitments” or “to be a bit more flexible about what is valuable and what is not?” My hunch is no. Regardless, it is not the prerogative of anyone in the philosophy department to suggest that. Period.

Secondly, as if that weren’t enough, this review could only have been prompted by remarks I made outside of class that semester, specifically the time I made some critical comments about Marx at the public defense of another graduate student’s dissertation. In the classes that I took within the Philosophy Department that semester (Descartes and History and Theory of Ethics) my views never arose within the context of a class discussion with the sole exception of some positive comments I made about Nietzsche’s moral philosophy.

Lesson learned: express my undesirable and reactionary views outside of class, and be rebuked for it.

Marquette’s Philosophy Department is truly in a sorry state.

In some places in academia, it is appropriate to keep one’s ideological views out of one’s scholarship. If one is studying, for example, the idea that blacks in Wisconsin are more likely to be thrown in prison than are whites, facts are facts, and it shouldn’t matter what one wants to believe.

But philosophy is necessarily about normative notions. It can’t even pretend to be “value free.”

We can’t imagine any feminist philosophy student being told to keep her “philosophical and ideological commitments to the side.” Indeed, what politically correct humanities departments are about is viewing everything through the lens of race, class, gender and sexual orientation.

But somehow, at Marquette, viewing philosophy through the lens of respect for individual liberty and respect for property should be set “to the side.”

Marquette Tribune Chastised For Failure to Support Free Speech

From the blog of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a post about an editorial in the Marquette Tribune supporting Marquette’s censorship of a Dave Barry quote posted on the door of a graduate student in Philosophy.

What is most disturbing about this editorial is not this [factual] error, though. It is the fact that the editorial treats the avoidance of institutional embarrassment as a higher value than liberty. It is the rare college newspaper that will cheerfully proclaim that speech can be arbitrarily censored because the school “is not a free-speech zone.” One suspects that the Marquette Tribune might feel differently if, instead of removing a Dave Barry quote, Professor South had decided to throw out a stack of issues of the Marquette Tribune. And the idea that free speech is to be confined only to “free-speech zones” is a shocking departure from the ideals of free speech that have served our nation and its universities well for over two hundred years.

There is simply no plausible defense for Marquette’s removing a Dave Barry quote from Stuart Ditsler’s door. The office hallways of most colleges boast doors festooned with quotes, cartoons, political posters, etc. If a Dave Barry quote is the most offensive thing on display at Marquette, it must be a boring place indeed.

What does it say about the culture at the Marquette Tribune that they were unwilling to support free speech in this instance?

Nothing at all flattering. When student journalists turn into authoritarians, free speech on campus is in real trouble.

But we’ve known that for a while.

Marquette Tribune Supports Philosophy Department Censorship

What ever happened to the notion that student journalists favor free speech?

It seems to depend on the ideological complection of the speech.

It seems they don’t favor free speech when a libertarian graduate student in the Philosophy Department posts a quote knocking the Federal Government on his office door.

Exhibit one: the Marquette Tribune, dealing with the issue in an editorial this past Tuesday, takes Marquette to task over communication about the issue, but sees nothing wrong with the actual act of censorship. According to the fledgling journalists:

The university could have easily defended South’s actions with its Student Handbook policy. Despite the romantic impressions of some, Marquette is a private institution — not a free-speech zone.

The removal of the quote didn’t clearly violate any freedoms granted by the Constitution, federal or state, nor by the university. Marquette’s Student Handbook demonstrations policy states when people differ on whether a demonstration infringes on the rights of others in the community, an authority — in this case South — communicates his judgment and can require the demonstration be “promptly terminated.”

So the argument appears to be “since Marquette has a legal right to censor speech, that makes any particular act of censorship legitimate.”

Particularly bizarre is the statement about “. . . when people differ on whether a demonstration infringes on the rights of others in the community. . . .”

Just what rights did Ditsler’s office door quote infringe upon?

Let’s look at it:

“As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful, and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government.”

Just how does this “infringe” upon anybody’s rights?

The Tribune appears to have bought into the politically correct notion that people on the left have a “right” not to be confronted with ideas they dislike.

The more senior journalists at the Journal-Sentinel sided with free speech on this issue.

But what happens to journalism when younger journalists, steeped in the intolerance of political correctness, come to dominate the profession?

Journal-Sentinel Slams Marquette Over Philosophy Department Office Door Censorship

The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, in today’s edition, slammed Marquette for censoring a quote from columnist Dave Barry that was posted on the door of a graduate student’s office.

Editorial: It’s all a free-speech zone

We were under the impression that the entire United States is a free-speech zone. Which is why the phrase’s use is puzzling in the case of a teaching aide and graduate student at Marquette University who had a quote from a well-known humorist removed from his office door recently.

The quote from Dave Barry was, “As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful, and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government.”

Philosophy department chairman and associate professor James South called the quote “patently offensive” and said that the campus’ free-speech zones required him to take it down.

Point No. 1: If this quote is “patently offensive,” then a whole lot of folks who call themselves conservatives or Libertarians are patently offensive. Variations of this theme operate as their mantra. There’s nothing offensive about it. It’s a point of view. Agree or disagree, but don’t ban it.

Point No. 2: Lighten up. Most folks recognize hyperbole when they see it, particularly educated people such as those who walk the non-free-speech hallways of Marquette.

Point No. 3: While no right is absolute - yeah, yeah, yelling fire in a crowded theater - free speech should come pretty darn close. An easily offended nanny state might police cartoons and posters pinned up on office doors and walls. Thank goodness we don’t live in one. Right?

Of course, Marquette is a private university. OK, but one that presumably subscribes in some measure to the concept of academic freedom. Or is this reserved only for those graced with tenure?

No, the teaching assistant and graduate student who put up the quote - Stuart Ditsler, who says he is a Libertarian - should qualify. A campus spokeswoman said this is a workplace issue, not one of academic freedom. This makes no sense. The workplace in this case is a university.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has taken up Ditsler’s cause. A letter to the foundation from Marquette President Father Robert A. Wild said, because the quote wasn’t attributed, “someone reading . . . may not have understood the humor/satire of Dave Barry.”

So, here’s a compromise. Attribute the quote and return it to the office door. But here’s a better one. Allow Ditsler to put it up anyway if he chooses.

Of course, it’s not just conservatives and libertarians who distrust the Federal government. Where the Patriot Act is the issue, it’s liberals and leftists who do that.

Which doesn’t matter at all here, since you can be liberal, conservative, libertarian or whatever and still have a right to academic freedom.

And the leftists who run the Philosophy Department probably do believe that “folks who call themselves conservatives or Libertarians are patently offensive.”

And they believe that they have the right to shut up people they find “offensive.”

But it’s the job of Deans, Provosts and, if necessary, university presidents to protect students from those sorts of attitudes.

Mike McKinney, where were you on this?

Madeline Wake, where were you on this?

You both look as silly as James South does.

We know where University President Robert Wild was. Out to lunch.

Marquette: We Can’t Allow Speech To Which Somebody Objects

It’s been all over the news: the fact that Marquette Philosophy Chair James South tore down a quote from columnist Dave Barry that was posted on the office door of a graduate student.

South explained that people “complained” about the quote, and that it was “patently offensive.”

What was the terrible thing that the graduate student posted? Judge for yourself:

“As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful, and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government.”

In an e-mail to the student (one Stuart Ditsler) South explained his rationale for the censorship.

I had several complaints today about a quotation that was on the door of CH 132F. I’ve taken the quotation down. While I am a strong supporter of academic freedom, I’m afraid that hallways and office doors are not “free-speech zones.” If material is patently offensive and has no obvious academic import or university sanction, I have little choice but to take note.

Ditsler, doubtless astounded by the effrontery of this message, replied as follows.

Dr. South,

Because I know that it is tricky trying to convey the right tone over e-mail, I’m going to make an extra effort to be respectful. I just want to express my concerns about a discrepancy in the way this matter has been handled. To wit, last year Dr. [redacted], who I like, respect, and admire very much, posted a cartoon by Pat Oliphant of the Washington Post about the ethical principles (or lack thereof) in the Bush administration that stayed on his door for I believe the entire academic year. The year before that, you posted a piece on your door immediately after the 2004 presidential election criticizing “family values” voters for preferring Bush and the Republican Party to Kerry and the Democrats. What this tells me is that doors and hallways are not “free speech zones” (a Bush administration term, which is ironic in itself) only when the opinions expressed are contrary to those of the majority of the members of the department. Nor do I see, in the first place, what is “patently offensive” about a quotation (taken from a Dave Barry piece) the import of which is that we should always be on guard against the expansion of government power, a sentiment that has been expressed by too many brilliant thinkers for me to even try to recount them (although I will drop Thomas Jefferson’s name). By contrast, the two aforementioned pieces are explicitly critical of a particular political party and a particular administration.

In sum, I feel like not only is the department treating me unfairly, but the complaints are without merit in the first place. I am deeply concerned, and have been since I arrived, about the intellectual atmosphere of the department. This only gives me more reason to worry.

Thank you for taking the time to take my concerns into account, and I sincerely hope that I have been able to convey a properly respectful tone.

best,
Stuart
[emphasis added]

That’s right. Professors had posted partisan anti-Bush cartoons on their doors, and left them there for months, with no attempt at censorship.

South responded with an e-mail that entirely missed the point.

Hello Stuart,

Thanks for your e-mail. I take it that you are responsible for the message on the door?

As I said in the e-mail, I am happy to talk with you about this matter. E-mail does not seem a very helpful way of have a thorough discussion.

Just to be clear, I don’t go around policing doors. I received complaints and that meant I had to take note of what was on the door. I did not do so unilaterally, but consulted two members of the Executive Committee and the Assistant Chair. My action and my e-mail to those using 132F were merely informational and designed to minimize offense to others. They were in no way related to any disciplinary procedure. Also, as I made clear, nothing in my e-mail is related to the responsible use of academic freedom in the context of the classroom.

I’m sorry if you’re bemused by my use of the term “free speech zone” -- I was not using it in the sense in which you construed it, but merely pointing to the fact that university office buildings, like shopping malls and restaurants, are not unregulated spaces.

The larger concerns you raise, while interesting, are not connected to my decision to remove the unattributed passage that was on the door of 132F. My action was based on specific complaints and consultation with other faculty in a leadership role in the department.

Finally, I encourage you to reread the passage I sent from the Marquette Faculty Handbook regarding academic freedom and its correlative responsibilities.

Sincerely,

James South

The passage from the Faculty Handbook involved responsibilities that accompany academic freedom for faculty. Nothing in the Handbook said that faculty have a responsibility never to express opinions that somebody might disagree with.

South claims “I received complaints and that meant I had to take note of what was on the door.” Why? Nothing was on the door but a political opinion that some leftists might take offense at.

Further, South claims that “I did not do so unilaterally, but consulted two members of the Executive Committee and the Assistant Chair.”

A thoroughly damning statement. It makes it clear that intolerant groupthink dominates the decision-making processes of the Philosophy Department.

Ditsler, getting no satisfaction from his department, went to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. They sent a letter to Marquette President Fr. Robert Wild, outlining the case and asking for a response. Wild took his time responding, and FIRE went public with the issue.

Wild did eventually send FIRE a response, however.

October 16, 2006


Ms. Tara E. Sweeney
Senior Program Officer
Foundation for Individual Rights in Education
601 Walnut Street, Suite 510
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106

Deal Ms. Sweeney:

I have received your letter dated September 27, 2006, regarding an incident that occurred in Marquette’s Philosophy Department.

I believe this matter has now been resolved within the academic department, as properly it should be, and that the original difficulty arose out of misunderstanding. However, I do want to correct a few points in your letter. Specifically, when the quotation cited was posted, it was without attribution; therefore, someone reading the quotation may not have understood the humor/satire of Dave Barry. Second, the e-mail from Dr. James South, Chair of the Philosophy Department, was sent not only to Mr. Stuart Ditsler but to all four students who occupied the shared graduate student office. At the time, Dr. South was unaware of who had posted the flier.

As you correctly point out in your letter, Marquette is a private, Catholic institution. That does not in any way diminish the importance we place on the principles of academic freedom. Marquette’s Faculty Handbook states, “academic freedom is prized as essential to Marquette University and to its living growth as a university.”

Thank you for taking the time to write.

Sincerely,


Robert A. Wild, S.J.

This is an ineffectual, indeed almost bizarre response.

Wild asserts that “when the quotation cited was posted, it was without attribution; therefore, someone reading the quotation may not have understood the humor/satire of Dave Barry.”

The implication here is that the quote would have been acceptable if people had known it was satire, but since they took it seriously, it had to be torn down.

In other words, nobody is allowed to seriously say, on the Marquette campus, that the Federal government is our enemy.

Dave Barry, being a libertarian, almost certainly seriously believes that the Federal government is our enemy -- notwithstanding the humor in his writing.

Wild’s statement about how “academic freedom is prized as essential to Marquette University” would be comical, if censoring free speech could ever be comical.

It’s time to tell the truth about Robert Wild, S.J.

He is utterly ineffective in dealing with the excesses of politically correct faculty and administrators. A well-meaning Jesuit, he simply fails to understand what is going on.

He’s actually capable of saying “academic freedom is prized as essential to Marquette University” while trampling on academic freedom. It’s a problem of intellectual horsepower.

We doubt that if a female student came to the Administration complaining about a case of sexual harassment that had not been properly dealt with at a lower level she would have been blown off in the way Ditsler was. But this is academia, political correctness reigns, and free speech takes a back seat.

Philosophy Department Office Door Censorship Goes National

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has taken up the cause of a Marquette Philosophy Department graduate student who posted a quote from columnist Dave Barry on his door.

Dr. James South, Chair of the Philosophy Department, tore it down, claiming there had been “complaints” and that the quote was “patently offensive.”

From the FIRE website:

MILWAUKEE, Wis., October 18, 2006—Writer and humorist Dave Barry probably never expected that one of his jokes would spark a university free speech dispute. But in early September, a Marquette University administrator removed a Barry quote about the federal government from Ph.D. student Stuart Ditsler’s office door because the quote was “patently offensive.” Facing this arbitrary exercise of political censorship, Ditsler contacted the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) for help.

“There have been several high-profile free speech controversies on campuses recently, such as at Columbia this month. But incidents like this one at Marquette and on other campuses illustrate how even innocuous expression is under ongoing assault at our colleges and universities,” FIRE President Greg Lukianoff said.

In late August, Ditsler posted a quote by Dave Barry on his office door in the philosophy department. The quote read, “As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful, and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government.” On September 5, Philosophy Department Chair James South sent Ditsler an e-mail stating that he had received several complaints and therefore removed the quote. He wrote, “While I am a strong supporter of academic freedom, I’m afraid that hallways and office doors are not ‘free-speech zones.’ If material is patently offensive and has no obvious academic import or university sanction, I have little choice but to take note.”

“This incident at Marquette is part of a truly disturbing trend,” Lukianoff said. “Administrators seem willing to ban speech across the board and to designate increasingly tiny ‘free speech zones’ rather than risk any student or faculty member being offended.”

Ditsler reports that other members of the philosophy department have posted materials on their doors in the past without receiving reprimand or sanctions. FIRE wrote to Marquette University President Robert A. Wild on September 27 stating that Marquette’s policy against “offensive” materials is completely discretionary and therefore subject to abuse. FIRE also reminded Wild that Marquette’s Student Handbook protects the “right of the members of the university community freely to communicate, by lawful demonstration and protest, the positions that they conscientiously espouse on vital issues of the day.” Wild has not responded to FIRE’s letter.

Marquette’s policy of stonewalling on this issue is particularly disturbing.

It suggests that the University knows that South blundered, but lacks the courage to set things right.

At a minimum, Ditsler is owed an apology.

Philosophy Department on Office Door Censorship: Stonewall

We recently posted about how Marquette’s Philosophy Department has censored a posting on the door of a graduate student.

We have tried repeatedly to get Prof. James South, Chair of the department and the person who tore down the posting to comment. Finally, today, he did respond to our e-mail as follows:

Hello John,

I appreciate your interest in the workings and decisions of the Philosophy Department. I will decline, though, the opportunity to speak with you about this matter.

Best wishes,

James

Translation: stonewall.

We would have liked to ask him whether the Philosophy Department has any written policy on door postings. Our sources say it doesn’t. Without a written policy and guidelines, any such act of censorship is entirely arbitrary.

We would have liked to have asked him what was “patently offensive” about the quote on graduate student Stuart Ditsler’s door. The quote, remember, said the following:

“As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful, and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government.”

That’s a pretty straightforward expression of a libertarian philosophy -- although liberals and leftists would entirely agree with it where the War on Terror is concerned.

Might people disagree with this? Absolutely. Is it “patently offensive?” Only in some alternative universe.

The next question would have been: what sort of people would object to this? What sort of people (faculty? graduate students?) think they have a right to take “offense” at political ideas with which they disagree, and then have them censored?

South is unwilling to address any of these questions. It seems that his actions (which presumably had the approval of at least a couple of members of the Executive Committee with whom he conferred) can’t be defended.

Marquette Philosophy Department: Censoring Graduate Student’s Door Posting

It’s the norm in academia for faculty, graduate students and employees to post things on their doors. Sometimes these things are innocuous, but sometimes they convey a distinct political point of view.

From the Distributed Intelligence blog, via the GOP3.COM blog, the fact that some academic departments don’t tolerate this – or at least, don’t tolerate it when the message is from the political right.

Marquette Philosophy graduate student Stuart Ditsler posted a quote from Dave Barry on his door. It said:

“As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful, and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government.”

What kind of response did that get? A e-mail from department chair James South (although the secretary in the Philosophy Department refused to confirm the source) saying the following:

I had several complaints today about a quotation that was on the door of CH 132F. I’ve taken the quotation down. While I am a strong supporter of academic freedom, I’m afraid that hallways and office doors are not “free-speech zones.” If material is patently offensive and has no obvious academic import or university sanction, I have little choice but to take note.

South had conferred with two members of the Department’s Executive Committee, and with the Assistant Chair.

What kind of person would consider this “offensive?” It’s one thing to disagree with something, but quite another to go off whining about how it’s “offensive.”

Add to that the fact that liberals and leftists, not knowing that Barry is a libertarian, might take the quote to mean that the Bush administration is the “enemy.” Ditzler says that he did “not try to put up something that was partisan in some way.”

Around Marquette University, the norm is that professors post things reflecting their political opinions. Our colleague Chris Wolfe has a graphic description of a partial-birth abortion. We have a “Marquette Warriors” sticker.

Indeed, partisan political material has been allowed on the doors in the Philosophy Department.

Last year, a faculty member displayed (for most of the year) a cartoon by Pat Oliphant that was highly critical of President Bush.

And the academic year before that (2004-2005) another faculty member displayed a cartoon (drawn in the wake of the 2004 election) attacking the “family values” voters who supported Bush.

If somebody had claimed to be “offended” by those, would then have been taken down?

Or is the policy enforced in an ideologically biased way?

Ditsler says he “wishes the Department had stood up for me, instead of caving to the people who complained.” There is no Philosophy Department policy on door postings - or at least none of which graduate students were made aware. Thus the censorship was entirely arbitrary, and not the implementation of some well-established policy.

Marquette, being a private institution, has the right to impose whatever restrictions on speech it wants. But that doesn’t mean that this particular restriction is prudent. And it won’t prevent people from thinking that only particular ideas are deemed “offensive” in ideologically slanted academia.