FIRE puts DePaul University's feet to the fire
Cross posted at Marathon Pundit.
Big hat tip to DePaul student Nick Hahn of My Political Agenda.
First, a flashback to Tuesday's Chicago Tribune article about Thomas Klocek's free speech struggle at DePaul University, as the Chicago college's president, Father Dennis Holtschneider, speaks out about free speech:
"I get accused of being against free speech," Holtschneider said. "But freedom of speech for students requires they have a professor who treats them with respect."
Well, the free speech problems at DePaul go beyond its reprehensible conduct in the Klocek affair.
FIRE, by the way, is short for Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.
From the organization's mission statement:
The mission of FIRE is to defend and sustain individual rights at America's increasingly repressive and partisan colleges and universities. These rights include freedom of speech, legal equality, due process, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience—the essential qualities of individual liberty and dignity. FIRE's core mission is to protect the unprotected and to educate the public and communities of concerned Americans about the threats to these rights on our campuses and about the means to preserve them.
Protecting the unprotected is FIRE's specialty, which is why it agreed to take up the cause of suspended DePaul Professor Thomas Klocek and the abuse of his free speech rights at DePaul.
It's apparent that the bullying of Klocek was not an isolated incident at the Catholic university.
On October 20, Ward Churchill spoke at DePaul. Churchill is best known for his comment that the victims of the September 11 terrorist attack were "Little Eichmanns," as in Adolf Eichmann, the Nazi bureaucrat who oversaw Hitler's holocaust.
The DePaul Republicans were almost completely stymied in their attempt to utitilize their free speech rights to protest Ward Churchill's on-campus appearance there. That speaking gig, it's important to point out, was partly paid for by tuition dollars.
It's believed Churchill was paid about $5,000 for his 90 minute speech.
FIRE has opened a second case against DePaul, the first one of course involved the Klocek incident.
Here is that new case, DePaul University: Censorship of Student Group Protesting Ward Churchill, which includes some really creative anti-Ward Churchill posters.
More from FIRE, specifically its online publication, The Torch:
DePaul = Deceit
Every so often, FIRE gets a case where the behavior of university administrators is truly mystifying. Our most recent case at DePaul is one example, and is the subject of today's FIRE press release. That press release, and particularly its related links, is chock full of information about how DePaul went about silencing a group that was critical of the university's decision to sponsor a campus lecture and workshop by Professor Ward Churchill. It's truly a chilling story.
19 comments:
The City of Chicago gives DePaul all sorts of breaks and advantages.
Maybe the City Council ought to consider a resolution asking DePaul to conduct themselves with a little more enlightenment about free expression and exchange of views.
I'm DePaul Grad from the Biz School, 1979 by the way.
Loyola Twice Here! It is a shame that Catholic Universities can be as PC idiotic as Amerherst or Colorado. Loyola always seemed to respect its blue-collar roots - its a shame on DePaul.
John and Bill,
A Blessed and Merry Christmas to you and your families! To all the PC pinheads - Cool Yule.
Not a bad, idea, Bill. Merry Christmas everyone!
Bill,
When a teacher, in school, flips off your kid, and you support the teacher, you can then tell us all about Free Speech.
This guy was dumped not because of his views, but because he effectively flipped off students [actually it was a rude gesture involving his hand under his chin].
I also love how these conservatives turm into big government guys when they are offended. They now want the government telling an employer who it can hire and fire.
Tell us your views, Bill. Should the government have the power to stop an employer from firing an employee who flips off clients or co-workers? What is your position on that issue, Bill?
What is that scent in the air? Isn't that the foul stench of conservative hypocracy?
skeeter,
I think you are both over-simplifying things and being melodramatic.
The professor-student-university relationship is not quite the same as that of employee-client-business. And these students are not kids, they are young adults....it's not like this is the 3rd or even the 10th grade. Being “flipped off” is hardly the most graphic or offensive thing these students are exposed to in a day at DePaul.
Furthermore, according to the statements of DePaul’ s own statements, he was not simply fired for the gesture, and – as you would put it – being rude to a client. If that had been their sole justification, it might be a different story. Instead, according to President Holtschneider, Klocek violated the “freedom of speech for students,” which “requires they have a professor who treats them with respect.” So Klocek was fired for violating the some newly found clause in the first amendment. This is what irritates me so much…..DePaul’s administration basically decided that the student’s freedom of speech was more important than the professor’s. Again, this is not about clients and employees in a business setting; this is about students and teachers in an institution of higher learning that is supposed to be promoting the free and open exchange of ideas between them. How does firing a professor for expressing frustrated disrespect to a group of uncooperative pupils promote this?
I also think you are being a little dramatic with your ominous talk of the “government.” We are talking about an employee who feels he has been wronged seeking redress in the courts. How exactly is that ‘big government.’
But if we want to get really theoretical about this, I am curious if your philosophy of employers-can-hire-and-fire-for-whatever-reason-they-want extends beyond the first amendment to the fourteenth. Can an employer decide not to hire employees of a particular race, gender, or sexual orientation because they feel it might put off current or potential clients? (And before you try and blow this off by trying to turn it around on what you might think my views are, I’ll tell you: the government cannot force an employer to hire or retain employees simply because of those things, but the government does have a responsibility to protect the civil rights of it’s citizens by making sure that businesses are not hiring or retaining employees for those things. I don’t see anything hypocritical about that.)
Hey Skeeter, Klocek says that the gesture is an old Italian gesture meaning "I'm outta here."
The Muslim students freaked because of what Klocek said, essentially, he said there was a crucial difference between the actions of the Israeli Defense Force storming a known terrorist hideout, and a Jihadist strapping bombs under an overcoat and blowing himself up at a crowded seder dinner with the intent of inflicting maximum casualties.
Bill is more than capable of speaking for himself, but I had to join in here.
Oh, this is from today's Front Page Magazine:
Then there is the 2004 case of De Paul university professor Thomas Klocek. Professor Klocek, who had taught at De Paul University for fifteen years, visited a student fair on campus and engaged in dialogue with some Muslim student supporters of Hamas and Islamic Jihad. He defended Israel. He questioned whether Rachel Corrie had indeed been murdered in cold blood and whether Israelis were really treating Palestinians in the same way that Hitler treated the Jews -- as the Muslim students’ literature and posters claimed. He insisted that “the Israeli Armed Forces have exercised very careful restraint in their responses to what has been almost daily suicide bombings.” Whereupon eight students descended on the single professor. A verbal melee ensued. Despite their clear superiority in numbers, the students donned the garb of victims, complaining that they were “harassed” and "threatened.” They further alleged that Klocek had made “racist remarks.” The students met with their advisors who alerted various administrative deans. The deans wasted no time capitulating to the student agitators. They apologized to the offended students and suspended Professor Klocek. As of this writing, a lawsuit is under way.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20640
GOP wrote:
"I also think you are being a little dramatic with your ominous talk of the “government.” We are talking about an employee who feels he has been wronged seeking redress in the courts. How exactly is that ‘big government.’ "
I am amazed by that question. It is Big Government because THE GOVERNMENT is now telling an employer who it can and cannot fire.
Do you understand that the courts are part of government?
Do you understand that in order to go to court, you must have a legal right?
Do you understand that you are creating new legal rights, i.e. under your plan, an employee has a right to damages for being fired for being rude to clients or co-workers?
Do you feel that the government should make those decisions, or should the employer make those decisions?
Should the government decide when an employee can be fired?
Frankly, despite your claims of academic excellence, I could not figure out what you were trying to say on the issue.
It is a simple question, and one that you have never clearly addressed.
People like you scare the hell out of me. When convenient, you talk about the virtues of tort reform. However, when people like you sit on juries, you want to give money away. If you want to do the right thing and stop lawsuit abuse, then you need to do it all the time.
Whenever a conservative feels he has been wronged, I hear the "sue them" chorus, and I am getting a bit tired of that song.
John:
Initially, from your second post your bias is clear. This not an free speech issue for you. It is a Muslim/Christian issue. I note that your second post makes no reference to the rude gesture. More evidence of your clear bias. When you find a Muslim to support with regard to free speech, then you can lecture about free speech. It is easy to claim free speech for the popular. It takes guts to stand up for the unpopular. When you support groups like the ACLU who stand up for free speech rights of the unpopular, then I will believe you care about free speech.
You don't like the ACLU, do you John? Correct me if I am wrong on that one.
Moreover, the guy was supposed to be a linguist. He knew how the gesture would be taken. If an employee flips off a client and then says "in my culture, that is a sign of respect" then the employer should still have the power to get rid of that employee.
It continues to amaze me that conservatives want to tell an employer who it can and cannot hire and fire. What a shame. Being a conservative used to mean something. Barry Goldwater would be ashamed of what happened to his movement.
The Right has its own version of "free speech for me but not for thee". Some college students want to shout down a speaker they don't like, and when the school preserves his free speech rights, they claim their rights were impinged!
Skeeter,
Chicago City Council can pass a resolution on the War.
Seems to me they could pass a resolution expressing some displeasure with the mumbo jumbo that's come out of DePaul as of late with Norman Finkelstein and the Klocek case.
The resolutions didn't bind Bush to do anything. They wouldn't bind DePaul to do anything.
Resolutions are just recognition that words and actions have meaning and the People of Chicago watch and listen. If I lived in the city limits I'd be writing my alderman.
I don't think it's extreme or conservative view.
Especially from a guy who's always thought himself part of the left and is just dismayed by what's happened to the left in this country.
The ACLU would represent the conservative students if their free speech rights have been violated.
Anonymous said...
The ACLU would represent the conservative students if their free speech rights have been violated.
You are right. In this case, however, that has not been done. You see, it is not the government that imposed a sanction, but a private party. As a result, there is no free speech violation.
Hicky,
Thanks, and Merry Xmas to you too..
Mr. Baar:
A non-binding resolution of the City Counsel? I could not possibly care less.
However, I would expect that the resolution would not mention "free speech" since this matter has nothing in the world to do with free speech.
However, if you do believe that this is a free speech issue, do you also believe that free speech prevents an employer from firing employees who flip off co-workers or clients? Is that part of your definition of "free speech"?
I think it's much more than free speech Skeeter.
This is really a case of reactionary Islamic groups linking up with the left and probably putting pressure on DePaul to fire a guy they don't like.
These folks win out you'll find out what a loss of rights is all about.
Klocek has a contract of some sorts. That's what the trial all about. Let's see what the lawyers find and get the story about why DePaul fired him.
Sure DePaul has a right to fire someone, but if its politics, we have a right to comment on it and make a stand.
And the City Council should still take a stand on some of the politics that's been espoused at DePaul of late.
As a footnote on flipping out kids. I have them, and if they talked the way some of these Left Wing and Palestinian groups do about Jews and history and America you can bet I'd flip them out.
Skeeter, at the opposite end of the state, another professor had to deal the ire of the far left, SIU's Jonathan Bean. Articel orig. from the Boston Globe.
http://www.reason.com/cy/cy050305.shtml
Although Cathy Young of Reason wrote this follow-up this month that shows that right-wingers are just as eager to censor as left-wingers.
http://www.reason.com/cy/cy121305.shtml
It's a shame when people of any viewpoint get offended by things that they disagree with and try to shut up those whom they disagree with rather than just debating or ignoring them like adults do.
After reading the facts, I believe DePaul acted responsibly here. Not sure what your bias is . . .
Post a Comment