Is this for real?

This sounds phoney. No one would be this petty. It sounds too much like on of those PC madness gone crazy urban legends that make the rounds periodically.

JamesG, at 6:45 am EDT on May 8, 2007

Orwellian

“We are not content with negative obedience, nor even with the most abject submission. When finally you surrender to us, it must be of your own free will. We do not destroy the heretic… We convert him, we capture his inner mind, we reshape him… You must love Big Brother. It is not enough to obey him; you must love him.”

O’Brien to Winston, in George Orwell, 1984

thomassowellfan, at 8:30 am EDT on May 8, 2007

This story makes it appears as if this is just one incident, but it seems he has a history of sending out abrasive e-mails. I’m not saying that he should be dismissed because of such e-mails, but it is helpful to know that there’s more of a history here than at first would appear.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonar...articles/0508freespeechprof0508.html

Jim, at 9:15 am EDT on May 8, 2007

Transferred Intent

To reach this conclusion, the views of Buchanan have to be imputed to the professor. This is nonsense carried to its illogical extreme.

Rational people should come to his rescue. No evidence that he intended to adopt the views of the source — is this truly higher education.

Quizzical, at 9:15 am EDT on May 8, 2007

Big Bro

... and when Winston finally loved Big Brother, he got a bullet in his head.

Ron George, Project Writer at Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi, at 9:20 am EDT on May 8, 2007

Why should someone’s job be used as a pulpit for political views of any sort? This man is a math professor and posting quotes from George Washington from Pat Buchanan’s website can have nothing to do with math. I can see a person having individual conversations with friends or coworkers on political topics, as part of daily interaction, but broadcasting a political message on a mailing list is not casual conversation. I expect to go to work and do my job, interacting as a person with other people. I don’t expect to be sold things or propagandized at my workplace, by my employer or by other workers. I do not understand why this man has any right to do what he did. I would feel the same way if he were sending around messages selling tupperware or asking people to love Jesus. It is all inappropriate. I have worked in several highly diverse workplaces, and people get along best by not shoving their views down each others’ throats.

Perry, at 11:35 am EDT on May 8, 2007

Thank you, taxpayers

” .. I’m not saying that he should be dismissed because of such e-mails, but it is helpful to know that there’s more of a history here than at first would appear ..”

Yes — and thank (insert name) that the taxpayers are picking up, most of the costs.

What a great use of public funds! Heck, they might have wasted on the poor, infirm, or elderly! Keep on rocking in the free world!

L.L., at 11:35 am EDT on May 8, 2007

A Sad Day At Glendale

I am always surprised when real college and university faculty are surprised when some of their colleagues and many of their academic managers act in ways that certify their intellectual deficiency and confirm their ignorance of the ideals and principles of higher education.

I have changed only the single name used in the following self-deprecating, satirical letter (1) I typed on one of my computers in my home office and (2) distributed to a few of my friends and colleagues using (3) my own personal ISP. The letter was addressed to the Vice President for Student Affairs who had just announced in a campus-wide e-mail message that the bomb threat in the dining hall was a “prank” by a mentally unstable employee of the university. Of course I never actually sent the letter to the VPSA ... only to a few individuals I thought were my friends.

The university is a private institution without a system of tenure, and I was fired for writing the letter. Oh yes, one of my “friends,” a “colleague,” was not as collegial as I thought he was and took the message to the university’s president and VPAA with the suggestion that I was “dangerous.” It is noteworthy that FIRE – and, indeed, Mr. Lukianoff – had no interest in supporting my effort to overturn this decision.

“January 23, 2003

Dear Clyde:

I will be happy to drop by your office tomorrow at 11 a.m. as you requested; however, I take issue with your right to interrogate me.

First, I do not think my teaching falls into the category of ’suspicious behavior,’ and I resent the fact that some of my colleagues informed on me. Just because, in my BA 212 course last term, four students got F’s, eight students withdrew, and six students cheated ... well, what’s suspicious about that?

Yes, and I heard that my BA 312 students thought my teaching was so bad they recommended that the bomb detection dog be a permanent fixture in all of my BA 312 classes. Well, that’s okay too, but I just can’t keep that hound quiet ... she’s sniffing at my yellowed transparencies all the time and wining like the bitch she is. It’s very unnerving when I’m trying to explain the business applications of hemi-demi groupoids with chain conditions. And my students? ... well, half of them are on their laptops playing EverQuest and the other half are using their laptops to revise their Match.com profiles ... and hardly any of them have any idea what I’m talking about. If you ask me, I think THEY’RE the ones who are suspicious.

And so what if I expected my students to show up for final exams when the whole damned campus was closed down, just because there was a little snow on the roads ... what? ... maybe twenty-four hours before the exam was scheduled. I think you set me up on that one ... but I don’t think that makes me suspicious.

And, yes ... I guess the word is out that I try to discourage students from taking notes in my classes ... and am stupid enough to think students and faculty are the most important people at a university ... and yes, I do send e-mail messages back to students, telling them I’ll pay attention to what they have to say only when it’s intellectually intelligible and grammatically correct ... but what’s so suspicious about that?

And so what if I haven’t figured out how to use the Bonehead University phone system yet (and I still don’t know my long-distance ID number ... is it the same as my Fax number? — I don’t know that either — thank God Alice lets me use her number on the very few occasions I need to use the Fax machine). But that just proves I’m mentally slow ... not suspicious.

And do you think I’m not aware of the fact that I got my laptop almost a year after I arrived at BU because it took those Hackers in Computer Services that long to configure it so all my personal messages would be automatically saved in a targeted folder in the Dean’s Office. Huh! ... talk about suspicious!

And, finally, back to my colleagues (and I know whom you are and I know why you turned me in), I think there’s some red-neck profiling going on here (I did grow up in Western North Carolina) ... and I can tell you that the FBI is not going to appreciate the fact that you have participated in blowing my Witness Protection Program cover. You’re going to be in big trouble.

Anyway, Clyde, I’ll see you tomorrow at 11 a.m. ... but don’t expect me to agree to a lie-detector test. Also, I know your office is bugged, so I’ll only respond to your questions if you’re willing to step outside with me. And oh yes ... I have my ways ... I will know if you’re wired.

RWH”

I don’t know if it’s interesting, outrageous, or sick, but when, at her request, I met with the VPAA to discuss the letter (1) she asked a nurse whose expertise was grief counseling to sit in and lecture me about the mental pressures that academe exerts on faculty, (2) she had someone from security stationed outside her office “just in case,” (3) she revealed that they had shared my letter with a psychiatrist who determined (Bill Frist-style) that, based on his reading of my satirical message, I was, in fact, paranoid and dangerous , and (4) she suggested that I get counseling as soon as possible.

Will you allow me to repeat, my case was one that did not fall into the category of cases that are interesting to FIRE.

RWH, at 11:40 am EDT on May 8, 2007

so what was in the proclamation?

This made me curious to find out what was actually in this proclamation that officially created Thanksgiving. Even if there was anything controversial or offensive in it, that would not be grounds for termination of someone who shared it. In fact, I consider it to be educational and informative to learn more truth behind the mythology of our “Founding Fathers.” We all know about their compromised positions with respect to slavery. Anyways, I thought I’d post the whole proclamation right here, along with the link to the Buchanan site.

Thanksgiving Day

Proclamation of 1789

by President George Washington

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor, and Whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint committee requested me to ‘recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanks-giving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many single favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.’

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the Service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be. That we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks, for His kind care and protection of the People of this country previous to their becoming a Nation, for the single and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of His providence, which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war, for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed, for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted, of the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have to acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge and in general for all the great and various favors which He hath been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humble offering our prayers and supplications to the Great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions, to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually, to render our national government a blessing to all people, by constantly being a government of wise, just and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed, to protect and guide all Sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace and concord. To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us, and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone know to be best.

http://www.buchanan.org/h-130.html

Pat Buchanan ;), at 11:40 am EDT on May 8, 2007

I found the email offensive!

As an employee at a small well-known state university, I found the email offensive and insensitive. If I had received such an email, I would not only have filed n official complaint, I would have paid the professor a visit and blasted him for sending me religious sentiment (and probably quoted Thomas Jefferson at him to boot!).

Seems to me that this guy is being jerked back and told to shape up. He will probably keep his job, so lets hope this incident teaches him a lesson.

Kel, at 11:40 am EDT on May 8, 2007

The Real Problem

I think the real problem was his statement at the end of the e-mail: “I apologize if I preempted The Diversity Office in posting this.” I would say that The Diversity Office folks have no sense of humor, and don’t understand that diversity would include something like this proclamation by our first president. Diversity doesn’t mean throwing out all of our history, it means we include others as well. I would guess that Professor Kehowski was probably a bit tired of continuing to receive “diversity” messages that did not include his diverseness and that was the point of his message at the end.

Bob, at 1:05 pm EDT on May 8, 2007

May A Mathematician Discuss The Recent Stellar Explosion?

Personally, I think it is a royal pain in the ass to get blanket e-mail messages in a university environment for any purpose other than “Due to inclement weather the campus will be closed until 10 a.m. on Tuesday.” That said, the paint is almost completely worn off the “Backspace” and “Delete” keys on my keyboard ... and I’ve still got a smile on my face.

One thing that worries me about responses to this article can be explained with a very basic Venn diagram. Let the universal set be U = {all full-time faculty at a particular university}

A = {all “scholars”} ... a once large set that gives every appearance of shrinking as a proportion of the whole

B = {all individuals who merely have jobs} ... a once small set that is apparently an increasing proportion of the whole

The intersection of A and B ... which, in my experience, is a very, very small set indeed.

One of my prejudices is that, for the most part, those in A have a very expansive view of academic freedom and an incredible devotion to intellectual tolerance; while those in B demonstrate very narrow, tunnel vision vis-a-vis academic freedom.

I can’t say which sets Perry and Kel are in, but I can assure you that their notion that the proclamations of someone in U must be constrained to something called hir “field” is inconsistent with principles of academic freedom. I refer you to the post by RWH (Where Did McConoughey Get That?) in ...

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/04/24/winset

but I can’t resist including the best definitions he could track down ...

1. the Report of the First Global Colloquium of University Presidents (January 2005 at Columbia University) at which they proffered the following definition ...

“At its simplest, academic freedom may be defined as the freedom to conduct research, teach, speak, and publish, subject to the norms and standards of scholarly inquiry, without interference or penalty, wherever the search for truth and understanding may lead.”

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/president/communications files/globalcolloquium.htm

2. the UNESCO Recommendation Concerning the Status of Higher-Education Teaching Personnel is a very extensive and interesting statement about many dimensions of higher education. A segment of their definition states ...

“27. The principle of academic freedom should be scrupulously observed. Higher-education teaching personnel are entitled to the maintaining of academic freedom, that is to say, the right, without constriction by prescribed doctrine, to freedom of teaching and discussion, freedom in carrying out research and disseminating and publishing the results thereof, freedom to express freely their opinion about the institution or system in which they work, freedom from institutional censorship and freedom to participate in professional or representative academic bodies. All higher-education teaching personnel should have the right to fulfill their functions without discrimination of any kind and without fear of repression by the state or any other source. Higher-education teaching personnel can effectively do justice to this principle if the environment in which they operate is conducive, which requires a democratic atmosphere; hence the challenge for all of developing a democratic society.”

http://www.caut.ca/en/issues/academicfreedom/unesco.asp

Walter Kehowski may be a complete basket case – I don’t know – but, unless he has done something that is counter to the requirements of membership in our community of scholars, he is one of us and (2) if you think he’s guilty of insensitivity, bad taste, or stupidity, get a life. As Guido Calabresi, former Dean of the Yale Law School once said, “It was tasteless, even disgusting, but that’s beside the point. Free expression is more important than civility in a university.”

First thing you know, Perry and Kel will be bent out of shape when an Algebraist discusses the Heine-Borel Theorem (a theorem in Real Analysis) in hir class.

Frizbane Manley, at 2:00 pm EDT on May 8, 2007

As Bill Bowman points out, this issue is a little more complex that it first appears. Check out the link—a defense of K— supplied by LL, and read the comments.

Philip, at 3:55 pm EDT on May 8, 2007

I Think I’ll Play Golf With Pat Buchanan Tomorrow

As I have said once before, I am waaaay further to the political left than the mother or father of anyone who either comments on or reads InsideHigherEd articles.

But the comments by Bowerman and Philip really irritate me ... and, yes, I have followed up all the URLs above and have read all of the articles.

If Kehowski has done something illegal, charge him and let the courts do their job.

If he has done something that is inconsistent with his contractual agreement with Glendale Community College, charge him, start the college’s due process procedures, and let the chip fall where they may.

But if his “crime” is being in “hot water over using the college system’s email network to send out messages that contained links to many far-right sites, including white supremacist groups” or because we think he’s a jerk, well back off. That’s the price we pay (I hope) for being in the “business” we’re in.

I happen to think Rush Limbaugh is a jerk. I think Pat Robertson is a jerk. I don’t like Ann Coulter or Bill O’Reilly one little bit. I think all four are ignorant opportunists of the first order. As it is, I don’t like Joe Lieberman very much, and Noam Chomsky really turns me off. But if we – and by “we” I especially mean all of us who profess an undying affection for First Amendment rights and academic freedom – start running around shouting “Oh! Oh! ... Bad Boy! ... Not politically correct! ... He’s a jerk!” ... and expect that, inasmuch as they are not nearly as brilliant as we, they should be censored ... well sorry Bowerman and Philip, but I think I’d rather hang out with Pat Buchanan.

RWH aka Hostileman, at 5:50 pm EDT on May 8, 2007

“As an employee at a small well-known state university, I found the email offensive and insensitive. If I had received such an email, I would not only have filed n official complaint, I would have paid the professor a visit and blasted him for sending me religious sentiment (and probably quoted Thomas Jefferson at him to boot!).”

Why not weep outside his office door and go on a hunger strike? That, or get some therapy.

JBM, at 5:55 pm EDT on May 8, 2007

Academic Freedom for Controversial Views

It doesn’t matter if this professor has promoted or e-mailed links to controversial websites in the past. It’s expression of controversial ideas that needs defending in higher education. He can link to presidential candidate Pat Buchanan, or presidential candidate Al Sharpton, or simply to President Washington’s words. If any member of the college community is offended by any ideas, he/she doesn’t have to read them.

These college administrators will back down now that the lonely faculty member has national organizations backing him up, or else the college budget had better include monies for legal defense and damages.

West Coast Prof., at 10:00 pm EDT on May 8, 2007

1st Amendment

A person’s speech doesn’t receive less 1st Amendment protection because he or she made controversial statements at other times. That’s basic, and the Chancellor ought to be the one whose job is in jeopardy for daring to propose the professor’s removal. It’s amazing how many educators apparently believe free speech is only for those who agree with them.

Patrick Henry, at 5:30 am EDT on May 9, 2007

RWH: Whoa.

I didn’t write that K. should be fired or disciplined. His right to speak—which, of course, includes writing e-mail—is, and should be, protected.

However, the short version of this story—Professor K sends a single innocuous Thanksgiving greeting to colleagues which happens to include a link to a right-wingish web site which results in his persecution—isn’t the whole story.

Philip, at 1:40 pm EDT on May 9, 2007

Unpatriotic

Why did we let our nation get into the state, politically, in which quoting one of the founding fathers is grounds for termination? This is a true tragedy.

Jenn Sierra, at 3:45 pm EDT on May 9, 2007