UCLA Professor Wins Academic Freedom Fight

This spring, UCLA professor David Delgado Shorter was asked to remove a link from his website that called for the boycott of Isreal. He was accused of advancing a political agenda that was inappropriate in the classroom, though he argued the link was one of many suggested links available in a “clearinghouse” of views for students to peruse in his Tribal Worldviews course. In his class, he discussed not only the boycott, but presented the views of those who oppose the boycott.

Last week, the UCLA faculty senate’s committee on academic freedom ruled that Shorter’s use of the boycott link was not a violation of UCLA policy, according to the Los Angeles Times. The policy allows faculty to present controversial material as long as it is relevant to the course no student feels pressure to adopt a point of view.

Wobblies Lose Free Speech Fight at Starbucks

The Industrial Workers of the World (AKA IWW or Wobblies) have been trying to organize Starbucks for much of the past decade and many baristas have become dues-paying members of the union as a result of these efforts. At least one barista was coming to work wearing several pro-IWW buttons. Starbucks argued that by wearing more than one button they were converting themselves into “personal message boards” for the union. The 2^nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled in Starbucks’ favor, according to MSNBC.

The court ruling overturned an earlier National Labor Relations Board decision that allowed the wearing of multiple buttons as free speech, saying the "board has gone too far in invalidating Starbucks's one-button limitation."

Very few (if any) of the thousands of Starbucks outlets are currently unionized.

Censorship and Suppression of Academic Freedom at UCLA

UCLA Professor David Delgado Shorter has been asked to remove a link on his website that calls for the boycott of Israel, according to the Los Angeles Times. The university has asked him to remove the link and claimed he has agreed to not use the link in the future. Shorter claimed he never made such an agreement. In fact, he thought they had agreed to continue discussions over the issue and to provide an explanation of the campus policy on the matter.

Shorter said the link was one of a number of suggested links for his course “Tribal Worldviews.” The links were not required reading and were provided only as part of a “clearinghouse” of ideas.

The UCLA leadership was acting on a complaint by the Zionist AMCHA Initiative organization, a group of Jewish faculty that has accused other UC campuses of ignoring anti-Semitism and allowing harassment of Jews and that has acted as an apologist for the state of Israel.

While it is commonly believed that a professor’s job is to teach students how to think, not to think for them, exposing students to political movements, protests and other partisan activities cannot be banned or limited without also diluting or undermining the very nature of many courses. Furthermore, it’s a stretch to argue that exposing students to a cause is in any way condoning it or recruiting for it.

A political science teacher might ask students to visit the MoveOn.org website in order to study how digital fundraising can influence an election, while an ethnic studies professor might ask students to visit a hate group’s website to study how they recruit new members or to analyze the content of their speech.

Prohibiting political links on a professor’s website could prevent a philosophy of science teacher from posting links to organizations opposing stem cell research or those denying evolution or climate change, even those there are pedagogically sound reasons for asking students to study such organizations.

Such academic policies suppress academic freedom, critical thinking and learning and do little, or nothing to prevent the proselytization of students. Merely posting a partisan link as one of many in a clearinghouse of resources available for students is not at all the same as espousing or condoning a particular viewpoint. If our goal as educators is to teach students how to think, and not what to think, we must be allowed to expose them to a variety of resources and viewpoints, including controversial ones and ones we may ourselves oppose, while at the same time encouraging them to assess the content critically.

Kazakh Police Massacre Striking Oil Workers

Striking oil workers in Mangystau Province, Kazakhstan, were gunned down by the police just 60 miles from the Caspian Sea, according to the WSWS. Government officials place the death toll at 13, but others claim that over 70 workers were slaughtered, with 800 being wounded in the attack. There were also 70 arrests, including several journalists.

Oil workers have been on strike in Mangystau, the country’s main oil-producing region, since May, 2011. They are demanding their bosses comply with previous agreements to raise their wages. There have been as many as 18,000 workers on strike since June. They have been subjected to death threats and assassinations, vandalism, censored internet access, bans on strikes and street protests.

Just Say No to “Neutrality.” Minnesota District Bans Mention of Homosexuality in School

The Anoka-Hennepin School District, Minnesota’s largest school district, has placed a gag order on teachers and school employees banning them from discussing any LGBT issues with students during class time or even mentioning the word “gay,” according to the Change.org website. The Southern Poverty Law Center and the National Center for Lesbian Rights have threatened lawsuits and are demanding that the district repeal their absurd policy. Change.org has created a petition in support of the repeal.

According to the Change.org article, Anoka-Hennepin has the distinction of having the greatest number of bullying-related suicides in the nation. During this school year, five students in the district killed themselves due to bullying and harassment. Numerous students in the district have reported suffering homophobic harassment and teachers have complained that they cannot reach out to and help their students under the gag rule.

Of course, the notion of banning words is absolutely crazy. Even if you are dumb enough to believe that you could make homosexuality disappear, it’s hard to imagine being dumb enough to believe it could disappear by banning the word or any discussion of it. Yet here we are, again. Numerous districts and states have tried to ban any mention of homosexuality or even the existence of important gay historical figures (see Gay Agenda or Teaching Tolerance. Also see Fundamentalist Nut Tries to Enforce Ignorance in California).

Allentown Teachers Silenced

Allentown Teacher? (Image by ryumu)

Like virtually every other school district in the country, Allentown is grappling with difficult cuts, including the elimination of 247 teaching positions and 85 courses. Not surprising, at the last school board meeting, board members heard three hours of complaints and criticisms from children, parents, taxpayers and employees, according to the Morning Call. However, the teachers have since been ordered by the board to shut up or face punishment.

The Morning Call said that Deputy Superintendent Russ Mayo issued a statement telling employees that they could be disciplined for "making public statements that are inconsistent with district policies and that could serve to harm the effectiveness of district programs."

While clearly an attempt to stifle dissent, legal experts, including the ACLU, have said the mandate violates the First Amendment. As stakeholders in the education system, it is absurd to think that teachers (or parents and students) could be denied the right to express their opinions, including critical ones, at a school board meeting. For example, if the board is debating whether or not to cut pay or benefits, increase class sizes or close down a school, employees should be allowed to express their opinions on how this will affect children’s safety and academic performance, teacher attrition, and the ability to hire and retain excellent teachers. As a parent and a taxpayer, I want to hear what my child’s teachers have to say about matters like these.

Unfortunately, a 2006 Supreme Court ruling seriously curtailed the free speech rights of public employees. In Garcetti v. Ceballos, the justices ruled that public employees must prove that they are speaking as “citizens” and not as “employees” when making public comments about official job duties. This ruling is absurd on several levels, not the least of which because it is impossible to prove that one is speaking purely as a citizen. As soon as I say that I am a teacher or a union organizer speaking as a regular citizen, I have biased everyone who is listening, thus undermining my assertion that my thoughts are coming from the perspective of a citizen. Even if it was possible to prove this, it would be undesirable. The public has a right and a compelling interest in hearing the perspective of an employee. For example, patients want to hear the expert opinions of their doctors, not only about their own health, but sometimes about public health policies, as well. Likewise, if teachers have a good reason to suspect that a reform or policy change will be dangerous or bad for children, most parents will want to hear about it.