Free speech is not so academic

On Tuesday, the New York Times ran a story about a small group of graduate students circulating a petition to get the president of Columbia University fired.

I mention this because it so happens that the president, Lee Bollinger, was in Sonoma County that day speaking to a Rohnert Park audience.

Referring to the story with the levity it deserved, Bollinger, a Santa Rosa native, told those at the annual James B. and Billie Keegan award luncheon, "You're just lucky you've got me today and not tomorrow."

Such is the uncertain life of a university president these days. And such is the state of our national debate about higher education that the actions of eight graduate students makes the New York Times.

Why is Bollinger being targeted? Because he had the temerity to suggest that there are limits to academic freedom. In this case, he was responding to an allegation that some professors of Middle East studies were intimidating pro-Israel students in class and on campus.

A faculty committee, appointed by Bollinger to investigate the complaints, on Thursday refuted most of those allegations saying it could find only one instance where a professor "exceeded commonly accepted bounds." But the findings are largely irrelevant in this discussion.

What is at issue is academic freedom and freedom of speech - including that of a university president.

Bollinger is being targeted for the comment that when there are lapses in conduct by faculty members they should not be "accepted without consequences."

He expounded on this at the Keegan lunch Tuesday saying that no university should "put up with intimidation" in the classroom and that educators must adhere to "standards of professional conduct."

At the same time, he quickly paid homage to the great walls protecting free speech. He referred to the incendiary essay by University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill, who wrote that some of the World Trade Center employees were "little Eichmanns" - as in Adolf Eichmann, a central character in the Nazi extermination of Jews.

"This is outrageous and repugnant," Bollinger said. And yet universities "shall not and should not penalize a faculty member for a comment made in a public debate."

Much to the chagrin of many in Colorado, the university recently came to this same painful but necessary conclusion.

So why was Bollinger being targeted? Because, the Columbia students allege, he "failed to defend our faculty, thereby nurturing an environment of fear and intimidation throughout the university."

So here's how the debate on academic freedom has evolved: On one hand we have a professor being defended for the most vile of remarks, while on the other, a university president is being targeted for removal for failing to give unconditional support to faculty.

Isn't this a little like seeking the death penalty against someone for failing to take a firm stand against capital punishment?

Of course there should be limits to speech in the classroom. Academic freedom - as with any First Amendment liberty - is not unconditional, and it shouldn't be used to protect intimidation, either by an instructor or a student.

But, as Bollinger pointed out, there's an important line to be drawn between speech that takes place in class and speech that takes part in a public debate. One is open for disciplinary action while the other isn't.

Are there lessons here for Santa Rosa Junior College, which has had its own recent faculty-student clashes over academic freedom? Certainly.

For example, those on campus should be asking, is putting a red star on the door of some instructors - which some conservative SRJC students did recently - any worse than calling those who died at the World Trade Center "little Eichmanns"? I don't care for either one. But if one is protected speech, certainly so is the other.

In that case, one can only hope there's no further efforts to discipline the students who were responsible for the red star episode at the SRJC. An Academic Senate resolution that passed on March 16 condemning the students for "threatening targeted instructors" was more than enough.

Perhaps effort now can be devoted to looking into the actual concerns these students were attempting to raise.

On that note, Bollinger said he was "very troubled" by the image that higher education is teaching to a liberal bias. "It is true a very large percentage (of faculty) vote Democratic. But I strongly believe that scholarly professionalism is alive and well in the classroom." he said.

By this, he means critical thinking, debate and dissent are encouraged - and rewarded.

This was borne out in Thursday's report at Columbia, which found that although there were some combative exchanges between pro-Palestinian professors and pro-Israel students, there was no evidence of any student ever receiving a lower grade because of their political views.

Where Columbia needs improvement, the report found, is in creating a clear grievance procedure that addresses formal complaints - from students and faculty - fairly and promptly.

"One major lesson for us," Bollinger told the New York Times late last week after he returned to the East Coast, "is that if you do not have adequate grievance procedures, problems you could have dealt with cascade into bigger problems."

SRJC should heed the advice of a native son - and do a thorough review of its own grievance process as well.