Rosalyn Kahn, the Citrus College speech professor who was recently placed on administrative leave for violating her students' civil rights, now claims that her own rights have been violated. Kahn's students accused her of offering them extra credit for writing anti-war letters to President Bush (and of not offering analogous credit to students who wrote letters supporting the war). They also said she offered extra credit to students who wrote letters to California Senator Jack Scott arguing for the importance of adjunct instructors (Kahn is herself an adjunct), and had students fill out postcards detailing the importance of adjuncts. Kahn delivered the letters to Scott herself; the postcards did not carry addresses when the students filled them out, and Kahn told her class that she would address them herself. Some students were so upset that they appealed to Citrus College administrators. They got nowhere. Then they appealed to FIRE (the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education), which leaned on Citrus College admins to investigate the claims. They did so, devoting a class session to interviewing Kahn's students in an attempt to determine how she was conducting the course. The results of that preliminary investigation were definitive. The college concluded that Kahn had indeed abused her authority by violating her students' First Amendment rights, and placed her on administrative leave pending a deeper investigation. The college also promised to write to President Bush and Senator Scott to revoke the letters and said it would sanction Kahn.

Now Kahn says her own civil rights have been violated. In a six-page statement released by her lawyer, Kahn categorically denied the allegations and says she was removed from the classroom without ever being asked for her own side of the story. "A terrible wrong has been done to me and the teaching community," she wrote. "I believe that each individual has the right to develop, hold and defend a personal belief system. ... Students in speech communication learn to explain and defend propositions that they support, and as an exercise in persuasion only, also propositions they personally oppose. In early March, the college president, Louis Zellers, adopted unproven allegations against me as though they were fact." According to today's Chronicle of Higher Education, Kahn's statement swears that she offered extra credit to students who wrote letters regardless of their viewpoint, and that Citrus College had failed to provide her with "the protections of due process."

I'll leave the commentary on due process to the lawyers who read this blog, though it appears from the comments to this Critical Mass post that the point of putting Kahn on paid leave rather than firing her outright was to protect her due process rights.

As for the allegations themselves, they are compelling. Here's what one of Kahn's students had to say to Bill O'Reilly:

All right, Gina. Just tell us what happened.

GINA CANTAGALLO, CITRUS COLLEGE STUDENT: Well, I was in class, and she provided an extra credit assignment for us. She said we could receive extra credit if we wrote a letter to President Bush in regards to the war.

So I went home, did the assignment, and I came back, and I had a letter that said I supported Bush, I supported our country, I supported our troops. She looked at the letter and said this is unacceptable.

O'REILLY: Really?

CANTAGALLO: Yes. I said, "What's wrong? You said write a letter on the potential war," and she said absolutely not, I wanted you to write a letter stating you were against war and against us overriding the U.N.

O'REILLY: Now how many kids in the class took her point of view, do you know?

CANTAGALLO: I don't know that, but I know there's at least nine that didn't do the assignment because they didn't want to write an anti-war letter.

O'REILLY: All right, but you did the assignment. You completed the assignment.

CANTAGALLO: Yes.

O'REILLY: And you didn't get the extra credit.

CANTAGALLO: I got no extra credit.

O'REILLY: But the ones who did it the way she wanted it done, as far as editorial point of view, got the extra credit.

CANTAGALLO: Yes.

O'REILLY: Now what steps did you take after that because that's patently unfair.

CANTAGALLO: Well, I was scared. I was really scared because she's an authority figure of mine, and I didn't know what aspects or what steps I could take as being a student. But I went to the dean, and nothing seemed to happen right away, and...

O'REILLY: You told the dean.

CANTAGALLO: I...

O'REILLY: You said -- just like you told us. And what did he say? What did the dean say?

CANTAGALLO: They said they would handle it appropriately and speak with her. Nothing got done that week.

A colleague of mine, who was in the same situation, Chris Stevens, wrote -- we wrote e-mails, tons of e-mails to Republicans, to conservative parties, got tons of feedback, and that's when FIRE stepped in.

O'REILLY: OK. So then -- and what did he do?

CANTAGALLO: Within a week, the problem was solved....

So it looks like Kahn's hapless students went to the powers-that-be at Citrus College first and got nowhere, until their persistence brought about the attention of an outside force. It's a shame the dean didn't take care of the situation right off. No one, except alumni and prospective students, would ever have heard of the school. Now a lot of people have heard of it, and what we've heard isn't flattering.

If I were one of those students I'd be really ticked off that the school officials cared enough about what outsiders (FIRE) thought, to take action, but really couldn't care less when it was only mere tuition-paying students who complained. Who is supposed to be on their side?

SHe had them write letters about how great adjuncts are? What a sleaze! Kids, ask for your tuition back.

Her argument tracks my post of a few weeks ago. (Three cheers for me. :) She asserts that oral and written advocacy skills are critical tools and that advocating from an opposing viewpoint is a good way of learning how to be a competent advocate. I agree. If she had left it there - and merely collected the articles without actually mailing them she would have a credible argument. If she asked peace advocates to submit pro-war letters - she would have a valid argument. However, once those submissions were mailed to Bush and left the classroom her argument fails because the political impact of the letters outweighs their educational content. It seems clear also that she did not encourage her students to draft advocacy pieces taking positions they did not agree with. She did not demand that peace-supporters take a pro war position. No she demanded that they advocate her point of view without regard to the students viewpoint. That is not the learning tool she claims it to be. Ivan

Tuition? It is a JC -- they pay fees, and not enough to worry about. This story has something in common with many public controversies: it seems someone is lying. The discrepancy between the account given by the student and the claim of the teacher that credit was offered for letters in support of the war strongly suggests this. You decide who you think it is. But I am prolix; one word describes this story: Bizarre.

Stolypin, you write without a trace of irony about the "political impact" of these letters. An article linked above reports, also without irony, that Citrus College president Louis Zellers contacted President Bush and Senator Scott, formally asking them to disregard the missives. Are these epistolary masterpieces so politically significanct that the President of the United States himself should be alerted to their dubious origins? I think not. In reality, Kahn's students' letters will impact the White House approximately as much as a butterfly flapping its wings in Bolivia, and it frankly irks me to see FIRE and Citrus College bothering the US Army's Commander-in-Chief with such trivialities at a time like this.

I'd just like to remind people that in the real world, i.e., outside the self-obsessed fantasyscape of academic politics, college-aged American soldiers are risking their lives in the Iraqi desert to combat a brutal dictator's violent and repressive regime. Some have already died in combat; others have been brutally executed by Hussein's henchmen; still more are being held prisoner under conditions that clearly contravene the Geneva Convention. Meanwhile, their peer Gina Cantagallo, safe and sound in Glendora, California, whines to Bill O'Reilly about how "scared" she is of her teacher. What a world....

Todd, if my post did not convey even a trace of irony I have failed to express myself as clearly as intended. I will try to add a bit of starch to my irony in the future. I have read my post again and see nothing in it that concerns Ms. Cantagallo's appearance on the O'Reilly show. While I do not disagree with your assesment of that appearance and while I share your assessment about spineless students who seem easily intimidated, that had nothing to do with my post. My post facused on Kahn's ex post facto defense of her actions. Of course no one in the White House gives a rat's ass about the political views of California community college student or of their teacher. By the same token, I would think that the responses sent by Citrus and FIRE will have the same minimal impact. That is not the political impact I was talking about, however. Again, my writing skills may have failed me - so I will try again. What this academician did was appropriate other people's names to disseminate her political views. I think that is important and I think it is wrong. It does not matter that George Bush will never see them nor care about them. What matters is the fact that Ms. Kahn sought to make a political statement that would have some political impact - no matter how slight - by actually posting those letter. What matters is not the treatment of those letters by the recipient but the disssemination of the letters outside the classroom and the intent of the person demanding that they be mailed. The academician sought to express her politcal views and sought to supplement those views by adding the volume of other, apparently lke minded, supporters. That is a fraud - even if no one cares. The fact that no one cares does not minimize the eggregious error in judgment that went into the decision to send them. We may disagree on that point. Once those letters are sent bearing that students name, without any indication that it is merely an exercise in advocacy skills, it becomes a recorded statement purporting to be those of the sender. The student's name has been appropriated by a person in authority to advance a political agenda that the student does not agree with. That is not an academic exercise, it is a political exercise. The students could have refused to knuckle under, as you suggest to this demand. I know I would have fought back - as I have always done. But the fact that many complained to the Dean and pursued the matter until they succeeded just might indicate that they were not as spineless as you contend. As I said, and I will say it again, teaching students to advocate positions they do not agree with is a useful skills and one that should be taught. But as much as I might feel comfortable in an oral advocacy or debate context in asserting, for example, that Stalin's leadership skills outweighed his [ahem] minor flaws I would not feel comfortable if that position was disseminated to the public as my own conviction. This is what Ms. Kahn insisted on from her students. Again, the political impact here is that Ms. Kahn took what should be a teaching tool and turned it into a political act. Why else would she insist on actually sending the letters instead of just reading and grading them in the classroom? She turned a classroom exercise into a political performance class and appropriated her students' identifies to give weight to her personal views. I do appreciate, and want to thank you for, remininding me that we are a nation at war and that young Americans are dying on the battlefield on the off chance that perhaps I had just been aroused from a coma and went straight to this blog without first reading the paper or watching the news. This blog has as its focus political issues arising in academia and I see no reason to stop thinking or commenting on those issues. When I want to focus my comments on the war I can choose from at least 3 million message boards.

Stolypin, in his rambling paragraph above, continues to claim that Kahn's students' letters had a "slight" political impact. Indeed, Kahn's actions, FIRE's actions, and Zellers' actions were all predicated upon the assumption that the letters had or would have "some political impact - no matter how slight," as Stolypin puts it. I maintain they had no political impact whatsoever -- if they've even been opened, which I very much doubt -- making this affair a purely academic exercise from beginning to end. How many hours of how many people's time have been wasted on this idiocy?

My point in mentioning the war was to highlight the contrast between teen-aged soldiers risking their lives for liberty and freedom in Iraq while their infantalized peers at home mewl on talk shows about their fear of confronting professors ("I was scared. I was really scared..." quoth Cantagallo, as if she were facing the Republican Guard instead of the hapless Ms. Kahn). At least the Army gives our young citizens a backbone. Our universities give them none, and I view "superhero" advocacy groups such as FIRE as being entirely complicit in that abnegation of responsibility.

Todd, your comments show that you really don't understand what's at stake on college campuses.

Sure, most people with common sense don't take "the self-obsessed fantasyscape of academic politics" seriously... outside of academia. However, if you're a college student, you're largely at the mercy of the faculty, both professors and administrators. If you run afoul of their political policies (read: agendas), you can be flunked in a class, you can be expelled, and you can be punished in other ways that would never be permitted in the Real World.

To me, if you and/or your parents are spending tens of thousands of dollars on tuition (or even a smaller amount of money on junior college fees) you should not be subjected to political witch hunts that could ruin your career before it even starts, let alone to an inferior education based on bias rather than facts.

And, yes, such witch hunts can hurt students' chances for future success. While a college degree might not be absolutely necessary to get hired these days, try looking for a job without one and see how easy it is. Especially in a primarily white-collar city.

And even more especially if that city is home to a lot of idiotarians who, if you told them in a job interview (phrasing it delicately, of course) that you were thrown out of college because you offended the politically correct contingent, assume that you must have put on white robes and burnt a cross on the quad. (Believe me. I live in Boston.)

And I haven't even mentioned how influential colleges still are in the Real World, even among people who aren't PC. And the more prestigious the college is (like Harvard), the more radical its campus politics are likely to be. Yet these are the campuses that birth the Movers and Shakes of tomorrow. Frightening, isn't it?

Reginleif, I'm not quite as ignorant as you believe, and certainly far beyond requiring your condescending and pedantic lectures. I'd also respectfully advise that you refrain from insinuating that those who "understand what's at stake on college campuses" must think exactly as you do. I'm afraid that isn't so.

Here's this particular issue as I understand it. If spineless and/or grademongering students sign their names to views they don't endorse, and if the teacher then mails those letters to Washington in the belief they'll have political impact, it seems a case of boundless stupidity and naivety on each side. That the advocacy group FIRE is now trumpeting "victory," and that the college president contacted George Bush telling him gravely to "disregard" the Citrus College letters only adds to the idiotarian dimension of this non-issue.

Hit a nerve, did I, Todd?

Disregarding all the "pedantic," "condescending" and otherwise "insinuating" explanations I'd made for why students might sign on to petitions of their professors' that they themselves don't endorse, you continue to describe them as "spineless" and/or "grademongering."

I guess in the Ultra Real World you live in, Todd, getting flunked in a course or suspended or expelled from college for sheerly political reasons, with no reimbursement for any of the megabucks you've ponied up for the privilege of attending that institution, is not a big deal.

Maybe we should just send a letter to all students who've been screwed over by their colleges in such a manner: "Buck up, kids, you could be getting shot at by Iraqis! Now doesn't that make you feel so much better?"

Reginleif, you insist on applying my remarks universally, as if I am commenting generally on cases of campus injustice. I am not. I am commenting only on the specific case outlined above, and if you look at the events in question, without resorting to broad-based hysteria, you'll see that Citrus College has not flunked, suspended, or expelled any student. And yet that did not mitigate FIRE's response -- the group waded into the fray with hyperbolic rhetoric ("a moral ... nightmare," "a frightening violation of freedom of conscience," "unconscionable abuse of classroom power," "four awful weeks of abusive power") better suited to a Tony Blair denunciation of Saddam Hussein than to a hapless speech teacher's ill-advised course assignment. By claiming that Ms. Kahn "compelled" her students to write letters, by not acknowledging that students had, if they chose to use it, the principled right to refuse, and by quoting a student saying "I am so grateful to FIRE for coming to our rescue," FIRE affirms -- indeed, grossly overstates -- the students' sense of powerless victimization in ways I, as a believer in individual responsibility, don't condone. Built mostly on strategic, rhetorical, and political maneuvering by an advocacy group pushing a predetermined agenda, the entire case descends into farce when a harassed college president gravely contacts a wartime US Army Commander-in-Chief to rescind utterly meaningless letters, and when powerless, victimized students appear on talk shows to whine about how scared Ms. Kahn made them feel.

What I'm asking for here is a sense of perspective. On that note, Citrus College charges $11 per course unit for California residents, $150 for non-residents, and $168 for international students, rates that hardly merit the term "megabucks."

"...when a harassed college president gravely contacts a wartime US Army Commander-in-Chief..."

One does realize that President Bush does not personally open and read his mail. Presidents haven't done that for years and years. I doubt seriously whether the Citrus College thing has engaged his attention at all. On the other hand, it is important to the college's and the students' integrity to set the record straight. I think they did the right thing in apologizing, and it's too bad they didn't do the right thing when the matter was first brought to their attention.

Laura, I, too, would be very surprised if President Bush knows (or cares) about the Citrus College incident. However, I find it remarkable that FIRE's handling of this antiwar protest controversy precisely mirrors right-wing thinking on the Iraq issue (as championed by Andrew Sullivan and other hawks), presenting the students as helpless victims of Ms. Kahn's regime of terror and themselves as triumphant liberators. This is not accidental: Sullivan and other commentators have persistently argued that the anti-war movement is actually a pro-Saddam movement -- in other words, that by opposing war, leftist peaceniks become apologists for Saddam's regime. The end-point of this fantasy (combatting Saddam by liberating subjugated peoples from his extended regime) is writing the president himself to inform him of your "victory," then posting news of your "victory" all over the media. I object to this because it trivializes the horrors of Saddam Hussein's Iraq and belittles the very real dangers of this war. Kahn is not Hussein. Her students were not living under a regime of unconscionable repression, as FIRE would have us believe -- they were simply offered an unethical extra-credit assignment. Again, all I'm asking is for some perspective on this issue.

"I object to this because it trivializes the horrors of Saddam Hussein's Iraq and belittles the very real dangers of this war. Kahn is not Hussein."

You're right about that.

As the primary person involved in attempting to resolve the Khan situation with Citrus College I find it ironic and hypocrtical of those who raise the camparsion of Gina being scared in contrast to that of our brave soilders. Perhaps, those of you who applied this flawed ideological approach are missing the larger picture, both Gina and myself are as well as our solides are fighting to preseve the great traditions of our Nation.

We are proud conservative Republicans, who were being forced to sign our name to documents which content was so appaling to our personal beliefs that we felt it was neccessary to take a stance.

And those of you who fail to realize the power that instituions of higher education hold over their students are sadly nieve and uninformed. A signgle semester of retalation could literally ruin a students life.

So spare me the philisophical rambilings about how Gina couldn't have been scared, in comparison to our troops...she was threatned with explusion as was I, something that would have permentantly blemished our academic careers.

Do you propose that we would have simply worte the letters contrary to our own beliefs? Not a chance, I support Bush and I will countiune to support him...the people of Iraq are liberated!