UC Davis anthropology professor Sandy Harcourt has informed the members of his Anthropology 15 class that protesting the war is a higher priority than teaching them. Here is the text of an email he sent to his students yesterday, under the subject heading "delay probable in posting grades":

Greetings

My and your Govt.'s invasion of Iraq - a country that has not attacked us, is not attacking any other country - My and your Govt.'s killing of citizens of Iraq - a killing that started today - will almost certainly delay my preparation of your papers and grades for pick-up outside my office.

To ignore what our Govt. is doing in our name is to connive in it. I will not connive in our Govt.'s unprovoked invasion of another nation. I would not connive whatever my Dept., whatever my courses. However, as a member of an anthropology dept., and instructor of a course designed to get us thinking about contrasts in life cycles of the peoples of the world, inaction in the face of US international aggression is especially inappropriate.

I realize that some of you will disagree with my position. I am not trying to change your minds. I am simply explaining why it is unlikely that either papers or grades will be ready as I had originally scheduled.

In brief, protests against our Govt.'s invasion of Iraq will take up most of my time today. I will submit the grades to the Registrar's Office by the required deadline - unless prevented by police reaction to my demonstrations against the US invasion.

However, I am afraid that I cannot guarantee to have either papers or grades outside my office by 10.00am tomorrow.

Grades will go up on the course website as soon as possible. Papers can be picked up next quarter if they are not ready for pick-up this quarter.

Sincerely
Sandy Harcourt

cc.
Chancellor Vanderhoef, Dean Sheffrin, Chair Smith.

Harcourt's students may well worry that objecting to their professor's behavior could jeopardize their grades (the abovementioned papers are the Anthro 15 final exams, due March 11, and are worth 70% of the overall grade for the course). But readers of Critical Mass need have no such qualms. Should you be inclined to express yourself to Harcourt or any of his administrative superiors, here are their email addresses:

Sandy Harcourt: ahharcourt@ucdavis.edu
Chancellor Vanderhoef: lnvanderhoef@ucdavis.edu
School of Arts and Sciences Dean Sheffrin: smsheffrin@ucdavis.edu
Anthropology Chair Carol Smith: casmith@ucdavis.edu

UPDATE: A Critical Mass reader has written to UC Davis Anthropology Chair Carol Smith--and she has replied. Read their exchange in the comments.

UPDATE UPDATE: The same Critical Mass reader has also been in touch with Sandy Harcourt himself. Their exchange is posted in the comments.

THIRD AND HOPEFULLY FINAL UPDATE (3/26/03): Sandy Harcourt responds in the comments. He still has not turned in grades, but says he will by the deadline. He disputes the description of his broken commitment to his students as a "dereliction of duty" and accuses Critical Mass of failing to get the facts--though a rereading of the original post should clarify that it is not the facts are in question, but what they mean.

So is he taking a sick day or a vacation day or a no pay day? He'd better be, if he's to hold himself to the same principles he's blabbing about.

Especially since taxpayers (including this CA resident)are paying his salary.

I saw this story here and wrote an e-mail to the anthropology department head. Here's the thread so far:

>I just read the text of the e-mail sent to students in a course taught by
>Sandy Harcourt. I'll keep this brief. I cannot believe that a progressive
>University would condone such an incredibly arrogant and self serving
>action. While I believe in Mr Harcourt's right to have and express an
>opinion, derelection of his duties as a course instructor cannot be
>condoned. He feels justified in not doing his job and using his political
>views a the reason for it. This is utterly unacceptable. I and many of my
>friends will be watching this story to see what the administration's
>response will be. I can tell you that I will not forget it if there is not
>some form of discipline handed out, even if it is no more than a slap on the
>wrist condemnation and a distancing of the University from his action. I am
>originally from California and spent most of my life in the northern half of
>the state. I have many friends and acquaintances there. I will certainly
>recommend that they not send their children to your University if this is
>what we can expect them to be exposed to there.
>
>Jim Young
>Reno, Nv

Her response:

Dear Mr. Young,
As chair of the department I think your outrage is uncalled for.
Professor Harcourt will be grading all the materials for his class and will
have grades in to students by the time grades have to be posted.
I do not know what your point is, but even Professors have a right
to a political opinion. If you do not think that is proper, I do not think you
should send your children to our University.
Carol A. Smith
Professor and Chair
Department of Anthropology

My Re-response:

Ms Smith,
Did you even read my e-mail? I never said he wasn't entitled to his opinion. In fact I stated very clearly my support of that right. What I object to is his clear implication that his political views take precedence over his duties as an employee of the students who pay his salary and who have a right to expect him to perform his duties as such in a timely and respectful manner. For him to lecture his students in an e-mail about his personal political views and use them to excuse delays in performing these duties is laughable. For you to be supporting that behavior in the name of his rights is reprehensible.
I frankly don't even care what his personal politics are. I would venture to guess that many of the students who are awaiting their grades don't either. What I object to is his using them in this way. I fully understand that he promised to have the grades ready on time. My question is this. If he never had any intention of turning them in late, why bother with the self righteous and moralizing explanation of why they would be a bit later than normal because he was going to be spending his time doing what he clearly felt was more important than his job? I can only assume that he saw this as an opportunity to preach about his beliefs to a captive and possibly otherwise unreceptive audience. I respectfully submit that if this is considered appropriate behavior for a professor at your university, then I won't send my son there nor will I recommend that anyone else do so.

The right to have an opinion goes both ways.
Respectfully,

Jim Young

Sorry for the lenght. I'll keep you posted if she replies.

That's 'length'. AAARRRRGGGGHHHHHH!

Jim Young wrote

"If he never had any intention of turning them in late, why bother with the self righteous and moralizing explanation of why they would be a bit later than normal because he was going to be spending his time doing what he clearly felt was more important than his job?"

BINGO! We have a winner!

Loren

Even by the standards of academia, Carol Smith's response is unbelievably arrogant. Her tone is insulting ("I do not know what your point is"), she fails to give any impression of balance or objectivity ("I think your outrage is uncalled for"), and her approach is high-handed ("..if you do not think that is proper, I do not think you
should send your children to our University")

Note the phrasing "our" University. It is not the personal property of the professors and administrators; it belongs to the people of California (and of the United States as a whole, since I'm sure Federal tax money is spent there.)

The arrogance of the professor who sent this email to her students is amazing. Clearly she wanted to preach her political views to her students. Otherwise she would have sent an email that simply said "grading of your papers may be delayed however, I expect that the grades will be turned in by the university's deadline." That's all the students need to know.

At some point the taxpayers and donors are going to take matters in hand and begin to cut off the money that sustains much of this nonsense. I have already stopped giving to my university (the University of Vermont) because the English Department invited that anti semetic English poet to speak on campus. I suspect that the more the left wing academics and administrators display their anti American attitude the more pissed off the alums will get. They have the power, they simply need to begin to exercise it.

Sandy Harcourt has also taken various other controversial actions recently.

On Thursday he sent a letter to the Davis Enterprise (not availabe online unfortunately) that outlines his plans to have his car break down at 8AM on Interstate 80, cutting off the commute traffic to Sacramento, and inviting others to join him.

Let me quote some of this letter:

"I will drive onto Sacramento bound Intersate 80 from Richards Boulevard. My car will develop engine trouble, and slowly come to a halt as it reaches the Causeway.

I will get out to investigate the trouble. I will suspect the distributor head, or spark plugs. But they will be so hot to the touch that they will fly out of my hands into the Yolo Bypass waters."

This is not just the type of childish tantrum that many of the anti-liberation of Iraq protestors are carrying out. This is conspiracy to cause significant restraint of trade, disturbance of the peace, and economic damage.

My understanding is that conspiracy is a felony, but people like Harcourt never seem to face any consequences.

For those wondering what things are like at UC Davis, it is not as politically monolithic or intolerant as you probably think.

It is far worse, particularly in the humanities and the administration.

Far worse then you are likely to imagine if you work outside academia.

People like Harcourt are the norm, not the exception.

Significant portions of the sciences remain rational, though under increasing attack. I don't count Anthropology as a science by this measure.

A conservative has as much chance of being made Chair of Anthropology as George Bush has of being elected Faculty President.

E Moo

I apologize for taking up so much space here. it gets better. 'Professor' Harcourt sent me a response to my e-mails with the department 'chair':

Dear Jim
Professor Smith forwarded me copies of your exchange with her.
Please note that I never said that the grades and papers Would be ready by
Friday morning - several days before the University-required date. I said
they SHould be ready.
And in my e-mail I said that barring imprisonment, the grades Would be
submitted by the required date.
So you have nothing to complain about.
Before you accuse people in writing of dereliction of duty (a potentially
libelous accusation), you really should check what their duty is. Not
fulfilling an attempt to help students by having grading done far earlier
than regulations require is not, Jim, dereliction of duty.
best wishes
Sandy Harcourt

I couldn't resist responding:

Dear Sandy,
Thanks for the response. As expected you completely avoided the real issue which was preaching your personal politics to a captive audience in an inappropriate way. I'm glad to see you are as conscientious as you say. Your threats, no matter how thinly veiled are fatuous and don't scare me. On what planet is it libelous (or even potentially so) for me to express an opinion, in writing or otherwise? Seems like you don't want me to be free to do so. You would need to prove harm to your professional reputation as well as intent to do so. Clearly neither of these conditions exist. I feel your actions were inappropriate. There was no need to inject your personal moral beliefs into what should simply have been notification that grades might be delayed due to outside factors.
I'll leave you with a question. Would you support a professor e-mailing his students to say he might be a little later than expected with grades because he was going to be following his moral convictions and protesting the right of gay people to live together? What if he truly believed in his heart that it was wrong and immoral? I would suggest that you might support his being fired from his position in this case, and you would be right to do so. I don't suggest that these two situations are moral equivalents, clearly this latter case is far more harmful to the student body than yours. All I am suggesting is that in both cases, the injection of personal, moral beliefs without prompting is inappropriate and should not be sanctioned.

Thanks for your time.
Sincerely,
Jim Young

I would like to say I'm amazed at the arrogance displayed by these folks. I'm not. I am struck, though, by their apparent inability to write an intelligent, reasoned, and comprehensible communication. How is it possible for someone like this to be in such a position?

Again, sorry for the 'lenght'.

It's coming fast and furious. I swear this will be the last (maybe).
His response to the above:
Dear Jim
We might have to agree to disagree.
Expressing opinions is of course the right of us all. However, you did not
merely express an opinion. If you were merely expressing an opinion with no
intent to harm, you would have written to me. You wrote to my Chair. You
wrote to my Chair stating that I had been derelict in my duty. Being
derelict in one's duty is good grounds for sacking. In other words your
statement could most definitely harm me, and very arguably had the intent
to harm. And your statement was wrong. I was not derelict in my duty.
Grades are going to be submitted by the official deadline - as I stated in
the e-mail to the students. A mistaken written statement about a person's
conduct that could intentionally result in harm to that person is libel.

On to the appropriateness or not of explaining myself to my students, in
other words of exposing my students to my political opinions, preaching to
a captive audience as you put it.
If I had simply stated with no reason that I was not going to be able to
meet self-imposed deadline, as you suggest I should have done, would I not
have been indicating to my class that I despised them so much that I could
not be bothered to explain my actions?

As for supporting someone's right to say that they think gay marriage is
wrong, I fully support that right.
It might interest you to know that although I strongly support a woman's
right to have an abortion, a) my class has often taken me to be
anti-abortion because I make absolutely sure to indicate that I see
abortion as merely early infanticide, and b) that I refuse to support
Planned Parenthood because I am deeply opposed to having them attempt to
use Rico laws against protests at abortion clinics. They are attempting to
outlaw expression of opinion, protest, in so doing.

Was I inappropriately using my position as Instructor to influence the
students? As they had handed in their papers, I could not influence the
content of their papers by my statement. More generally, is not one of the
prime goals of a University an exchange of opinion? How can there be an
exchange of opinion if opinions are not expressed? How best to get thought
and discussion going than by expressing one's own opinion? But that was not
why I expressed my opinion. I expressed my opinion because I respect the
hard-working students in class, and wanted to explain why I might not be
able to meet the early deadline that I had told them I would try to meet.

best wishes
Sandy Harcourt

My response:

Dear Sandy,
I've too much to say and not enough time. I appreciate your thoughtful response. We will agree to disagree. While I can't imagine your being 'sacked' because of an e-mail from one concerned person, I understand how you might view it as a threat. It wasn't meant as one. I don't see how an e-mail from you is an 'exchange of opinion'. Seems pretty one sided. In the real world, students might not be too likely to disagree with you (via e-mail response) while you still have their papers to grade. Seems intimidating, perhaps unintentionally.
How would stating that you might have grades done a bit later than expected for 'personal reasons' show your students that you despise them?
You support, as do I, a person's right to believe gay marriage is wrong. Once again, that was not the question. Expressing that opinion in this way is what I take issue with. Thank goodness you do encourage discussion and differing viewpoints. While I don't expect us to agree, I feel that you must know that this was not an appropriate action. Simple as that.

Thanks again,
Jim Young

Done.

Interesting exchange, Jim. I must say, though, that he's basically right about libel. Were he to sue you, he would of course have to prove that your accusation of dereliction of duty was not true, but he probably would not have to prove that you knew it was untrue or specifically intended to harm him. Also, IIRC, libel relating to one's profession is considered "libelous per se," so he wouldn't have to show actual harm to his reputation. So tread lightly; "free" speech isn't really as free as you might think.

What I would like to know is, does Sandy Harcourt actually think that the powers-that-be give a tinker's damn about some inconvenienced commuters in Yolo County?! I just don't see what purpose such protests serve (you KNOW most of the kids that walk out of highschool really just want to ditch!).
BTW, I was on the stretch of road at 8:35 on the morning in question (though I hadn't yet read Harcourt's letter in the previous night's paper) and saw NOTHING AMISS. Maybe he lost his nerve or was quickly arrested. HEEHEEHEE!

"Rules of engagement [for the Erin O'Connor website]: no profanity, no ad hominem attack, no trolling, no flaming. Reasoned discourse and principled argument are always welcome. I reserve the right to edit or delete any post that does not meet these guidelines.", writes Erin O'Connor.

However, Erin has allowed her website to accuse me of derelection of duty - with no attempt to check with me or my University what my duty is.

My stating that my protest at an unjust invasion by the US might delay the early (by 5 days) issuance of grades to my students is not dereliction of duty.
I have no duty at all to post grades outside my office. My duty is to deliver my course grades to my Registrar's office by the required deadline. I will do so - over 24 hours ahead of the required deadline. I will do my duty.

Far from being dereliction of duty, my warning to my students that I might not meet my self-imposed schedule was showing respect enough for them to give an explanation of the delay.
It has been suggested to me that instead of giving an explanation, I should merely have said that 'for personal reasons' I would not be able to keep to my schedule.
As such a statement would not be sufficient from a student as reason not to meet a deadline for submission of a paper to me, it is surely not sufficient from me as an explanation for not meeting a deadline, even a self-imposed one.

Before you writers to the Erin O'Connor website accuse someone of dereliction of duty, and before you, Erin, publish the accusations, you have a duty to find out the facts. It is you who have been derelict in your duty in writing and publishing unsubstantiated accusations.

Sandy Harcourt
Anthropology
UC Davis.

I firmly take Sandy Harcourt's side in this affair. Prof. Harcourt violated no school rules, policies, or procedures when he made the decision not to submit grades early -- he only broke a self-imposed deadline that he had no official obligation to meet. Professors do this, and worse, all the time. I can't begin to count the number of times my professors have cancelled classes, missed office hours, or revised deadlines for returning papers -- all so that they could meet personal or extra-curricular obligations. Given precedent in the professorial community, I see nothing wrong with Prof. Harcourt's decision to rearrange his schedule so that he could protest the war. So long as he meets his professional obligations -- as he promises to do -- he has done nothing whatsoever to invite this public criticism. This issue should remain between Prof. Harcourt and his students, and I believe O'Connor is far out of line when she encourages readers to send letters of protest to Harcourt's head of department, his dean, and his chancellor (his chancellor, for Christ's sake!). When O'Connor herself next misses a self-imposed academic deadline, I hope she, her head of department, her deans, her provost, and her university president receive a barrage of hostile email from the Internet community. Maybe that will teach her the meaning of the word "overreaction."

Furthermore, I object to the double standard in this post. I believe the real target here is not Prof. Harcourt's supposed "dereliction of duty," but his anti-war politics. If Prof. Harcourt had written, "Grades will delayed while I mourn the brave American servicemen and women who gave their lives this week for the cause of justice and liberty in Iraq," would O'Connor and her conservative coterie be sputtering in outrage? I don't think so. They would be respectful and understanding, even supportive. This is is just the neo-con double standard in action. Wind it up, watch it run....

I don't usually post to my own comments section, preferring to let discussion and debate take shape without my mediation or interference. Often, this means watching myself get misrepresented or insulted on my own blog. My commitment to debate demands that I do this, and on the whole it's well worth it.

The comments in this thread, however, require a response from me.

Darren Meiser writes that Professor Harcourt "has done nothing whatsoever to invite this public criticism." On the contrary: he has bullied his students, leveraging the moral righteousness of his politics against them in an unconscionable way. The question is not whether Harcourt makes his deadline--self-imposed or otherwise--but whether it is ever acceptable for a professor to mix the administrative business of running a course with political harangues, particularly when the haranguing is used both to justify a delay in returning work and to silence objections to that delay. The much-debated "dereliction of duty" occurs there, in that unreasonable and manipulative combination.

"This issue should remain between Prof. Harcourt and his students." It was Harcourt himself who copied his email to his chair and his chancellor. He determined the scope of his communication; he broadened it beyond the parameters of his class with the full expectation that his email to them was suitable for a wider audience. Copying his email to Davis admins concedes--even announces--that the issue involved more people than just the students in his class. I can hardly be described as "far out of line" for following his lead.

Bear in mind that Harcourt's email came to me from somewhere: there were students who felt bullied by it, who felt unable, given the pending status of their grades, to say so, and who recognized that their silence would be perceived by Harcourt, his chair, and his chancellor, as a tacit condoning of his action. In this instance, Critical Mass serves them--and takes the hits they cannot themselves afford to take.

As for prophecies about my politics, they are as offensive as they are inaccurate.

Erin, upon re-reading the e-mail quoted above, I find absolutely no evidence to support your claim that Prof. Harcourt "has bullied his students, leveraging the moral righteousness of his politics against them in an unconscionable way." When Prof. Harcourt aired his views on the Iraq conflict, he took care to state that "I realize that some of you will disagree with my position" and to clarify that "I am not trying to change your minds." Your mocking dismissal of these disclaimers ("condescending piety") and your consequent claim that "[Harcourt] is quite clear that there is only one proper position to take on the war, and that it is his" lead you to conclusions and statements that are derisive, contemptuous, and potentially damaging to Prof. Harcourt's reputation and professional standing. For this, I believe you owe Prof. Harcourt an apology.

Consider, too, the implications of your attack on Prof. Harcourt. You hold strong political views yourself, you air them daily, and you have placed a link to those political views on your University of Pennsylvania homepage. That link is placed prominently, some might say strategically, above links to your own course syllabi and class policies, in a manner that recalls exactly your own question as to "whether it is ever acceptable for a professor to mix the administrative business of running a course with political harangues." If it is unacceptable for Prof. Harcourt to mix politics and administrative business, why is it acceptable for you to place links to your highly opinionated blog alongside your course syllabi?

Finally, you say you received Harcourt's e-mail "from ... students who felt bullied by it, who felt unable ... to say so, and who recognized that their silence would be perceived ... as a tacit condoning of his action." Elsewhere on this blog, you decry anonymous students who feel bullied or intimidated by their teachers' expression, students who run crying to university administrators demanding that professors with politically incorrect or insensitive views be ousted or disciplined. Here you seem to condone and shelter the very "words that wound" logic that you elsewhere condemn. We're asked to pity the poor students who felt so bullied by Harcourt's e-mail, to sympathize with powerless victims who have no choice but to conduct anonymous smear campaigns by way of public websites. I sense here a double standard that is both deeply troubling and resolutely unacknowledged.

Prof. Harcourt:

I re-read your letter, and I think Erin got it dead right. As a university professor, you occupy a position of intellectual authority, a position of power, and you willfully used your privileged position to unnecessarily advertise your strongly held political beliefs. You mixed academics and politics.

Your "explanation" of why you couldn't meet your own commitments ("I am simply explaining why it is unlikely that either papers or grades will be ready as I had originally scheduled.") is disingenuous in the extreme. No explanation was required - you did not need to explain in cathartic, proselytizing, moralizing detail the "why" of your "renig-ment." The fact that you offered the explanation you did proves your intent.

All you had to do to avoid flak was write a letter like this:

"To my students.

"I have some personal business to attend to that will almost certainly delay my preparation of your papers and grades for pick-up outside my office. Nevertheless, I believe I will be able to submit the grades to the Registrar's Office by the required deadline, barring any unanticipated developments."

"Thank you for your understanding."

Nice and simple. Had you done this, you could have done all the protesting you wanted and nobody would have cared. You deliberately mixed your academics and your politics and you sent copies of your email far and wide. In so doing you brought this on yourself. So stop playing the victim.

In my opinion, you owe quite a few apologies here: to your students, your admins, and to Erin herself.

Loren

Darren,
I find it almost unbelievable that you question that "[Harcourt] is quite clear that there is only one proper position to take on the war, and that it is his. If his original e-mail left any doubt, it was cleared up in his subsequent communication to Erin: "My stating that my protest at an unjust invasion by the US might delay the early (by 5 days) issuance of grades to my students is not dereliction of duty."

Furthermore, the idea that it is implicitly unacceptable to express "conclusions and statements" that might be interpreted as "derisive, contemptuous, and potentially damaging to . . . reputation and professional standing" is frightening. I dare say we might just start by declaring all political cartooning illegal -- and take it from there.

Finally, there are no "anonymous smear campaigns" going on here. Those who have publically criticized Harcourt's actions all have names attached to their arguments.

Great comments on both sides. Way better than mine. Just wanted to say I was actually encouraged that Professor Harcourt took the time to argue the situation with me in thoughtful detail. That said, I was disappointed that he chose to avoid the real issue. If 'Derelection of Duty' is deemed too strong, fine. Dispense with it. Mr Harcourt has every right to his opinion. He just doesn't have a right to ram it down his student's throats while he still has their grades to complete. That does the opposite of encouraging discussion. He clearly planned to complete his duties on time and merely needed to inform his students that he might not meet his own "self imposed" deadline. As others have said, a simple notification blamed on personal reasons would have sufficed. He chose to politicize the issue and doesn't appear too happy that his actions have now encouraged a lively "exchange of opinions". I give him credit for not being afraid to defend his position and explain himself when he clearly can see that the readers here are not likely to agree with him. Just my two cents.

One last comment: I'd like to clarify a final time that I do not in any way mean to suggest that Professor Harcourt's decision to post student grades later than he originally promised to constitutes in itself a dereliction of duty. As Professor Harcourt himself notes, the only binding and meaningful deadline on that front is that imposed by the university. My use of the (unfortunate) phrase "dereliction of duty" referred to my strong opinion that Professor Harcourt crossed the line when he informed his class that his political commitments would keep him from fulfilling his commitment to them. It is my own strongly held belief that a professor has no place allowing his or her political allegiances to structure the administrative shape of a course; while I--quite obviously--support the rights of academics to voice their views vociferously and publicly, I feel very strongly that the best way for a teacher to honor his or her educational contract with students is to maintain strict neutrality in the administration of courses--students should never feel that a professor's politics interferes in any way with the grades. It is a very short distance from a professor allowing political commitments to justify deferring grades to creating doubt in students' minds as to whether those same commitments affect or even determine the grades themselves.

My criticism of Professor Harcourt's email stems from my strong belief that what he sees as a sign of respect--telling his students why he will be later with their grades than promised--is, to my mind, a sign of disrespect, a heavyhanded imposition of opinion in an instance where students may well feel unable to counter that opinion freely and robustly.

The point here, however, is not that I am right and Professor Harcourt is wrong, or that either one of us owes anyone an apology, but rather that such questions are complex and deserve to be openly debated. I am happy to be the host of such a debate at Critical Mass, and am particularly pleased that Professor Harcourt felt free to post his own response to my commentary. I only regret that this necessary and important exchange of views was accompanied by legal threats; such threats are hardly conducive to the spirited exchange of ideas that Professor Harcourt professes to value, and that this website aims to inspire.