It took awhile, but some members of the Emory faculty are finally standing up in defense of Carol Worthman's academic freedom. At a panel last month, Worthman was overheard describing her field--biological anthropology--in racialized terms: as far as cultural anthropologists at other institutions are concerned, she said, Emory's biological anthropolists are like "six n-----s in the woodpile." Tracy Rone, an assistant professor of linguistic anthropology who is also black, filed a complaint with Emory's Equal Opportunity Programs Office. An investigation was conducted, and the upshot was that Worthman was sanctioned and required to apologize verbally and in writing, so was the chair of anthropology (though he did not hear, and so did not implicitly condone, the remark), and the entire anthroppology department was sentenced to mandatory sensitivity training.

But, as happens so often when schools try to adjudicate questions of sensitivity, no one is satisfied. The Black Student Alliance says the school is doing too little. It wants the investigation reopened, and in a letter to the Emory administration it demanded that Emory institute a mandatory diversity course requirement, that Emory increase funding for diversity programs, and that the University "publish statistics on acts of intolerance." The letter also specified a date by which Emory should have met these demands. Jesse Jackson and the NAACP have been in touch with the BSA, and want to know if it plans to stage any demonstrations.

Meanwhile, some faculty say Emory has already gone too far. In a letter to Emory's president James Wagner, four Emory professors argue that in punishing Worthman for her speech, the university has committed ìa violation of academic freedom and of the rights of individuals.î The Emory Wheel reports some telling reactions to the letter on the part of Emory admins:

Wagner has not officially responded to the letter, but said he has seen ìthe text of the letter and will be considering [the position described in the letter].î He added that there are two issues that need to be discussed: how to deal with Worthmanís comment and what it means for the broader community.

He also said that a balance is needed between freedom of speech and possible insensitive expression of opinion.

ìI think itís a helpful discussion to have,î Wagner said.

Worthman could not be reached for comment Wednesday.

[Philosophy professor Ann Hartle, the author of the letter] defined academic freedom as the freedom to inquire and communicate about oneís discipline and the ability to teach unconstrained by political or social considerations.

ìWeíre talking about the freedom to exchange ideas without external constraints,î she said. ìI think most of what goes on in a university would go under that umbrella of academic freedom.î

But Robert Ethridge, vice president of Office of Equal Opportunity Programs, said Worthmanís comment was not permissible.

ìThe statement did not seem to fit into an academic context,î he said. ìUsually there is kind of an introduction to elements that might lead up to a statement that is controversial, and then there might be a possible discussion or explanation of it. That certainly did not occur. The statement was just put out there with no apparent context, and thatís what caused it to generate the excitement that it did.î

Associate Professor of Political Science Juan del Aguila, who cosigned the letter, disagreed with the investigationís findings.

ìThere is no question it was protected speech and that it was done in an academic context and in an open forum and ... in a metaphorical, if not allegorical, way,î he said. ìThat is how I understand that phrase was articulated. There is a wide altitude in which scholars and people on campus have to express themselves without fear of reprisal or retribution.î

The Wheel article also notes that the speech code that was used to punish Worthman was created without the knowledge or advice of the Emory faculty. ìWhere did this policy come from?î Hartle asked the reporter. ìI have been here since 1984, [and] for the best of my recollection the faculty did not vote on this policy. If I remember correctly ó and if anyone can show me that Iím wrong, Iíll be happy to hear about it ó this policy came from the administration and it was simply decreed. Itís just a very serious matter because anything having to do with teaching and research and service to the college comes under faculty governance. ... So what I would like to see happen is the faculty to review this policy, to discuss it and to vote on it.î Emory has no plans to review its policy.

Thanks to Maurice Black for the tip.

UPDATE: Hartle is wrong about Emory's code being decreed from above without debate. In February of 1994, the Faculty Senate heard Mike Berry, president of the Student Government Association, argue for the repeal of the policy:

Mike Berry, President of the Student Government Association, reported that the SGA voted at its February meeting to call for a complete repeal of the University's policy on discriminatory harassment. Mr. Berry said that the action by the SGA was based on the belief that the policy has the potential for hindering the free exchange of ideas. Among the issues raised in the discussion which followed were: how has the policy been used, do Federal and state laws and other University policies adequately protect against harassment without the policy, does a policy like this impose more restrictions on Emory than would be legally allowed at public institutions, is the concern about freedom of expression created by the climate of the times and the weight of public opinion rather than the policy, do the words in this policy really mean what they say or do some words like sex and race have special meanings, would eliminating the references to oral and written expression make the policy better, would doing away with the policy hurt our efforts to build diversity on campus.

Jeffrey Bartos, sponsor of the Student Government Association resolution calling for a repeal of the policy, was called upon first to explain why he felt that the resolution was necessary. Mr. Bartos said that codes similar to Emory's had been creating turmoil across the country, and that he was concerned about what might happen at Emory when new leadership is appointed to replace President Laney. David Simanoff, out-going editor of the Wheel, mentioned a well-publicized incident at the University of Pennsylvania to illustrate how policies could be misused and argued that the student community should be responsible for censoring itself.

Dr. Lechner then recognized some faculty and administrators who had participated in a recent Alumni Assembly discussion on this issue. Political Science Professor Harvey Klehr noted that the policy gave outside speakers more freedom of speech on the campus than Emory faculty and students, and expressed concern that, without a list of offending phrases, individuals might offend without realizing it. Robert Ethridge, Director of Equal Opportunity Programs, mentioned that there has never really been complete freedom of speech because of libel laws, restrictions during war times, and similar legal restraints. The Department of Education's Civil Rights Office restricts racial harassment, and Emory's policy follows the guidelines from that office. Abuses have come at other schools, not from a policy which follows the guidelines, but from the way that the policies have been enforced. University General Counsel Joseph Crooks raised several questions about policies such as Emory's including who decides the standards, who enforces the policy, how can speech be restricted while still maintaining openness, does the policy make the academy more open to new groups, would the absence of the policy minimize the level of civility on campus. Claude Sitton, Emory alumnus and adjunct professor in the History Department, argued that the policy teaches students that censorship is okay and that placing limits on what one can say leads to limits on what will be learned. He mentioned that the codes have failed court tests. Referring to Justice Hugo Black, he argued that freedom of speech is indivisible.

Thanks, again, to Maurice Black for the links.