Last year, De Paul University suspended--and effectively terminated--adjunct professor Thomas Klocek for criticizing, and thereby offending, a group of pro-Palestinian students who were manning the Students for Justice in Palestine table at a student activities fair. Klocek stopped by the table, picked up some literature, and wound up in an argument with the students. Allegedly, one compared Israel's treatment of Palestinians to Hitler's treatment of Jews; Klocek parried by observing that while not all Muslims are terrorists, most terrorists are Muslims. The offended students filed a complaint against Klocek, and he was suspended from teaching without ever seeing the complaint or having a chance to face his accusers. FIRE defended Klocek against the school's open viewpoint discrimination; he has since sued DePaul for defamation. He has refused to apologize for his statements, and as a result remains suspended without pay.

But the problem here is not just that Klocek offended some students by criticizing their views. It's also that he offended them--and the school--by having the wrong views himself. You can be offensive at De Paul as long as your offensiveness is of the accepted sort. Hence the university's invitation to Ward Churchill to speak next month. Last spring, De Paul dean Susanne Dumbleton wrote a letter to the student paper explaining that Klocek had been punished because the school felt the need to protect students from the pain of having their views rejected: "The students' perspective was dishonored and their freedom demeaned. Individuals were deeply insulted. ... Our college acted immediately by removing the instructor from the classroom." Churchill's "little Eichmanns" comment has caused similar outrage across the country. And yet De Paul does not seem to feel the need to protect its sensitive students from the incendiary insults of a man who has made a career out of angry ideological agitprop. Indeed, the school is willing to pay liberally for the privilege of having Churchill come vent his spleen on campus. Churchill makes several thousand dollars per appearance. My guess is that his fee for a single speech amounts to a substantial portion of Klocek's meager adjunct salary. But then, De Paul clearly regards the one viewpoint as more valuable than the other.

Thanks to Maurice Black/ for the link.

I'm a liberal academic, but this kind of thing makes me sick to my stomach. If we don't stop these abuses ourselves, the cure will eventually come from the Horowitzes of the world instead.

The cure will come from the people of the United States, once enough of them realize what is really going on in America's universities. Being a university professor (or, even more, a university administrator) is approaching parity of credibility with being an Arthur Andersen accountant.

I would say that academics' popularity will end up in the range of child molesters, but as the Wisconsin item indicates (and the turn of publishing at various other institutions of higher learning), those may not be percieved much longer as separate categories.

wow. look at the generalizations: academics are all frauds and/or child molestors.
i guess these stories are a good thing; they let some people maintain their smug superiority (don't they abuse academics about the same thing) over a whole profession.

the De Paul administration has a warped view of freedom: how, exactly, can freedom be demeaned? i'm more liberal than most readers of this blog (i place myself more in the center), and i have to say that this is garbage. there's no constitutional protection from being offended.

this isn't just a liberal thing--conservatives are starting to push for this type of censorship when their views are threatened (i'm thinking the religious right). it's garbage, regardless of the political leanings of the perpetrator.

Jason...I didn't say that *all* academics are frauds. There are certainly many individual academics with intelligence and integrity. However, there is a tremendous level of (a)nonsense and (b)attempted interference with free thought and free speech within academia as currently constituted, and I think this has reached the level at which it is doing serious harm to the overall society.

The rest of us are under no obligation to quietly accept all this and pay for it without challenge. Decent academics had better start standing up soon, or a lot of babies are going to go out with the bathwater.

David, your message certainly suggests that. i would argue that "tremendous level..." is an exaggeration. if we looked in the private sector we would see high levels of nonsense and interference with free speech (in different forms but there nonetheless).

what harm is this doing? if you think a bunch of poor students are being brainwashed, you're mistaken. are some students "brainwashed"? sure--that will always be the case. most students form their own views; the ones that don't will likely always adopt someone else's views. however, most people aren't against brainwashing; they're against brainwashing that goes against their views.

the good academics rarely get attention--who wants to blog about a good teacher? or talk about a professor who reaches students and helps them succeed in their academic and professional pursuits? that's not news. it doesn't allow people to post biting comments, nor does it confirm the popular stereotype.

in regards to your funding comment, give me an effing break. i've got some news for you: you're not paying a lot for public colleges. our funds consistently get cut--most universities have to hire fundraisers. it's a funny thing to hear politicians and citizens complain about their wasted tax dollars when they continually shrink higher ed's budget. the taxpayers are getting a bargain.

these people accept plenty of other crap payed for by their taxes.

Jason..as far as money goes: I'm not referring only to tax dollars, and not only to state universities. For many families, sending their kids through college is one of the greatest expenditures they will ever make. The universities have an obligation to ensure that those funds are spent in a prudent and rational manner, and all too often this is not being done.

The other major source of funding for universities is alumni contributions, and I suspect that many donors of the past had reasonable expectations about how this money would be spent--which in many cases are not being fulfilled.

Also, to your question "what harm is this doing?"...young Americans are devoting 4 to 8 years of their lives to the higher education enterprise. All too often, they come out of it without a whole lot in the way of added knowledge. What they get instead are faddish theories *du jour*, attempts at political indoctrination (whether successful or not), and random snippets of this and that. I would think that anyone who cares about knowledge, as well as anyone who cares about the future of the American economy, would be concerned about this situation.

Also, the constant attempt on the part of many universities to shut down free debate does not bode well for freedom of thought in our overall society.

i'll agree that if students come out lacking knowledge that it's a bad thing--and this point relates to the money issue as well--but many students come lacking knowledge not because their professors shut down debate, but because they have no intellectual curiosity. this may happen due to the controversial nature of some theories, but it also has a lot to do with student laziness. that's been my experience at several institutions. i would also argue that most colleges have to spend their money rationally and prudently, because they don't have a lot. sure, they screw up and should be held accountable when they do. i don't think we should use the screw ups as a basis for hasty generalizations. as i said before, there's an irony that the only tax-funded segment of society that receives such scrutiny is higher education.

we probably can't reach an agreement: you see the problem as vast and threatening to all of society. i see it as a problem, just not so severe.

when a professor is shutting down debate in an inappropriate way he/she deserves blame. however, in the cases where an administration does this we have only ourselves to blame: afraid to fire criminals, quick to fire an adjunct after a student complaint? an administrator will do this out of fear of a costly lawsuit. we (or perhaps i should be specific and say those who sue) have created this problem--it occasionally happens in the private sector. recently there was the case of a service worker who urinated in another worker's drink. the worker was suspended while an ivestigation took place--not fired immediately.

Thanks for the response. Just a few more comments:

1)There is indeed idiocy in many types of organizations. A difference, though, is that for businesses the feedback loops tend to be shorter. If GM makes enough bad decisions, they will sooner or later go broke. This is less true for universities (partly due to the fact that students and parents--and employers--tend not to be very sophisticated consumers of educational services)

2)I agree that many bad administrative decisions are driven by fear of lawsuits. This is particularly bad in K-12 schools where openly-disruptive students are allowed to stick around and ruin things for everyone.

3)I guess what especially bothers me is that many professors are quick to come to the assistance of a Ward Churchill--but not very interested in the case of a Thomas Klocek.

Ahh, we finally agree about something. i think churchill had the right to say what he did--he should be criticized for the manner in which he got his point across. no freshman comp teacher would accept that crap. plus he sets a bad example for anyone who may desire to make a legitimate complaint against the government.

i also think Klocek's comments were appropriate. the students need to get over themselves. actually, there is a strain of extreme liberalism that leans toward antisemitism--correct me if i'm wrong, but you've commented about this on your site before. a recent example is the arab groups in england pushing to have "Holocaust Remembrance Day" changed to a generic genocide day because it might offend muslims (it was in _the week_). i have no patience for that.

the issue of academic freedom is important and should be defended whenever its at stake. That should apply to members of the university community no matter what side of an issue they may stand on.

ideally,offensive speech should be countered by more speech rather than administrative sanction.