Nov. 1, 2006

Did Assignment Get Too Political?

Lawyers at the Alliance Defense Fund have filed a complaint in federal district court on behalf of a former Missouri State University student who says that the university punished her for failing to take part in a class assignment that went against her beliefs as a Christian.

Looking for a job?

See all 206 new postings

Browse all job listings:

Faculty: 2,554
Administrative: 2,163
Executive: 162
FEATURED EMPLOYERS

The assignment was eventually shelved, but the complaint says officials in the social work school charged Brooker with the highest-level grievance for not following guidelines on diversity, interpersonal skills and professional behavior. According to the complaint, during a hearing before an ethics committee, faculty members asked Brooker: “Do you think gays and lesbians are sinners? Do you think I am a sinner?” and questioned whether she could assist gay men and women as a professional social worker.

David French, a senior legal counsel with the ADF and the director of their Center for Academic Freedom, says the class assignment was more than a case of political role-playing — it amounted to a restriction of students’ free speech, he said.

“A person was forced to publicly state a position on a hot-button cultural issue to her own government that she disagrees with. You can’t get a more fundamental violation of the First Amendment than that,” French said. “[Brooker] objected, and then she was subject to investigation and punishment.”

That punishment, French said, included months of scrutiny and close faculty supervision by school officials. ADF attorneys are seeking punitive damages, but French said this case is less about collecting money than about setting a precedent.

The legal group has yet to serve Missouri State with a lawsuit. John Black, the university’s general counsel, declined to comment on the facts presented in the complaint, saying that an internal investigation is just starting. He said only that the university “is committed to protecting the rights of all of its students, faculty and staff.”

Don Hendricks, a university spokesman, said Missouri State has no official response. None of the faculty members mentioned in the complaint returned calls or e-mails for comment.

Brooker is working full-time and had intended on doing her graduate work at Missouri State, French said. After the months-long saga, she decided otherwise, largely because she felt her record at the university was tainted, he added.

Brooker, who began at Missouri State in 2002, took a required welfare policy and services class in spring 2005 taught by Frank G. Kauffman, an assistant professor of social work. During the class, the complaint alleges that Kauffman stated that he is a “liberal” and that social work is a “liberal profession.”

According to the complaint, Brooker spoke out against Kauffman’s ideologies on numerous occasions. She received a ‘C’ in that course, a grade that, according to Booker, Kauffman was unwilling to reconsider. Brooker said the professor told her that she was marked down for tardiness and an unprofessional classroom demeanor. (Her grade was later changed to a ‘B’ upon appeal, the complaint says.)

Brooker took another course with Kauffman in the fall. As part of a social work advocacy project, Brooker joined a group that planned to focus on homelessness. But according to the complaint, after a class visit from a gay advocacy group, Kauffman suggested that the whole class work on the letter-writing project supporting the right of gay people to be foster parents.

Brooker told the professor that she was happy to learn about the topic, but that — along with other students — was uncomfortable signing the letter because of her religious convictions, the complaint says. Kauffman allowed Brooker to write and sign a letter on an alternative subject, and the original project was later thrown out, according to the complaint.

About a month later, Brooker received notification that she had violated School of Social Work standards. In December, before an ethics committee, Kauffman said that Brooker “resisted instruction,” the complaint says. Brooker said faculty members told her that her values coflicted with those articulated by a national social workers’ association. After protesting, she agreed to write a response paper in which she promised to “lessen the gap” between her personal beliefs and the professional obligations to the national ethics codes, according to the complaint.

By doing this, the complaint says the college “deprived [Brooker] of her ability to freely express her ideas on issues of religious and political concerns at MSU and in the social work profession.”

Last month, in a separate case, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education asked the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to drop ties with the Council on Social Work Education unless the council changes its evaluation standards that FIRE calls “politically loaded.”

— Elia Powers

Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.

Comments

I think there is plenty of blame to go around on this one. The professor for “not following guidelines on diversity” by stating that social work is a “liberal profession” (so much for being open to diverse perspectives)... the student for not having the ability to argue a position to which she objects or with which she does not concur (so much for critical thinking)... and the institution for making students comply with a “diversity code” (so much for academic freedom for students or faculty). Doesn’t sound like I would goto any of these folks for social assistance any day of the week.

K.T., at 6:25 am EST on November 1, 2006

Improper and Proper

Assuming the facts as alleged in the complaint are accurate:

I consider it improper to require students to write a letter to any public official supporting any given political position (e.g., to state legislators supporting gay rights.) In fact, I consider this tobe obviously highly improper.

I consider it proper for an instructor to let students know of his viewpoint on issues related to the subject matter of his course (e.g., that he is “liberal” when the subject matter is social work). In fact, I consider this to be obviously highly proper.

Neither of these is ever relevant to courses in pure mathematics, fortunately.

But I wonder, never having been involved in these activities myself, how carefully “service learning” classes (which seem to be a widely advocated trend nowadays) stay clear of political positions. I’m confident they do explicitly but I wonder about implicitly.

math prof, at 7:55 am EST on November 1, 2006

Liberal about illiberalism?

The last commenter says “(so much for being open to diverse perspectives)...” There seems to be this consistent mistake in American politics (on both the “right” and the “left") that in order to be “liberal” (in the correct sense of the word, not the weird distorted version that pops up in American political campaigns), that one must be “tolerant” of even illiberal points of view. That is of course nonsense. There is no inconsistency in one who is liberal being critical of those who are illiberal (i.e., unwilling to allow others to live their own lives more or less as they see fit) — indeed, it would seem to be required.

Dr. Perpelxed, at 8:15 am EST on November 1, 2006

Didn’t Argue?

K.T.

The student most assuredly stood up against the professor’s unreasonable request. She was even civil about it stating she would like to learn more about the issue (gay adoption) but that she would not sign a letter to the government that promoted gay adoption.

It should also be noted that in this case, as well as many others like it, the investigation is the punishment. Even though the student in this case wasn’t expelled or forced to attend a sensitivity training session, the mere presence of an investigation as the great probability to limit other students from speaking freely. In other words the social work program at Missouri State has created a hostile environment in regards to freedom of conscience.

We are not content with negative obedience, nor even with the most abject submission. When finally you surrender to us, it must be of your own free will.

“We do not destroy the heretic… We convert him, we capture his inner mind, we reshape him… You must love Big Brother. It is not enough to obey him; you must love him.”

O’Brien to Winston, in George Orwell, 1984

Thomassowellfan, at 8:50 am EST on November 1, 2006

Thomassowellfan: I don’t find the request to be unreasonable. I read the assignment as one in which a letter would be drafted (not sent). From primary school through Ph.D., I was often put on the opposite side of a debate to enhance my own critical thinking skills. In my Ph.D. program, I was frequently tasked with drafting (not sending) letters to different constituencies (faculty, policymakers, the public, etc.) to argue positions with which I did not agree (such as increased funding for public schools, keeping the system of tenure, etc.) Those assignments were important academic exercises that allowed me to strengthen my own positions. Again, being required to send the letter (versus just drafting it) is a wholly different scenario. But, if we’ve reached a point where students or academicians cannot argue an opposite viewpoint, without crying foul, we’ve got bigger things than this article to worry about.

mathprof: I can understand your position about indicating ones political perspective (although I tend to disagree). What I think is not acceptable is to say that social work is a “liberal profession.” That’s like saying business or military service is a “conservative” profession — regardless of ones interpretation of the words conservative and liberal.

Dr. Perplexed: I am not commenting on being “liberal” from a political or philosophical perspective. I am commenting on the current mindset of the diversity/multiculturalism movement (at least at my institution) where all perspectives are to be “tolerated” except those that offend the sensibilities of some academic “elite.” It negates the very meaning of diversity.

[Just as a disclaimer, I oppose gay marriage but think, as long as the student was not required to send the letter, this was a wholly legitimate exercise. But, again, perhaps all those years of being “forced” by teachers and professors to argue, critique, and disect perspetives other than my own has made me a victim of the academy.]

K.T., at 9:30 am EST on November 1, 2006

Please Forgive My Verbosity

Several years ago, while trying to help a class of MBA students understand the difference between (1) a formal definition of probability, (2) a relative frequency definition, and (3) a subjective definition, I asked a student I thought to be quite bright, “What is the probability you will make a B or higher in this course?” When he had difficulty understanding the question, I provided the obvious assistance by trying to get him to formulate the question in terms of the betting odds in favor of his getting at least a B, thinking I would have the added advantage of demonstrating how one’s “fair” betting odds can be converted into a subjective probability estimate. [This is clearly important in an operations research course in which the input into a great many decision-making processes includes a collection of subjective probability estimates.]

The student became uncooperative and subsequently dropped the course, one required of all students completing the MBA degree. In a very long letter to the dean, the student wrote ...

“In class, I did believe he was trying to make a wager with me. Why would I offer a financial incentive to him to not give me an A or B when receiving an A was my goal? As a fundamental Christian, why would I go against my convictions and place a wager with another? I realize it was an exercise; still I would not have cooperated. Interesting enough, I had a classmate back at Cambridge who told me that both gambling and card playing were against his beliefs but he participated in a card-playing learning exercise anyway. After class, he explained what his mother’s reaction would be if she knew he participated and how guilty he felt.”

I made what I thought was an heroic effort to explain the situation to the student and keep him in the class , but to no avail. Two excerpts from my communication on this topic are, I think, rather interesting.

To the dean I wrote ...

“In his letter to me Mr. XXX wrote ‘[As you know], I work in the world of high tech finance ...’ and ‘As a fundamental (sic) Christian, why would I go against my convictions and place a wager with another?’

Those two statements reminded me of one of my favorite quotations … a question asked by Blackie Sherrod some years ago. Blackie said …

‘If you bet on a horse, that’s gambling.

If you bet you can make three spades, that’s entertainment.

If you bet the Dow-Jones Average will go up twenty points, that’s business.

See the difference?’”

To the student I wrote ...

“I must admit, however, that my instructional style is not so comprehensive that ‘accommodating’ the cultural, religious, political, and social beliefs of my students greatly influences my teaching of statistics.’

I wonder if math prof would think it “improper” if I asked of each of my students, “Write down your subjective probability estimate that something very much like the personal God of protestant Christians exists. Now write down your subjective probability estimate that intelligent design explains the world as we see it today better than Darwinian evolution does. Assuming these probabilities are independent, what is the probability that you both believe in a personal God and intelligent design?”

RWH, at 9:56 am EST on November 1, 2006

As a graduate of another, rather prestigious social work graduate program, I was very interested to see this article. I was under the impression that the school of social work I attended was the only one where voicing a divergent (read: moderate liberal or conservative) opinion was implicitly frowned upon and critical dialogue was rare. I guess I was wrong. Maybe we have an epidemic of hypocritical intolerance on our hands.

MB, at 10:05 am EST on November 1, 2006

I’m confused.

When did helping other people — especially the poor, disadvantaged and oppressed — become a “liberal” activity? When I read the New Testament, it appears this is what Jesus’ spoke about — over and over again. Yet, it is “conservatives” who tend to claim Christian values.

Is this a grand adventure in missing the point?

Tom McCool, at 10:10 am EST on November 1, 2006

PC in Social Work

I find it represensible for a professor to require students to sign a letter (mailed or not) indicating their support for a political issue of the Professor’s persuasion. Imagine the outrage if the student had been asked to sign a letter praising aspects of the Bush Administration!

As a Professor of Social Work, I too value our field’s respect for and embrace of diversity — of clients, practitioners, theories, ideology, and interventions. It is not respectful and valuing to require students to sign letters supporting issues they are not in favor of. This is akin to brainwashing, not professional education.

Back in the 1920s, the distinguished social worker Edward Devine said

“It was the first duty of social workers to be persistently and aggressively non-partisan, to maintain such relations with men of social goodwill as well as ensure their cooperation in specific measures for the common good.”

Sadly, we have drifted far afield from this wise sentiment. This episode, if reported accurately, makes me ashamed for my profession.

Bruce Thyer

Bruce Thyer, Professor at Florida State University, at 10:10 am EST on November 1, 2006

Yet another example of professorial fascism at play. When we remember that we are paid to teach and not to indoctrinate, we will all be better off.

And academics wonder why we are held in such low self esteem by the American public.

John, at 10:20 am EST on November 1, 2006

Kauffman

The professor should be fired, or at least suspended for creating a hostile learning environment in the classroom for those with divergent ideas. Federal funds should be withheld as well. That should get the message across to other schools with the same sort of agenda.

Craig C, political pundit at http://blogresponder.blogspot.com, at 10:20 am EST on November 1, 2006

The Signature is the Key

KT, you say that as long as the student was not forced to send the letter it is ok. According to the article it says that the students were forced to “individually sign” the letter. It’s one thing to draft a letter in support of a position you oppose and a whole different thing to place your signature on it. To me, once my signature is on something, that amounts to me endorsing what is in the document.

TA, at 10:35 am EST on November 1, 2006

RWH: You have to love the modern culture of “victimhood.” Noone should ever be offended or have their beliefs called into question. It makes for a very sterile environment.

K.T., at 10:45 am EST on November 1, 2006

TA: I am still reading it as an assignment that was turned into a professor even if it had a signature on it. On all of the public policy pieces we drafted in my classes, I would sign the documents (when a letter, memo, or similar piece) as a “role-playing” exercise (with the intent being to get PhDs to learn how to communicate with “the masses” since as a collective, we are generally inept at doing so).

One such letter I was assigned to write was a letter to OSTP advocating federal funding for stem-cell research, even though I think the federal government has no place funding scientific research. Again, if the professor intended to mail these or publicly distribute them that’s one thing, but if for internal consumption, I see it as developing critical thinking skills and an important part of developing competent scholars. The whole thing hinges on the ultimate intent of the assignment.

Perhaps, IHE could clarify whether the assignment was for course consumption or compulsory public distribution.

K.T., at 11:00 am EST on November 1, 2006

Proper Assignment

A proper assignment would have been to have the student fully argue both sides of the issue.

JBM, at 12:16 pm EST on November 1, 2006

I agree with TA that the signature is the key. Since the students were required not only to draft the letter but also to sign it (presumably indicating their support), this goes beyond a critical thinking exercise or debate. And the issue was not gay marriage, but rather the right of gay people to become foster parents. Although I believe that any individual should be considered for foster parenting and that there are many gay people who are well suited for this role (and also many straight people who are not), I am not certain that anyone has a “right” to serve as a foster parent.

My daughter is currently in a graduate program in counseling (with a concentration in higher education counseling) and has encountered a professor who insists that all students must be willing to counsel anyone, including people who have lifestyles to which they are morally opposed. We live in a conservative state in the Bible belt, and needless to say, there are many students in this program who are uncomfortable with the prospect of counseling gay people, and more important, would be very ineffective at it even with sensitivity/diversity training. Although I agree that tolerance is an essential quality to instill in counseling students, I fail to understand the necessity for counselors to be prepared and willing to counsel members of all populations. This seems to be a very unrealistic expectation, and negates the concept of concentrations within the discipline/profession.

Although my daughter has been raised in a household with liberal views, graduated from a private liberal arts college, and in most cases holds liberal opinions, she resents the approach taken by this professor and will probably not complete the program. Other examples of ways that some students are being intimidated in this professor’s classroom (and in the admission process) include the following:

1. When this professor conducts admissions interviews, she requires white students to provide an example of a time when they were racist to an African American.

2. During the first class session, she asked all of the black students to stand up (including two African nationals) and on behalf of the white race formally apologized to them.

3. Socioeconomic status is not considered when making pronouncements about the privilege enjoyed by all white people and the oppression experienced by all black people. Other minority groups, such as Native Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, and women do not carry the same level of importance in discussions/lectures about racism and inequality.

4. She has stated that graduate students are selected based on the likelihood that they can be molded to fit departmental standards, including willingness to admit culpability in mistreatment of oppressed groups. She has also stated that those who disagree with her views are in danger of being dropped from the program.

I could go on and on about this, but you get the point. Using the privileged position of a member of the academy in order to maintain a bully pulpit is totally contrary to the concept of creating an academic environment that encourages open discussion and allows each student to express their viewpoint and consider the viewpoints of others.

Karen Smith, at 12:16 pm EST on November 1, 2006

We’ll never know the whole story...

I agree that there seems to be plenty of culpability in this situation, and I’ve certainly known professors (of all ideological bents) who refuse to consider any other viewpoints.

I’ve also had students who make clear, loudly and repeatedly, that their responsibility to follow through with some of the basic tasks that are in the mission statements of most public universities in this country (think critically, live in a diverse world, extend the basic “do unto others” behavior that grounds most major religions) is negated by their particular set of political or religious beliefs. Yes, it sounds like the letter-writing assignment had “potential firestorm” written all over it; that doesn’t change the fact that many of us deal with students who find any call to actually *think* about an opposing viewpoint and develop critical and rhetorical skills an unfair request or even a violation of their rights.

Perhaps Ms. Brooker was indeed a model student who was unfairly punished for refusing to go against her spiritual beliefs. Perhaps, as is noted in school records, she did not show appropriate professionalism or sensitivity to the practical concerns of her chosen field (does she plan to hang out a sign that says “no gay clients"?) and did not meet the program’s standards. I suspect that the answer lies somewhere in the middle, and that the ADF will have a field day publicizing this whole mess.

G.H., at 12:16 pm EST on November 1, 2006

A note to idealogues preparing to enter a profession: When your personal or religious beliefs will prevent you from carrying out one of your major professional obligations (whether it be advocating for the rights and welfare of your fellow citizens, or filling a lawfully written prescription, et cetera) your moral obligation is not to complain about your training, it is to pick a different career

dan, at 12:16 pm EST on November 1, 2006

I think people should read the complaint (the link was broken last time I checked, but it is on their website), before commenting. Even though it obviously represents the plaintiff’s views, no serious academic would ever comment on such a matter without doing that reading.

Anyway, some commentators have the right idea regarding whether this was really “compelled speech” within the meaning of the First amendment. However, various facts need to be fully explored, such as whether the letter must have been signed and sent or not.

There is an underlying issue lurking in the background, which permeates many subjects (even the so-called “hard” sciences): the degree to which the inherent politics of the subject constitute a valid educational interest.

Larry, at 12:50 pm EST on November 1, 2006

“And the issue was not gay marriage, but rather the right of gay people to become foster parents.”

Karen, you are correct... I was reading an article on gay marriage while I was responding to this article... I am also opposed to fostering/adoption by gay couples. [Just for the record.]

K.T., at 1:01 pm EST on November 1, 2006

Reponders are making some significant leaps across the chasm of information in the article. The article does not say that the professor assigned drafting such a letter to be turned in to him for correction. It states that the professor assigned them to draft and sign such a letter. If the assignment was simply to practice/demonstrate the ability to draft such a letter as a professional why have the writer sign it? Or why not draft it on behalf of some fictional superior? I don’t know what the real facts are, they just aren’t stated, but this hardly passes any kind of smell test.

Jane Adams Neighbor, at 2:35 pm EST on November 1, 2006

Thanks for pointing out the link Larry... My color-blind eyes cannot distinguish the regular text from the link.

After reading the complaint, the professor and the institution are out of their minds. As “Thomassowellfan” noted, this is straight out of 1984.

page 8, #39 is of interest...

K.T., at 2:35 pm EST on November 1, 2006

Merci, Gracias

Thanks, Dan. You saved me the trouble of writing a similar comment. And you probably said it better!

normalvision, Prof. of English (ret.), at 3:10 pm EST on November 1, 2006

No Way

If you give students an assignment requiring them to argue an issue opposite their views, then you tell them that is what you are doing. Show me any widely respected pedagogy in any academic field that involves making students do tons of work and then saying “Surprise! Here’s how I manipulated you.”

Frankly, this doesn’t come down to the signature or any finite detail of the assignment. This professor was way out of line and should be made to answer for his actions. No doubt.

Most damning of the problem at Missouri State is how the professor brought charges against this student. The social work school there didn’t tell the professor the charges were ridiculous; instead they pursued an investigation. A lengthy, stressful, time- and resource-consuming investigation. If I was a Missouri citizen, I’d be furious that my tax dollars were supporting that.

The message to students at Missouri State is clear: If you don’t subscribe to the social work school’s values, then you’ll be brought up on charges and be driven from the program. That’s ridiculous, and I hope the lawsuit gives them a hearty taste of their own medicine.

James, at 3:10 pm EST on November 1, 2006

Dan and NormalVision

You miss the point. Upon graduation, this young lady could choose to work in any of the many christian based social service organizations without subscribing to the ideology mentioned here.

It’s not neccessarily the ideology (gay adoption) but the fact that she was forced to subscribe to that ideology for the class. I would feel the same way if a christian professor at a public institution forced students to draft and sign a letter against abortion.

No student should be forced to go against their conscience is the point.

TA, at 4:31 pm EST on November 1, 2006

Karen Smith wrote: ” Although I agree that tolerance is an essential quality to instill in counseling students, I fail to understand the necessity for counselors to be prepared and willing to counsel members of all populations. This seems to be a very unrealistic expectation, and negates the concept of concentrations within the discipline/profession.”

Hi Karen, the school has no idea where their graduate is going to work at and what clientel they will have to deal with. But with the rest of the concerns you listed I would recommend you get your daughter set up with this MSU student’s lawyer....Greg

Greg, at 5:20 pm EST on November 1, 2006

Balance

Why was the assignment not to write a professional letter taking a position on the issue? JBM proposes the other reasonable alternative: assign letters taking divergent positions on the issue. Either of these solutions should fulfill the requirement of demonstrating that the student can communicate effectively in a professional letter.

I am concerned about the signature. While the professor can mark and return the letters, what does a signature add to the pedagogical value of the assignment? If it is to prove that the students can format the letter with enough space for a signature, then the students could sign the name of the legislator to whom the letter is going, for all the difference it will make in a grade. If the letters are to be sent, even with the approval of every student in the class, the professor is in hot water. That would turn the class into a locus of political activism.

Oh, I agree with the substance of the letter the students were required to write, in case anyone was wondering. My position on the assignment has to do with what is acceptable and proper, not the politics of the assignment.

Andrew Purvis, at 5:20 pm EST on November 1, 2006

I agree with JBM. Why not assign two letters, polar opposites of each other? One arguing for, the other arguing against. This would have satisfied the argument against political activism.

My main question involves the critical thinking aspect of the assignment. If Ms. Brooker had signed up for debate class, or a philosophy class, or maybe even a technical writing class, she could expect an assignment like this. Otherwise, why not assign the letter for her to argue her position and back it up. That would engender a lively discussion in class, exposing all of the class to divergent viewpoints, hopefully moving each participant to receive each other in a more accepting manner.

Thomas Day, Mr, at 12:05 pm EST on November 2, 2006

this is the first step

Just keep in mind that the complaint is just that – a complaint. While, of course, the lawyers have an obligation not to state things they know to be false, they are not under an obligation to investigate every allegation to its fullest extent. Instead, they can base assertions upon “investigation and belief.” It may well be that at the summary judgment stage, and after depositions have been taken, that a number of the recollections that are summarily described in the complaint turned out to be mistaken, or inaccurately summarized.

Indeed, in short order we will likely see an “answer” to the complaint, which, paragraph by paragraph denies the allegations.

Larry, at 12:10 pm EST on November 2, 2006

As someone who was there with Emily every step of the way through this year from hell for her, I can tell you that the complaints held against MSU are complete and correct. There were a few things I would have liked to see on the compalints that weren’t even there, in fact...

Someone who knows, Allegations are true, at 5:26 am EST on November 4, 2006

Star Chamber

After reviewing the comments and reading other sources for more detail on the circumstances surrounding the suit, I believe there is a substantially larger issue in this case. By way of disclosure, I am a practicing Labor attorney (EEO and Unions) and have taught as an adjunct faculty member at the graduate and post graduate level. The problem being overlooked is that in most institutions there is virtually no due-process protections for students. Contrary to some of the posts, not only was there no exhaustive investigation, there was no neutral forum for a review of the actions taken by some members of the faculty at MoSU. At least one news report (and my own personal experience with these processes at another institution) disclosed that basic, fundamental rights of representation, transcripts, notice and minimum administrative due process are routinely not afforded to most students at colleges and universities. In point of fact, the ‘Handbook’ at several institutions I have reviewed describe hearing processes that are more akin to a Star Chamber hearing in ancient England. Let me be clear, I am not advocating that an attorney be a “right” of every aggrieved student and, frankly, I can see some wisdom in keeping them (me) out of some of the processes. But to preclude any form of representation, including parents, and to refuse to permit even a transcript of the proceeding makes me wonder what the true nature and purpose of the proceeding is about? If you are going to effectively place a black mark on a student’s record, I would suggest that a faculty member or administrator should be prepared to defend those charges and should be able to articulate, for the record, the basis and reasoning for those charges. Adverse information on a transcript will remain with the student and there is no apparent mechanism in most situations to expunge that information. Even a felony conviction can be pardoned or expunged. I have witnessed this type of behavior at other institutions where resistance by a student to accept and internalize a specific world view (in that instance the political views of a conservative professor) resulted in adverse academic consequences. I can see where a spirited debate in a classroom is desirable, even a debate where a professor’s personal views are expressed. I have marked down students for sloppy thinking/reasoning and challenged their resoning processes. That was sometimes a painful experience for the student. But I did not, as appears to be the case here, sanction the student because they agreed or disagreed with my personal views. The latest news indicates that the case has been settled on terms that are, from where I sit, very favorable to the student. No doubt, the settlement agreement contains language that neither party admits to any wrongdoing. I would suggest, however, that a better administrative process that observes the fundamentals of due process would have either resulted in a less expensive disposition of the matter before it hit the press or, would have clearly shown that the student lacked any basis for a complaint.

Stephen Douglas, at 5:30 am EST on November 10, 2006

Thought control is not Liberal

After reading the legal complaint, I’m not surprised that the university agreed to a quick settlement. The actions of the SW faculty, as alleged, were outrageous.

This episode is even worse than the recent brouhaha at Ohio State University’s Mansfield campus, where several assistant professors tried to press a disciplinary action against a librarian for suggesting an anti-homosexuality book as a way to stir debate on campus. In this case, the faculty directed their inquisitorial fury not against a colleague, but a young undergraduate student.

Even more amazing than the faculty’s blatant violation of their student’s civil rights, is the fact that several posters here seemingly decry Ms. Brooker’s effrontery in trying to become a social worker — as if social work, by definition, requires its practitioners to leave their moral principles and religious beliefs at the door. What an appalling idea!

No one tells other professionals such as doctors, lawyers, psychologists, etc., what kinds of clients they must serve, what kinds of lifestyles they must advocate for, or what kinds of laws or public policies they must support. No one forces doctors or lawyers to sign the equivalent of a loyalty oath when they start school. Why does anyone suppose that social work is somehow different?

While professional organizations often reflect and advocate certain collective values, they do not dictate their individual practitioners’ beliefs nor command them to violate their own consciences in the course of their work.

It is laughable that a “profession” which attempts to control its members’ political beliefs and actions this way would dare to call itself “liberal.” Thought control is neither liberal nor professional.

Cole Ayeland, at 2:01 pm EST on November 13, 2006

Jobs Related to Did Assignment Get Too Political?

or search for jobs directly.

Assistant to Director
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job

Assistant/Associate Director of Major Gifts
Grinnell College

Grinnell College Assistant/Associate Director of Major Gifts Office of College and Alumni Relations Responsibilities: The ... see job

Administrative Faculty Positions
University of New England

The University of New England is seeking applications and nominations for two administrative faculty positions in its College ... see job

Adjunct Assistant Professor-CNA (Revised)
Johnson County Community College

A career at Johnson County Community College is more than a job. We believe it’s important to invest in our employees and ... see job

Application Support Specialist — Search Extended
Butler County Community College

APPLICATION SUPPORT SPECIALIST SEARCH EXTENDED POSITION ANNOUNCEMENT Butler County Community College is currently accepting ... see job

Admissions Representative — Southeastern Colorado and New Mexico
Johnson and Wales University

JOHNSON & WALES UNIVERSITY is seeking an ADMISSIONS REPRESENTATIVE FOR Southeastern Colorado and New Mexico area see job

Network Manager
Kankakee Community College

Kankakee Community College is located in a growing tri-city metropolitan area surrounded by several rural communities. see job

Head of Information Technology
University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center-Downtown Denver

Posting Description: Head of Information Technology Health Sciences Library, UCD, AMC The UCD Health ... see job

Internship Manager- Career Center
Gonzaga University

Oversees, develops, manages, guides, & sets policy for the internship program. see job

Assistant/Associate Professor
East Carolina University

East Carolina University, a constituent institution of the University of North Carolina, is a doctoral institution with an ... see job