PSC’s Version of Free Speech

It’s discouraging, if unsurprising, to see the PSC spokesperson suggest that “in a post-9/11 world,” some types of political satire might no longer be acceptable. I suspect the union wouldn’t be so blase about the matter if it were an average faculty member who had filed the suit, rather than a longtime member of the union’s executive committee.

I also was struck by O’Malley’s decision not to speak for this article, and instead to comment only through her attorney. She didn’t use this approach for a piece published earlier this week in the New York Sun, where she described the affair as “very, very silly"—a seeming concession that the lawsuit is a frivolous one.

KC Johnson, Professor at Brooklyn College, at 6:25 am EDT on November 2, 2007

I notice that those who have attacked O’Malley in the media are all recognized opponents of the present union leadership and their comments on the lawsuit should be seen in that context. In my view, O’Malley sought to find jobs for former adjunct faculty that have been relieved of their positions for crimes committed outside academia and external to the mission of the university and for which they have been severely punished.On the question of released time, many professors at CUNY get released time-for work with the union, the academic senate, dep’t chairs, committee chairs, grants, administrative assignments, etc. There is consensus that CUNY faculty are underpaid and overworked. The only thing we have is our good name and that, imho, is what O’Malley is trying to defend.

Peter Ranis, Professor (emeritus) at CUNY Grad. Center & York College, at 8:45 am EDT on November 2, 2007

Libel Suits Are Not a Way to Protect Academic Freedom

I support Susan O’Malley’s defense of the academic freedom of Mohammad Yousry, and I believe Sharad Karkhanis’ attacks on her are idiotic and juvenile. Nevertheless, this libel suit is both frivolous and absurd, and to call a libel suit aimed at silencing critics a defense of “academic freedom” is obscene. Both conservatives and liberals on campus have faced attacks in the form of libel suits. It’s time for academics, left and right, to get together and agree that, morally speaking, all libel suits are a violation of the academic standards of free expression we should all embrace. I’m planning to write a book about the threat of libel suits to free expression, and I encourage with similar stories to contact me at collegefreedom@yahoo.com.

John K. Wilson, collegefreedom.org, at 10:00 am EDT on November 2, 2007

. . . silly indeed. . .

I know and like Susan O’Malley — - who has done some great things for CUNY and who is one of the most humane and genial people I know. The Patriot Returns is an idiotic broadsheet — - and does not speak well to the intellectual standards of academic life at KCC.

However, this kind of lawsuit is, at the very least, silly and frivolous, and at the other extreme, dangerous and politically unwise. Post 9-11, free speech is more necessary than ever before. Suing the Patriot’s editor only lends more frisson and attention to the newsletter’s pathetic and ridiculous rantings.

The editor of The Patriot Returns and his supporters have very little basis to claim infringement of academic freedom — - the newsletter is not an academic expression, is not engaged in any academic discussion, and has no relation to any academic institution. (If I’m a professor and publish a newsletter on soap box derby, and in the process make certain controversial statements about soap box derby, how can I claim the privilege of academic freedom to protect these statements?) They surely have the right to free speech (not quite the same as academic freedom), and they should defend that.

These days I’m more concerned with the much more pervasive and fundamental attacks on academic freedom that occur within and among institutional practices — - tenure, promotion, reappointment, departmental reorganizations etc. These are the hot zones of academic freedom — - where intellectual diversity and academic independence are under the most pressure.

Joe Hill, at 12:10 pm EDT on November 2, 2007

The contention that PSC is too involved in leftist politics to be effective on the part of its members is not discussed in the article, though it probably should be. Is there any information that suggests the PSC is leftist or is ineffective?

I can’t imagine why academic freedom should protect lying, or that referring to writing as satire makes libel legal. Academic freedom should be about telling the truth not about lying. While there may be something to be said for the tradition of satire, academia should be producing information, theory and discourse, not comedy and deceptive character assassination.

If something is proveably not true then it is may well be libelous. Sometimes criticism is necessary, but instead of flip accusations, professors should use facts and arguments.

Perhaps the allegedly libelous writer should have been more specific in order to stay with the factual rather than make broad generalizations which perhaps he or she intended to be interpretted broadly.

Jerry, at 1:15 pm EDT on November 2, 2007

What I find particularly interesting about this news item is how broadly people apply the concept of academic freedom. Dr. Karkahnis is expressing his personal opinion, this opinion is not based on the rigors of academic inquiry. According to the participants in the First Global Colloquium of University Presidents in 2005, academic freedom is defined as:

“At its simplest, academic freedom may be defined as the freedom to conduct research, teach, speak, and publish, subject to the norms and standards of scholarly inquiry, without interference or penalty, wherever the search for truth and understanding may lead.” (http://www.aft.org/higher_ed/pubs-reports/AcademicFreedomStatement.pdf)

I doubt Dr. Karkahnis’ defense can be based on the argument for academic freedom. Perhaps, one could rather argue for his defense from the perspective of freedom of speech. This freedom, however, does have some limitations as well, such as those presented by laws and regulations that prohibit harassment in the workplace. Academic freedom and freedom of speech are not the same thing. For the purpose of academic integrity we do need to keep them separate.

Sarah Hernandez, Associate Professor, at 1:20 pm EDT on November 2, 2007

“In my view, O’Malley sought to find jobs for former adjunct faculty that have been relieved of their positions for crimes committed outside academia and external to the mission of the university and for which they have been severely punished.”

So unless crimes are committed within an academic context and relate to “the mission of the university,” terrorists are properly hired as faculty?

“The only thing we have is our good name and that, imho, is what O’Malley is trying to defend.”

CUNY’s “good name” is defended by employing terrorists as faculty? In what sense is that a “good name?”

JBM, at 2:00 pm EDT on November 2, 2007

Muzzling a Watchdog?

There is no doubt that Karkhanis’ satire is sometimes a bit strong. And I have no problem with O’Malley trying to rehabilitate people who have been accused or convicted of crimes. But it is bound to raise some eyebrows and cause some anti-CUNY feelings in the general public. I am not sure CUNY can afford that luxury. I would also say that even though I have nothing against Yousry or Rosenberg, O’Malley’s efforts on their behalf, now made even more public by the lawsuit, cannot possibly be good for CUNY.

A second point is that I myself have been silenced for more than two years, and I, a full time tenured faculty member have not been allowed to post on CUNY’s Senate Forum since August 2005. My crime consisted of saying things like “If there are women’s studies departments at CUNY, then under title IX and title VII perhaps there ought to men’s studies as well.” Eventually I was informed that my posts were “off topic". There was no hearing, no chance to defend myself, and a permanent ban. This was an action taken by the UFS of which O’Malley was then chair.

I think there has come to be an unwritten convention that if some statement by a professor annoys right wingers than he/she IS defended by free speech, but if it annoys the left or liberals then he isn’t protected by free speech. This double standard is unacceptable. Maybe we are all under the threat of right wing ogres, but they surely are not the only ogres.

Even though I am not a right winger but a centrist (I did not vote for Bush either time), I do object to the domination of academia by a PC alliance which believes it has a copyright to what is good and right.

I do not approve of Karkhanis’ language, but he has succeeded where I, using much milder language, was simply shut up. So I am glad there are people like him, and I hope he wins his suit.

Rohit

rohit, Professor at CUNY, at 5:45 pm EDT on November 2, 2007

I couldn’t help but laugh when I came across Dorothee Benz’s statement.

In typical PSC fashion they once again can’t say anything to the point and engage doublespeak. Since when did the PSC start discussing limits? It seems the “limits” are limited to those who disagree with the PSC. Anyone who agrees with them has no apparent mythical “limit”. I must admit, Selective Free Speech is quite boring.

Let us see as to how far the PSC protects free speech.

Under Barbara Bowen’s leadership the CUNY forum was removed when some of our colleagues started to criticize the PSC and its actions. (Also mentioned in TPR at http://www.patriotreturns.com/editions/vol32n04.htm )

The PSC kept silent during the attempted UK boycott (though individuals like Lee Bollinger deemed it necessary to condemn the boycott) of Israeli academicians.

The PSC fabricated a debate at Lehman College during the most recent election and tried to get CUNY ALLIANCE to look like fools, ingrates or cowards by not showing up at the debate. CUNY ALLIANCE sent out an Email blast to our colleagues at Lehman on April 4th notifying them that there was no scheduled debate and that the debate schedule was posted on the CUNY ALLIANCE website. The Lehman College Debate scheduled for April 4th was not listed there. The PSC had a one sided debate with themselves with no challanger. Free speech you say? It doesn’t get any more free than this.

The Patriot Returns is the only voice of dissent that criticizes the current PSC leadership. Once they get rid of Professor Karkhanis they can do as they please and never be held accountable for their actions. Is it much of a surprise that they’d love to get rid of Professor Karkhanis?

The spinners are spinning a yarn alright, but it sure isn’t anything I’d like to wear.

——Peter Ranis mentioned “for crimes committed outside academia and external to the mission of the university.” Is he implying that any action that an individual does outside of academia should have no impact on the hiring or firing of college faculty? I wonder, if Ted Bundy were a college professor but only killed Senior Citizens in Indonesia, would that be acceptable as well? After all, it is outside academia.

I do agree that the CUNY faculty is underpaid. However, I firmly believe that it is because of people like Susan O’malley and her ilk that we can’t get a decent contract. We are a laughing stock of the community and at the same time manage to piss on everyone we need to work with. Good name? The only good name we have is due to the hardworking professors at CUNY. If Susan O’Malley by doing the above stated actions is defending our name. May the lord have mercy on us all.

——Thane Doss, I don’t recall many satirical authors going around and inserting a header stating “This is satire”. If one can not grasp the content of satirical publications it is not the fault of the author.

You also ought to be glad that this is Professor Karkhanis that you are talking about and not O’Malley or she’d sue you for calling her a “mad dog”. The Horror!

In reference to it taking so long to sue Professor Karkhanis, it does make one wonder. Why now? It is quite logical that the PSC is intimated by The Patriot Returns and is now using Susan O’Malley as a pawn to silence him. What say you?

—-Dear Ira Shor, is it really so wrong to ridicule the ridiculous? You say that Bowen and O’Malley “have made ample sacrifices of time and effort on behalf of their colleagues, on behalf of CUNY students, and for the public good.” Since when is getting excessive release time and not teaching a great way of helping out our students. Helping the union you say? Have you seen the latest contract fiasco?

By the way, next time you mention “ample sacrifices of time and effort” (other than sacrificing CUNY faculty wages) can you kindly mention a few of them?

Frederick Hernandez, at 6:20 pm EDT on November 2, 2007

Perfect, Frizbane

“Eschew irony! Take my word for it, you will be writing in an environment in which sarcasm, biting wit, and paradox will confuse your colleagues, anger your chair and dean, and infuriate your president”

This says it all.

Tired Adjunct, at 9:35 pm EDT on November 2, 2007

Wha ..?

This ” .. One is merely offensive; the other is, if claimed falsely outside the boundaries of satire, clearly libelous.

After ” .. preliminary exchanges have focused on comments Karkhanis made about O’Malley and her push of Susan Rosenberg, a CUNY instructor who served jail time ..

Exactly what is false about someone who was convicted of a violent criminal felony and served jail time?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110005979

Pot, say hello to kettle, once again.

Larry, where are you? There’s a lot of Times v. Sullivan here. That is, whether she and UT like it or not, Ms. O’Malley acts as a public figure and thus the bar of proving libel is much higher.

Buzz, at 3:10 pm EDT on November 3, 2007

Loose With the Facts

Much of the noise about the Kharkhanis-O’Malley affair has little regard for the facts, much like the so-called “Patriot’s” attack on O’Malley. For example, Fernandez blasts the PSC for not condemning the proposed University College Union’s boycott of Israeli universities. The PSC did, however, take a strong stand against the proposed boycott early this summer. By the way, does he assume that O’Malley would have been responsible for the supposed silence on the boycott proposal? He could easily check the facts by looking at the PSC web-site and reading the resolution.

Steve Leberstein, at 10:20 am EST on November 13, 2007