Search News


Browse Archives

News

A Presidential Critic, Fired

April 10, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

After a career of 27 years teaching business at Stillman College, and despite holding a tenured position, Ekow O. Hayford was fired last year, in violation of his academic freedom, according to a report being issued today by the American Association of University Professors. The report found that Hayford was fired without due process after he publicly criticized the president of the college, a historically black institution in Alabama.

Hayford taught without incident for most of his career, but his situation at Stillman unraveled after he started to criticize Ernest McNealey, who became president in 1997. During the 2006-7 academic year, the AAUP report found, Hayford spoke out about McNealy's failure to issue contracts to faculty members. And the next academic year, Hayford spoke to The Tuscaloosa News about concerns over a decline in enrollment at the college and the potential impact of the decline on Stillman's finances.

McNealey criticized Hayford for speaking critically and barred him from raising issues during faculty meetings, when professors normally have the right to ask such questions of the president. The AAUP report notes that President McNealey inserted this language in the minutes of a faculty meeting: "Mr. Hayford was not allowed to speak in this forum and was told to address any concerns to his chair or dean. As most of you know, this gentleman has engaged in malicious slander and as a result it is inappropriate to address him in this forum. Mr. Hayford has told wanton lies and has done so in a public forum. The president will not honor that kind of mindset; it is inappropriate in this forum and this institution."

The situation for Hayford deteriorated after that. First, his pay was cut for scheduling a trip to Spain without proper permission. Then he was suspended and eventually fired, with college officials citing a ban on "malicious gossip or public verbal abuse," but not specifying what Hayford had said that would qualify.

The AAUP found that that the suspension and dismissal of Hayford was a violation of his academic freedom, and that he was also denied "basic requisites of academic due process" that association guidelines require. The report found that the administration never gave Hayford "a specific list of charges" or "an appropriate venue prior to dismissal in which to defend himself before a body of faculty peers." Based on the analysis of this case, the AAUP concluded that "the current policies and practices of the administration at Stillman College have created a climate that is inimical to the exercise of academic freedom and to principles of shared academic governance."

Stillman's public relations office did not respond to questions about the report.

The AAUP sends drafts of its reports to colleges in advance of release for any statement they wish to make. The college's lawyer told the AAUP that the report was full of "unsupported inferences, conclusions and assumptions." The lawyer added: "Freedom of speech does not allow Hayford to scream fire in a crowded theater. The economic and enrollment challenges with which Stillman has dealt in attempting to continue its persistent and determined commitment to the education of its students are exacerbated by inflammatory, conclusory personal criticisms such as levied by Professor Hayford.”

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on A Presidential Critic, Fired

  • Shouting Fire in a Crowded Theater
  • Posted by John K. Wilson at collegefreedom.org on April 10, 2009 at 9:00am EDT
  • I love the statement, "Freedom of speech does not allow Hayford to scream fire in a crowded theater." No metaphor is more often abused by censors than the "fire in a crowded theater" one. It only applies to cases where someone falsely invokes an immediate threat to life and limb and there is no intellectual content--the vocal equivalent of falsely pulling a fire alarm. If Hayford went into a meeting and falsely yelled, "there's a bomb in the building"--or the prototypical fire--then this metaphor would apply. But criticizing and questioning the administration is not in any way like shouting "fire in a crowded theater." Criticizing and questioning is a fundamental part of any college. The fact that the administration relies on this tired cliche and refuses to explain what caused Hayford's firing reveals all that anyone needs to know about their commitment to academic freedom.

  • Professors can get fired too
  • Posted by BrokeHarvardGrad at Unasked Advice on April 10, 2009 at 1:15pm EDT
  • I usually write about adjuncts getting fired, and the last case I wrote about was the firing of adjuncts, but this followed the typical pattern of citing academic freedom issues with regards to a faculty member in disagreement with an administrator. As an adjunct, I just didn't receive any more classes. As a professor, apparently the administrators can malign you to your colleagues but expect no recourse. It's a strange thing what positions of power can do to people. It sounds as if the professor brought up specific issues with validity: declining enrollment, setting up faculty contracts, and only later mentioned free speech. If the enrollment was declining, it's a set fact, not a personal vendetta. If contracts weren't set, it's something that is also a fact. Free speech, in regards to faculty from the administrator's view, has nothing to do with honesty and everything to do with saving face. Well, Mr. McNealy, I would gird yourself for a fight, because presidents have been fired for less, and the prof has nothing to lose...

  • Posted by HR Guy , Chief of Labor and Employee Relations at Public Sector Government Employer on April 10, 2009 at 7:45pm EDT
  • Let me get this straight... an employee of the university (Professor Hayford) disagrees with the speed at which his CEO (President McNealy) issues contracts to faculty members and proceeds to demonstrate his displeasure by making a royal pain of himself at faculty meetings, making disparaging comments about his employer to the press, attacks the personal integrity of the CEO to the press and is then somehow surprised that he ends up getting fired.  Academic freedom does not give one license to be a jerk.  Without a doubt, McNealy needed a thicker skin and needed to follow the due process procedures, but it appears eminently clear that Hayford needed a trip to the woodshed.