An interesting case over academic freedom has emerged at the University of Illinois-Champaign-Urbana. A veteran adjunct professor, Kenneth Howell, has been fired by the University for statements he is alleged to have made in class and in an e-mail to students. He is now claiming that his academic freedom has been violated. From public reports (see U. of I. instructor fired over comments on homosexuality and U of I to review removal of religion professor), it appears to me that both sides have behaved improperly.
Because this case deals with attitudes about homosexuality, most discussion will revolve around that contentious issue. However, the actual issue that sparked reactions on both sides is far less important than the reactions themselves. In this case, there are two separate issues: 1. Prof. Howell’s pedagogy; and 2. UI’s treatment of Prof. Howell.
Prof. Howell was teaching two courses, Introduction to Catholicism and Modern Catholic Thought. In those courses he is alleged to have voiced his personal opinion that he believes homosexuality is immoral and unnatural. From public reports, he seems to not deny that he made those condemnations so I will take it that the allegations are true. He defends his pedagogy claiming to have expressed his condemnation of homosexuality in trying to explain Catholic teaching. Prof. Howell is being disingenuous. Saying you agree with a position is not an attempt to explain, it is an attempt to persuade. There is some question about Prof. Howell’s academic neutrality.
Anyone who thinks homosexuality is immoral is making a personal value judgment. Any human being has a right to that personal value judgment, but that right is not infinite. Academic freedom does not give you the right to insert your personal biases into the curriculum, nor does it give you the right to condemn or insult groups or individuals. Prof. Howell appears to have overstepped both of those boundaries.
If Prof. Howell thinks homosexuality is immoral and unnatural, then in my opinion (to which I am entitled) he is ignorant and perhaps a bigot. I concede that Prof. Howell is entitled to his opinion, even if it is ignorant and bigoted. However, the students in those courses did not sign up to hear Prof. Howell’s opinions about homosexuality. If Prof. Howell wants to disseminate his opinions on homosexuality, he can start a blog. He has no right to hijack the courses he was hired to teach and insert his own non-germane opinions. He has, in fact, violated the academic freedom of his students by teaching a biased course and not allowing his students to make up their own minds on at least this one issue.
On the other hand, there seems to be very strong doubt that UI gave Prof. Howell due process. Even if Prof. Howell’s behavior warrants termination, it is hard to believe that an adequate investigation has been conducted. It is also hard to believe that termination was warranted.
What is chilling is the University’s basis for the termination. The idea that a university would fire a professor based upon an e-mail from a friend of a student is repulsive–perhaps more repulsive than Prof. Howell’s alleged statements. A student forwarded an e-mail to the University in an attempt to get Prof. Howell in trouble and amazingly the University obliged. Who runs the University of Illinois? It would be chilling to education if a single e-mail from a single student can lead to a professor’s termination. UI’s reaction was excessive, absurd, and indefensible.
Also problematic is UI’s rationale for the termination, which is that Prof. Howell “violate(d) university standards of inclusivity.” They have not voiced any objection to him voicing his opinion within the context of the course, their objection is to the desirability of the opinion he voiced. Aside from the irony of excluding someone to preserve inclusiveness, censorship of free speech is never an appropriate response to inappropriate speech. John Stuart Mill in his book On Liberty argued that even ignorant and wrong speech should be heard because it challenges us to find and defend the truth. If a person is making ignorant and bigoted statements then the useful response is to use that as a teaching opportunity and respond with more informed and enlightened statements. After all, if you cannot intelligently refute a statement that you feel is wrong, then perhaps that statement is not so wrong. The answer to wrong speech is always more speech, never censorship.
So, I believe, from what I have read, that Prof. Howell crossed the line of acceptable behavior as a professor. I believe in free speech and academic freedom, but to publicly condemn a large group of human beings as Prof. Howell seems to have done, is the opposite of free speech, because it is an attempt to silence speech. There is no doubt that Prof. Howell’s statement to his students: “unless you have done extensive research into homosexuality and are cognizant of the history of moral thought, you are not ready to make judgments about moral truth in this matter” is an attempt to silence discussion. He is in effect telling students that they have no right to their opinion and he is especially targeting homosexual students. Cary Nelson, president of the American Association of University Professors, is correct that a professor can express their opinions “provided students can disagree without being penalized.” Prof. Howell’s statements strongly hint that students will be penalized, at least implicitly, if they disagree with him. From what I have heard, I cannot see how Prof. Howell’s statements, attitudes, and pedagogy can be defended.
Those facts do not mean that UI’s actions are acceptable. They appear to have violated Prof. Howell’s due process by using third party complaints to terminate him. There has been no mention by UI in its defense of its actions that a review was conducted into the allegations or into Prof. Howell’s overall pedagogy. Such a review must be conducted, Prof. Howell allowed to defend himself, and his peers allowed to weigh in on the matter. I am also concerned by the use by the University’s of the concept “hate speech,” especially in the hateful way it has been used in this case. No one should use an accusation of “hate speech” (whatever that means) as an excuse to censor someone. If UI conducts a proper peer-reviewed investigation and finds that Prof. Howell has a pattern of non-germane comments in class and has punished, implicitly or explicitly, students for expressing differing opinions, then termination may be justified. But that has not happened here. UI should reinstate Prof. Howell and grant him due process.
