A recording of an “Anti-Racist Rhetoric & Pedagogies” workshop acquired by FIRE raises alarm bells about the state of free expression and conscience at @UofOklahoma.
@UofOklahoma “I, in this case, usually look for my students who might be, like, entertaining the idea of listening to a problematic argument. Then I say, ‘we don’t have to listen to that.’”
That’s right — even thinking about listening to a disfavored argument is apparently to be discouraged.
One instructor notes that if students use “derogatory remarks, critiques, and hate speech,” as well as “white supremacist ideas or sources,” she will call the student out.
And if it happens again, “report them.”
Imagine being an OU student who is “reported,” presumably to the administration, simply for your choice of text to analyze or what sources you include in a bibliography.
Professors cannot abuse their power to require students to adhere to a particular viewpoint or ideology.
As FIRE’s Guide to First-Year Orientation and Thought Reform on Campus explains:
It's a standard question asked of history students.
But when a @StJohnsU prof. posed it to his students about the “Columbian Exchange,” he was removed from his class, investigated, and found guilty of bias.
@StJohnsU Three days after this lesson, professor Richard Taylor was removed from teaching.
A month later, he was informed he violated the “University’s Policy against Bias, Discrimination, and Harassment."
He was not told which part of the over 2,300-word policy he allegedly violated.
@StJohnsU Taylor was denied access to the evidence used to support the finding that he violated university policy.
“St. John’s might want to ask a history professor about other authority systems that would punish you based on vague wrongdoing with no evidence,” said FIRE's @AdGo.
@duqedu The professor’s use of the slur was pedagogically relevant and protected under Duquesne’s promises of free expression and academic freedom.
@duqedu Last week, FIRE wrote to @usedgov about this matter, alerting the Department that Duquesne appeared to be substantially misrepresenting the nature of its academic program — and violating its promises to its accreditor — by promising rights it does not provide in practice.
@FordhamNYC One photo, posted on the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre, is of the student lawfully holding a gun off-campus, captioned “Don’t Tread on me.”
@FordhamNYC The other photo is of St. Louis police officer David Dorn, who was killed by looters last month.
It's captioned, “Y’all a bunch of hypocrites,” referencing his frustration with what he refers to as “the nonchalant societal reaction over [Dorn’s] death.”
Advocates for free speech and due process on campus won one of their *biggest-ever* victories today with the finalization of long-awaited new @usedgov Title IX regulations.
@usedgov The regulations guarantee critical due process protections that Americans recognize as essential to securing justice, but that have for too long been denied to students accused of sexual misconduct on college campuses.
@usedgov Among the procedural protections guaranteed are:
* An express presumption of innocence
* Live hearings with cross-examination conducted by an advisor of choice, who may be an attorney
* Sufficient time and information to prepare for interviews and a hearing
@babson@nytimes Babson itself described Phansey as a faculty member — until it began scrubbing its website to delete mentions of his name. Unfortunately for them, Google’s cache kept copies of the pages it was deleting.
@babson@nytimes For example, here’s an April 19 profile on @Babson’s site, now memory-holed:
@babson The professor’s post was a response to President Trump’s tweeted threat to target 52 Iranian sites, including cultural sites:
@babson It strains credulity to read the post as sincerely advocating violence. In political rhetoric, figurative and hyperbolic language are familiar tools, and the post is quite obviously a criticism — not endorsement — of threats of violence, mixed with snark about American culture.