LETTERS: A COMPARISON OF ACADEMIC FREEDOMS

To the editor:

The Dec. 29 Southeast Missourian carried a front-page article concerning a federal judge's ruling on the free-speech rights of an area high school student. The Woodland School District had suspended Brandon Beussink for posting a personal Web page which was critical of the school. The federal judge ruled that the district had violated Beussink's free-speech rights, and this ruling marked the first court decision in the nation pertaining to students' free-speech rights on the Internet.

Free speech has been a subject for distinguished scholars for centuries. Many years ago, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes reminded us that the principle of free thought means "not free thought for those who agree with us, but freedom for the thought we hate." This quotation was included in comments made by Northwestern University's president, Arnold R. Weber, in a 1991 address to students.

Excerpts from Weber's address are provided with the hope that they will help clarify a subject that is frequently contentious. "Free speech has a special, protected status on campus, because it is the medium by which competing ideas are expressed and subjected to critical evaluation. Not all expressions of free speech are equally meritorious, and some may be overtly foolish or offensive. But they contribute to our search for truth and the climate of inquiry by which learning goes forth."

Weber described a disquieting example involving the right of free speech within the university."For over a decade, a campus cause celebre has been the writings and public statements of a faculty members asserting the Holocaust ... was fabricated by Jewish spokesmen and liberal historians. The case has been complicated by the fact that the faculty member ... is not a historian.

"The easier and probably more popular course of action would have been to attempt to suppress this professor's assertions."

Weber then discussed, with unconcealed admiration, an alternative course of action taken by his predecessor, Bob Strotz, who organized an international conference that included presentations by eminent historians who examined the record and confirmed the reality of the Holocaust. Weber concluded:

"By protecting the academic freedom and parallel right of free speech of the errant faculty member, I believe that we have increased the awareness and understanding of this awful historical event."

Southeast Missouri State University provides another instance where the free-speech rights of a faculty member became a contentious issue. Many readers will recall the Iben Browning earthquake episode of 1990. Negative comments originating from various sources but especially from professional seismologists focused on Browning, but also on the director of the Center for Earthquake Studies on campus and, tangentially, on the center itself.

These comments led to the resignation of the CES director and his reassignment as a full-time member in the Department of Earth Sciences. Just which administrator initiated the request for the director's resignation is a matter of dispute. What is not disputed, however, is the fourth-year review evaluation of the former CES director made three semesters later by the chairperson of the Department of Earth Sciences. This review is standard procedure for all probationary faculty, but in this case the chairperson's report was atypical because it concluded with the recommendation that the faculty member in question "be given a one-year non-renewable appointment for the next academic year."

It is reasonable to wonder if the requested resignation and the chairperson's recommendation leading to termination were made for the same reason. Statements in President Kala Stroup's news release of April 13, 1994, appear to indicate that the decision to terminate was for a different reason. Two relevant statements: The faculty member "was given notice ... that he was not making satisfactory professional growth" and "Academic freedom issues played no role in the decision of the university not to grant a contract ... ."

Stroup's news release would seem to refute the notion that free-speech rights and academic freedom were a consideration in the termination. But Stroup failed to mention a specific sentence in the chairperson's report: "To me, the most serious issue in the matter of tenure ... is the damage to his professional credibility wrought by his own actions in the New Madrid earthquake prediction."

Also not addressed by Stroup were the following sentences from the May 1991 evaluation by the chairperson: "The credibility and reputation of the department and its faculty have been adversely affected by the controversy surrounding (the faculty member) and the Browning prediction. (The faculty member) must keep in mind that his continued employment here is considered by many of his peers as an endorsement of us of his actions during that controversy, and that is a matter of concern and discomfort fo other faculty."

Both Weber of Northwestern and the chairperson of the Department of Earth Sciences at Southeast have used the word "discomfort" in their statements about a faculty member. But it is the contrast, not the similarity, which characterizes the course of action taken by these two university administrations regarding the free-speech rights of one of their faculty members.

ED WILLIAMS

Cape Girardeau