Victory for Freedom of Speech at Stanford: Student Graduates Despite Ed School Efforts to Revoke Admission, Investigate Private Blog, and Declare Stud

Stanford University’s Teacher Education Program (STEP) has finally let dissenting student-blogger Michele Kerr graduate. When Stanford tried to revoke Kerr’s admission after she voiced disagreement with “progressive” views held by STEP administrators, Kerr turned to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) for help. Kerr sought FIRE’s aid a second time after Stanford School of Education administrators demanded the password to her private blog and threatened to expel her for her opinions and teaching philosophy. The shameful story of Kerr’s travails is featured online in The Washington Post today by education columnist Jay Mathews.

“From before even her first day of classes, the Stanford School of Education seemed to be trying every rationale it could think of to get rid of Michele Kerr,” said Greg Lukianoff, FIRE President and alumnus of Stanford Law School. “But Kerr fought back, and with help from FIRE and the intervention of senior administrators, Kerr was able to graduate in June. No student, however, should be put through this kind of ordeal in the first place.”

Kerr’s saga began in March 2008, when she attended an open house for admitted students and stated in public conversation that she did not entirely agree with what she perceived to be STEP’s “progressive” approach to education. Her promise to keep an open mind was not enough for STEP Director Rachel Lotan, who soon summoned Kerr to meet with her multiple times. Although Kerr had already accepted STEP’s offer of admission, Lotan ominously kept referring to Kerr’s admission as merely “potential.”

Kerr’s concern was further justified when a misdirected e-mail she received revealed that STEP officials were planning to “strategize” with the program’s lawyer, apparently to revoke Kerr’s admission. FIRE wrote Stanford President John Hennessy on May 23, 2008, outlining the situation and demanding that Kerr’s binding admission offer be honored. FIRE noted Stanford’s Statement on Academic Freedom, which states that “[e]xpression of the widest range of viewpoints should be encouraged, free from institutional orthodoxy and from internal or external coercion.” Senior University Counsel Lauren Schoenthaler responded on June 5, confirming Kerr’s admission.

Kerr’s trouble did not end there. Associate Dean of Student Services Eamonn Callan made repeated unique and unreasonable demands to investigate Kerr’s private, password-protected blog about her thoughts and experiences as a teacher. In a formal letter on December 16, Callan and Lotan also threatened to charge Kerr with “intimidation” for sending an e-mail to her fellow STEP students regarding her treatment by Stanford and her response to students in her program who had voiced complaints about her outspokenness. Callan’s and Lotan’s letter said they were following “the STEP Guidelines for Reviewing Concerns Regarding Suitability for the Practice of Teaching.”

“Stanford threatened Kerr with disciplinary action for publicly defending herself and unreasonably demanded to find out what Kerr was saying in a private forum,” said Adam Kissel, Director of FIRE’s Individual Rights Defense Program. “Unquestionably, administrators were attempting to build a case for throwing Kerr out of school because of her expression.”

In a second letter to Hennessy on January 26 of this year, FIRE outlined many additional steps that STEP officials had taken to try to rid themselves of Kerr by holding her to unique standards of expression and conduct. FIRE asked that Stanford “recognize its legal and moral commitments by immediately and unequivocally abandoning attempts to monitor Kerr’s blog, withdrawing threats to punish Kerr for ‘intimidation,’ and ceasing efforts to fail Kerr out of STEP because of her protected expression and her protected beliefs.” Kerr also submitted grievances going into detail about STEP’s actions.

In response to FIRE’s letter, more senior Stanford administrators intervened and guaranteed Kerr fair treatment. The School of Education put Kerr under a new set of supervisors, and she graduated successfully on June 14. Now that she has also found a job, Kerr’s travails at STEP are over. Her story is chronicled today in a 2,000-word article by Washington Post education columnist Jay Mathews, who frequently disagrees with Kerr on educational issues but who was drawn to her story.

“Like STEP, too many education programs today are teaching by words and deeds that only one orthodoxy or ideology is acceptable in future teachers,” Kissel said. “This refusal to accept alternative views is no way to prepare teachers to cultivate effective citizens in our democracy. Fortunately, senior administrators stepped in to set things right for Michele Kerr.”

Source: FIRE

"Ask God What Your Judgment Is": Another Speech Code Topples in Court

The Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD) didn't have to "ask God" to discover that it came out on the wrong side of a hearing in which U.S. District Judge George H. King temporarily enjoined the district from enforcing a harassment policy that banned "offensive" speech on campus—a policy so problematic that the judge has ordered it to be taken down from the district's websites while the legal process continues. LACCD's speech code came in for legal scrutiny after one of its students, Jonathan Lopez, was told to "ask God what your grade is" by Professor John Matteson after Lopez gave a speech—in a speech class—about his Christian faith. (For good measure, Matteson also allegedly called Lopez a "fascist bastard.")

With the help of Alliance Defense Fund Senior Counsel David French (formerly FIRE's president), Lopez sued the LACCD, challenging the district's unconstitutional speech code. As French reported:

[T]he Los Angeles Community College District has a rather oppressive speech code, which permits the school to punish "offensive" speech or speech that has an undefined "negative impact" on a student's academic performance (one section of the school's policies even permits punishment for mere "generalized sexist statements").

Well, it had such a code at one time, anyway. While the LACCD vigorously defended its speech code up through the oral argument on June 10, 2009, after the hearing it decided that it had in fact revoked the unconstitutional speech code in 2007. If this sudden realization seems suspect to you, you are not alone, as the judge pointed out in a deadpan footnote:

We are chagrined that defense counsel and Defendants' representative who were present at the oral argument on June 10, 2009 were apparently ignorant of the status of a policy they purported to defend. This lack of preparedness is viewed with great disfavor.

The judge's order itself is well worth a read for those interested. It cites the FIRE-related case of DeJohn vs. Temple Univ. several times (DeJohn, by the way, is still waiting for Temple University to let him finish his degree) in support of the conclusion that a trial is likely to find that LACCD's policy unlawfully restricts "constitutionally protected speech that is merely offensive to some listeners, such as discussions of religion, homosexual relations and marriage, sexual morality and freedom, polygamy, or even gender politics and policies." The judge goes on to point out that "[w]hile it may be desirable to promote harmony and civility, these values cannot be enforced at the expense of protected speech under the First Amendment."

The LACCD has not decided whether it will accept or appeal the ruling. Any appeal, though, would face a very steep uphill battle, considering this ruling and the weight of precedent. Schools including Shippensburg University, Texas Tech, Citrus College, SUNY Brockport, and San Francisco State have all dispensed with their speech codes after legal action. Let's hope the LACCD joins these institutions and permanently consigns its speech code to the scrap heap.

Source: FIRE