Over the past week, some faculty members have expressed concerns to me about consequences to their personal and professional situation if they took a stand on the Zimon controversy. Nontenured faculty members especially might fear that they place themselves at risk. I know at least one probationary faculty member who is apprehensive that it is not enough to just stay silent, but rather feels a need to express public loyalty.

As someone who teaches the mass communications law course at the College, I thought I would try to clarify the rights of faculty members to academic freedom and free speech, which is provided both under the Faculty Handbook as well as established law. I fully recognize that many faculty members honestly support President Zimon in the controversy surrounding his academic credentials. Nothing I state here is intended to allege that faculty members on the other side are acting out of fear. I am simply attempting to offer some explanation of faculty rights, and, as always, I am open to any alternate interpretation.

The Faculty Handbook enumerates some of these rights on Page 4 of the Handbook, some relevant sections of which I am excerpting here: "The teacher is entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results, subject to the adequate performance of his/her academic duties…"

"The college or university teacher is a citizen, a member of a learned community, and an officer of an educational institution. When he/she speaks or writes as a citizen, he/she should be free from college censorship or discipline, but his/her special position in the community imposes special obligations. As a person of learning and an educational officer, he/she should remember that the public may judge his/her profession and the college by his/her utterances. Hence he/she should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others and should make every effort to indicate that he/she is not a college spokesman."

The college's procedures for termination and dismissal of tenured and non-tenured faculty provide (Faculty Handbook, p. 35):

"Adequate cause for a dismissal will be related, directly and substantially, to the fitness of the faculty member in his/her professional capacity as a teacher or researcher or to moral turpitude. Dismissal will not be used to restrain faculty members in their exercise of academic freedom or other rights of American citizens."

The dismissal procedures further provide that "academic penalty less than dismissal" requires that "adequate cause for dismissal" must be established for even such penalty. Thus the protections of the First Amendment and academic freedom are extended to all punitive actions against a faculty member, not just dismissal. Indeed, any punitive measure requires the same standard as dismissal. Faculty members should feel proud that the college adopted these principles of academic freedom (artistic freedom was added in 1970), which are derived from the AAUP, nearly a half century ago, long before they became academically fashionable.

Faculty members should also be aware that there is a substantial body of case law that supports their right to academic freedom as well, emanating both from contract law as well as state and federal constitutions. Finally, there is additional protection available under the federal whistleblower law.

--..Continued..

--