At least three academic organizations have weighed in on the situation of the University of Michigan instructors who refused to provide references for undergraduates seeking to participate in the study-abroad program at Tel Aviv University. As readers may recall – and as I explained here and here – both instructors were candid about their reasons, explaining that their support of the BDS movement (boycott, divestment, sanctions) precluded even minimal participation in anything related to Israel. John Cheney-Lippold is a tenured associate professor of American Culture, and Lucy Peterson is a graduate student instructor in Political Science. As has been widely reported, Cheney-Lippold was severely penalized; he will not receive a merit raise for 2018-19 and his scheduled sabbatical was canceled and frozen for two years. Because she is a graduate student, Peterson is protected by privacy laws, so it is not known whether or how she has been disciplined.
After the jump, I will discuss the statements of the three academic organizations. As I will explain, the AAUP gets it right, the American Political Science Association gets it mostly right, and the Middle East Studies Association gets it mostly wrong.
THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS
The AAUP letter, dated October 16, addresses only the Cheney-Lippold case, raising procedural issues under the AAUP’s Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure. Specifically, the letter noted that
Under Regulations 5b and 7a, charges that may lead to the imposition of severe sanctions are to be preceded by an informal inquiry conducted by a duly constituted faculty committee charged with determining whether proceedings for imposing sanctions should be undertaken. Following such a determination, AAUP-supported standards require an administration to demonstrate adequate cause for imposing a severe sanction in a hearing of record before an elected faculty body.
These concerns are well taken. There is no doubt that the penalties – denial of a raise and loss of sabbatical eligibility – constitute “severe sanctions,” and that they were imposed without faculty participation or input. The AAUP letter continues, however, to call upon Michigan to rescind the sanctions “pending affordance of proceedings consistent with the above-cited procedural standards.”
Recission seems unnecessary, given that the sanctions have not yet taken effect, but I agree with the need for a more formal proceeding, especially with regard to Cheney-Lippold’s use of class time to justify his position on BDS. Dean Cole’s disciplinary letter says that Cheney-Lippold spent entire class periods on the discussion (in both courses he is teaching this semester), but he claims it was only fifteen minutes. This is precisely the sort of factual dispute that hearings are intended to resolve. (Although it is still questionable whether he could have properly spent any class time drumming up defense for his stance or support for BDS.)
THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION
The APSA letter, dated October 15, raises procedural issues in the Peterson case, presumably because she is a graduate student in political science. (The letter did not name her, but she has been identified in the press.)
Although it is not known whether Peterson has in fact been sanctioned, or to what extent, the APSA expressed its concern that
Statements prior to this Fall did not specify that instructors would be sanctioned for supporting the BDS movement, or that sanctions could be exercised for declining to write letters of recommendation. Although the university certainly may expect that instructors will make reasonable efforts to aid students, strong sanctions without clear prior notice raise questions of procedural fairness. That the instructor we are concerned about is, in this case, also an early career graduate student only heightens our concerns that outsize sanctions may be imposed on one who could reasonably argue that the vague, unspecified, and changing norms regarding writing letters of recommendation were not adequately conveyed in advance.
This statement needs to be parsed. First, no one at Michigan has been sanctioned for “supporting the BDS movement.” Cheney-Lippold was penalized imposing his political views on a student, and afterward misusing his authority in class. Nothing more has ever been suggested in the Peterson case, and it is hard to understand why the APSA would even mention it.
On the other hand, it is absolutely right that a graduate student might not have anticipated or understood her obligation to base reference letters solely on the student’s merit. Fair notice is essential in disciplinary matters, and more so for beginning teachers. Dean Cole’s letter to Cheney-Lippold cited the AAUP’s statement of general faculty obligations to students:
As teachers, professors encourage the free pursuit of learning in their students. . . . Professors demonstrate respect for students as individuals and adhere to their proper roles as intellectual guides and counselors. Professors make every reasonable effort to foster honest academic conduct and to ensure that their evaluations of students reflect each student’s merit. . . . They protect their academic freedom. (Italics added.)
The requirement of evaluation on “each student’s merits” is sufficient to give notice to an experienced (and tenured) professor like Cheney-Lippold that politics may not influence reference letters, but it is reasonable for the APSA to question whether a graduate student instructor should be held to the same understanding. It would certainly be wrong to impose “strong sanctions” on Peterson in these circumstance; a reprimand and warning ought to be sufficient.
MIDDLE EAST STUDIES ASSOCIATION
MESA’s letter, dated October 16, defended Cheney-Lippold on the merits, citing free speech and academic freedom grounds. According to MESA, “it should be entirely up to a faculty member to decide whether or not he or she wishes to write a letter of recommendation for a student, unless it can be clearly demonstrated that a refusal to do so was motivated by racial, ethnic, religious or gender bias.” Apparently conceding that there are some impermissible grounds for withholding references, MESA does not explain why political disagreement is a valid reason for impeding a student’s access to a university sponsored program.
The MESA letter also observes that “Professor Cheney-Lippold clearly acted on the basis of sincerely held convictions about an issue of public concern,” but concludes that the “decision to sanction him constitutes . . . an infringement of his academic freedom and of the right of faculty to decide for whom they wish to write letters of recommendation.” Cheney-Lippold's sincerity is not in doubt, but notably missing is any acknowledgment of faculty obligations to students.
It is accurate, of course, to say that faculty may “decide for whom they wish to write letters of recommendation (italics added),” but there was no question that Cheney-Lippold was quite willing to write a letter for the student in question, so long as it was not for the program at Tel Aviv University. "Let me know if you need me to write other letters for you," he wrote, "as I'd be happy." Thus, even accepting MESA’s principle, Cheney-Lippold was nonetheless advancing his own political goals at his student’s expense.
Finally, MESA asserts, as others have, that faculty members have an essentially unfettered right to write or withhold letters of recommendation, as though it is an act of grace rather than part of the job. This is a long outmoded view of academics, in which the dispensation of favors to students is entirely at the professor’s discretion. Perhaps that was the case in feudal times, but it is inappropriate today. It is a reasonable expectation that faculty will provide references based on merit, assuming that time is available. Students should not be treated like supplicants.
I wonder what would happen if these students were to study in Saudi Arabia? Another question. How many busses, airliners, and pizza parlors have the Israeli's blown up? What about tossing crippled old men off of cruise ships? What are your answers now, professors?
Posted by: The Law Offcies of Kavanaugh Thomas, LLC, PC, LTD, Chartered, AV Rated | October 18, 2018 at 03:22 PM