Freedom of speech at Citrus College

March 11, 2003 2:19 PM

Freedom of speech at Citrus College was threatened, but the college president responded sanely on March 7th, three days after the issue was raised by a watchdog foundation. A speech class professor, Rosalyn Kahn, told the students they could get extra credit for writing an anti-war letter to President Bush. The letter had to protest the war to receive credit. (I would find this just as worthy of mention if she had required students to write pro-war letter.) What struck me was the unmitigated gall of the Ms. Kahn and the fact that she was so completely busted. UPI, The LA Times, and The Chronicle for Higher Education all covered this. There's also mention on some other blogs.
posted by tbc (29 comments total)

Not sure how to respond. It seems there are several issues here. The first issue is that if the assignment was extra credit it is optional and therefore should be able to be about almost anything shouldn't it? The other issue is that the assignment is just that... an assignment. A student should not necessarily be able to express their own viewpoint because it is restricted to the framework of the assignment. If the assignment is to write about how the book 1984 is an example of a utopian society, the student who disagrees and writes a paper about how 1984 is not a utopia will not get a good grade. I don't think that that has much to do with the freedom of speech at all. It is merely thinking within the framework of the assignment, and that is the purpose of college, to expose youngsters to different viewpoints. The last issue however is associating publicly the student with the letter and the fact that the letter was sent. This is where it becomes a problem with the freedom to express ones own opinion, privacy, and so forth. I think those three issues make up the bulk of the debate here.
posted by banished at 2:37 PM on March 11, 2003

I don't have a problem with forcing students to mouth prescribed viewpoints as an intellectual exercise. Certainly in competitive debating, the practice was to have both teams prepare both sides of the argument or assign the viewpoint at random, and a lot could be learned in trying to prepare a sound argument that you didn't agree with.

In this case, however, I don't see any of that concept. It seems undeniable that the professor was advocating the prescribed position, and wanted to force the students to do the same. I suspect most of the attention will be paid to the anti-war/dubya aspect of this story, but I think the far more reprehensible act was related to the state funding/adjunct instructor question. To force your students to advocate a position that materially benefits you directly is completely unconscionable.
posted by jacquilynne at 2:43 PM on March 11, 2003

That's why we have tenure.

Professors assign the books they want, teach what they want from those books (or not), and grade how they want. Don't like it? Drop.
posted by zpousman at 2:48 PM on March 11, 2003

Name of the class is "Speech 106" ... not "Free Speech 106". Unless the assignment was a compulsory one, and not for extra credit, there's no story to this story.

Unfortunately, there seems to be conflicting information as to whether or not this assignment was required or was a voluntary thing.
posted by WolfDaddy at 2:49 PM on March 11, 2003

banished: it wasn't an assignment in the sense of a book report on 1984 that largely existed only in the context of the class. It was *letter that would be mailed* expressing a pre-set opinion that was meant to influence the President.

You would think that if people were acting to influence the President, they would at least be able to express their own opinions, right?

What if the assignment was to write hate letters to Planned Parenthood?
posted by turbodog at 2:52 PM on March 11, 2003

I'm dove, and if a teacher asked me to write a pro-war letter to the president for extra credit, I would go right to the dean. Tenure or not, that's not kosher.
posted by condour75 at 2:52 PM on March 11, 2003

Unfortunately, there seems to be conflicting information as to whether or not this assignment was required or was a voluntary thing.

The only lack of clarity is coming from FIRE. In their screed, they consistently use the word "required" as if the assignment were part of the minimum grading structure. It seems clear that it wasn't. It was for "extra" credit.

That still doesn't seem to clear Professor Kahn of wrong-doing, however. If additional points are offered to a subset of students, than the course grading cannot be equitable, or at all perceived as such. Diligent work in the course could make the grade, but a more mediocre student could elevate their status by writing this letter (regardless of their belief in the idiologies espoused in it).

My question (as it was with all extra credit assignements): would it have stood against the students if their letters had read,

"Dude, your war sucks. No blood for oil, asshole. Pease Peace! Word up."

Were the letters to be graded, or simply sent?

I personally feel that all professors hold tightly to their agendas, and reward work that favors those agendas. Despite FIRE's rabid quest, that will always be the case. I work in the higher-ed environment, and few things are more offensive than the assumption that adults can't make up their own minds and are just manipulated into viewpoints by professorial staff. (Yes, I know, frequently they can't...but still.) The fact is, holding some viewpoints is just ignorant, and grades will reflect that ignorance. I don't believe that is the case here, but this certainly isn't a case of forcing people into a belief (unless they were too lazy to competently do the coursework and needed the extra credit...)
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:23 PM on March 11, 2003

Having gone to college in the UK, I'm not familiar with the concept of 'extra credit' assignments. How does that work? Presumably, if a student completes an extra credit assignment, they have a better grade (from the extra credit, I'm guessing) than if not. In which case, there's a requirement to complete the extra credit assignment if the student wants the best marks possible, no? In which case, 'extra credit' means that, actually, you better do that assignment... so what's 'extra' about it? *head explodes*
posted by normy at 3:25 PM on March 11, 2003

In rapid response to the intervention of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), the administration of Citrus College (California) has undone a terrible injustice—and has avoided a moral and legal nightmare.

I don't know if I'd go so far as to call it a "terrible injustice," but yeah, sure, whatever. From their tone they make it sound as though they single-handedly saved the Constitution when, from the tone of the newspaper articles, what really happened was some of the students complained and the administration said, "Okay."

FIRE, though, is a joke. It's an anti-liberal legal fund that subscribes to the notion that college professors are secretly trying to turn our children into atheistic lesbian communists. A sample: "If feminists, so-called multiculturalists, and various self-proclaimed progressives were forced to censor themselves and worry about 'a hostile environment,' the speech codes and their equivalents would crumble overnight."

Essentially they're all for protecting speech that agrees with their own and censoring everybody else. An all too common theme these days.
posted by vraxoin at 3:26 PM on March 11, 2003

This is bullshit! PC bullshit. Perhaps I should go back and sue my speech teacher for forcing me to defend position X, I recall it having something to do with a local strip mall and redevelopment funds, which I disagreed with.

Absolute rubbish! The University President should step down for being such a gushing idiot.

A friend of mine had to argue the merits of the free-agent rule in baseball. Jesus, panty wastes!

WHY DIDN'T WE SUE?!?
posted by filchyboy at 3:32 PM on March 11, 2003

You would think that if people were acting to influence the President, they would at least be able to express their own opinions, right?

And that's the problem here. Extra credit for doing something extracurricular -- but only if it supports the teacher's views?

I think Bush's foreign policy is a disaster. I think extra credit for activism on behalf of a single teacher's political views is not as big a disaster -- but if widespread, an equally big disaster. The fact that she got busted is a healthy sign. I will relax when the current admin gets voted out.
posted by namespan at 3:38 PM on March 11, 2003

I agree that there's nothing new, or wrong, with a speech instructor setting both the topic and the viewpoint of an assignment. Hell, I had to defend the eating of children (a la "A Modest Proposal") for my speech class. It's all about learning the issue and tools of persuasion.

On the other hand, mailing the letter to the President under their signature puts this outside the realm of basic academics, IMHO.

I'll argue pretty articulately and thoroughly against abortion for a grade if I had to. But there's no way I'm expecting that work to be published or released as representative of my actual beliefs.
posted by pzarquon at 3:38 PM on March 11, 2003

Presumably, if a student completes an extra credit assignment, they have a better grade (from the extra credit, I'm guessing) than if not. In which case, there's a requirement to complete the extra credit assignment if the student wants the best marks possible, no? In which case, 'extra credit' means that, actually, you better do that assignment... so what's 'extra' about it? *head explodes*

A chemistry class might offer five quizzes worth ten points each, five lab assignments worth ten points, and one final exam worth one hundred points. A student who gets every question right and performs all their lab work flawlessly would accumulate 200 points by the end of the term. Each student's grade is computed by dividing whatever number of points they actually earned into the maximum. An "A" grade is usually 90%-100%, a "B" grade 80%-90%, and so on.

Extra credit assignments add up on the student's side of the ledger at the end of the term, but are not counted as part of the maximum. They're "extra credit" because you can ignore them (or fail them) and still get 100% at the end of the term, provided you do well on the ordinary coursework.
posted by Mars Saxman at 3:56 PM on March 11, 2003

I'll argue pretty articulately and thoroughly against abortion for a grade if I had to. But there's no way I'm expecting that work to be published or released as representative of my actual beliefs.

and that's the juxt of it. no matter your political viewpoint, people who actually believe that this teacher's actions are somehow defensible is bewildering.
posted by poopy at 4:00 PM on March 11, 2003

Personally I don't think the teachers actions are necessarily defensible however calling this any sort of "threatening" towards one's freedom of speech may be a bit overstating.

Teacher made a mistake, teacher was made aware of the mistake (very damn publicly) and the mistake was corrected.

whatever this ultimately an issue with a lot of barking and little bite.
posted by bitdamaged at 4:19 PM on March 11, 2003

so what's 'extra' about it? *head explodes*

As Mars Saxman points out, it's so that as many kids as possible can get as high a grade as possible. This is even if they have to do pathetic little projects: I once had to grade 'extra credit' assignments that consisted of little more than the kids cutting pictures out of National Geographic and other magazines, sticking them on card, and writing titles underneath in coloured felt tip pen. The upshot is, presumably, happier kids (as they are made to feel smarter than they actually are), happier parents (who are paying for the grades and for their kids to feel smart), happier universities (who the parents write the check to) - and grade inflation.
posted by carter at 5:13 PM on March 11, 2003

As many have pointed out, asking students to defend a position they don't believe in is a good lesson. I fully support that type of thinking and feel most educators don't even attempt it. *BUT* SHE MAILED THE LETTERS!!!!

This isn't a teacher who "made a mistake" as bitdamaged puts it. There is zero chance that a college professor is dumb enough to make that type of mistake. What the teacher did, she did full well knowing how wrong it was but felt the ends justified the means. Don't trivialize it by calling it a mistake and more than you would consider it a mistake if someone hacked into your mail account and started sending out emails on your behalf supporting causes you didn't believe in.

I wish people had just an ounce of intellectual honesty here. Those of you saying it's not a big deal would be howling if they had been forced to write papers in favor of the war and had the letters sent.

It always makes me cringe when students are forced to take on views that are not their own. Like I said, for the purpose of debate, or to make a particular point, sure, it's healthy for us to consider other views but far too many high school teachers and college professors have gotten into the habit of dictating what views students should have. Of course, not all of them are like this and will give a well presented argument appropriate credit regardless of the views expressed but those instructors are far and few between and growing more rare with each year.
posted by billman at 5:34 PM on March 11, 2003

turbodog: I addressed your concern when I said "The last issue however is associating publicly the student with the letter and the fact that the letter was sent. This is where it becomes a problem with the freedom to express ones own opinion, privacy, and so forth."

Did you even read my comment at all???
posted by banished at 5:40 PM on March 11, 2003

As many have pointed out, asking students to defend a position they don't believe in is a good lesson

It sounds useful for training to be a lawyer or tabloid reporter or some other profession where one is expected to argue to order, but I think its role in general education is over-rated. Asking students to write from a hypothetical viewpoint is fine, but I think teachers should avoid involving viewpoints that are sensitive and topical. I find it a bit of a mindf**k to force a young person to expound a viewpoint that they might find repugnant.
posted by raygirvan at 6:32 PM on March 11, 2003

I just cannot get over the hypocricy evident in many of the comments in this thread. For all of you who said, "eh, what's the big deal, it's just extra credit?" ask yourself how you would have reacted to the following scenario:

You currently have an 89% average. The teacher offers an extra credit assignment which would get you to a 91% average -- the difference between a B+ and an A-. Your requirement: write a letter to President Bush, signed by you, that says: "Dear President Bush: I support the war against Iraq wholeheartedly. Please proceed with all deliberate haste. Signed, [You]" The teacher informs you that your letter will be sent to President Bush in an effort to boost his morale and reinforce his resolve.

Do you really, honestly want to argue that this would be no big deal, since it's just for "extra credit"? At least condour75 was honest enough to see how easily the situation could be turned around. Always remember: The First Amendment is a two-way street.

For more information on this and similar educational cases, see Erin O'Connor's excellent Critical Mass.
posted by pardonyou? at 6:41 PM on March 11, 2003

FIRE does really good work AND they are non-partisan.

Today I attended an event they held at the National Press Club. They had Edwin Meese and Nadine Strossen (of the ACLU) on the same panel.
posted by pjdoland at 7:04 PM on March 11, 2003

Tenure's not an issue in this case: she's a part-time instructor at a community college. In other words, no job security--hire and fire at will. She's certainly far more, um, brazen than most adjuncts.
posted by thomas j wise at 7:35 PM on March 11, 2003

I have long assumed that any mass distribution of letters/essays/postcards/crayondrawings with a single point of view from a group of students by a teacher was nothing more than an act of ideological masterbation by the teacher; no freedom of speech, nothing halfway resembling speech at all. And that applies pretty equally to a "save the trees" art project for third graders or a "why the capitol gains tax should be abolished" essay assignment in a University 'Economics' class (my own experience wa-a-ay back in the '70s). Sounds like "real life" education for future jobs in the "Freedom-of-Speech-Free" workplace.
posted by wendell at 8:45 PM on March 11, 2003

When I was in the 9th grade (oh, the carefree days of youth), our teachers were close to a strike. Nearly every teacher in the school fell into two camps:

Those who did their job and taught.

Those who spent entire classroom periods attempting to explain to us why the teachers needed better wages and why the substitutes that came in to replace them were dirty scabs.

I've always respected the teachers who realized that their job was to teach. It sent a message of professionalism.

The teachers who quit teaching in order to make their problems our problems taught me nothing more than the fact that being in a position of responsibility does not make one responsible. School was not about students. School was about the teachers. Education is something that happens by chance, if at all.

There are good teachers out there. I just wish the rest of them would realize that they don't care about education and find another profession so kids have a fighting chance of graduating high school and being able to read.
posted by billman at 11:52 PM on March 11, 2003

FIRE does really good work AND they are non-partisan. eh?????

Please. Check out their mission statement. The mission of FIRE is to defend and sustain individual rights at America's increasingly repressive and partisan colleges and universities. . . . FIRE's core mission is to protect the unprotected and to educate the public and communities of concerned Americans about the threats to these rights on our campuses and about the means to preserve them.

Same phenomenon as Accuracy in Academia : we don't have commies to kick around any more, so let's dig up some straw-man opposition at the universities.

Examples of this kind--which are obviously newsworthy because they are not typical--are presented as though they are happening everywhere.

Has anyone heard the teacher's side of the story yet?
posted by palancik at 2:31 PM on March 12, 2003

This just goes to show you that fanatacism on either side is a bad thing. I am pretty damn liberal, but this is just wrong.

As others have said above, it's a great exercise for people to be asked to debate the side of a point they don't agree with. It's a fascinating and thought provolking lesson. However, she did this with the intent of sending the letters and making it seem these kids feel a way some of them may not. That is wrong. I would feel that way no matter what the letter is about.

Incredible. Really incredible that a teacher would try this. Amazing. Glad to see the school reacted the way it did. Very well done.
posted by aacheson at 3:47 PM on March 12, 2003

It's a fascinating and thought provoking lesson

Only for those who enjoy treating argument as a sophist games. I must be getting old; the only thought it provokes in me is "what a waste of productive time".
posted by raygirvan at 4:23 PM on March 12, 2003

raygirvan: But wouldn't the point of forums such as this be lost to you then? I enjoy hanging out in forums where my view is in the minority so that I can experience the views of others in the hopes of learning.
posted by billman at 4:46 PM on March 12, 2003

Difficult. Seeing others' real views is, as you say, interesting and enlightening. Taking on fake views just to see how the argument plays out: it's great fun as a voluntary game when the idea is interesting, but I've never seen the point when it's a compulsory chore.
posted by raygirvan at 6:36 PM on March 12, 2003