POSTED BY MARTIN KICH

The following two stories illustrate the complexity of free-speech issues on campus.  For although it would be tempting to frame each case as a conflict between the free expression of religious values and the insistence on political correctness, the real issue, it seems to me, is whether it is appropriate for a faculty member to express an open disdain for any student whose appearance immediately suggests that he or she has fundamentally different values.

In the first case, the faculty member has openly expressed a view of women that in the mainstream of American culture now seems anachronistic. In the second case, the faculty member has refused to acknowledge the gender identity of a transgender student, raising issues that are still not entirely resolved (either legally, in the specific case and more broadly, or culturally), though the faculty member’s view seems very rapidly on its way to becoming anachronistic.

The real issue, I think, is exactly when a faculty member’s expression of his or her personal values suggests that he or she is creating a hostile learning environment for certain students and brings into question whether the student can reasonably expect to receive a fair evaluation. If it is arguably unfair to expect faculty members to avoid the expression of personal values that create this issue, it also seems a bogus issue to focus on the students who are, after all, not so much expressing themselves as simply being themselves: that is, this issue cannot be framed credibly as if it were, in its essence, an actual argument. The specific cases are more manifestations of broader political and cultural debates.

I also don’t think that this is an issue of academic freedom so much as an issue of free expression. If fair treatment and evaluation of all students is a fundamental principle of higher education, or at least within institutions that accept federal or state funding, then the question is exactly where a student’s right to such an education trumps a faculty member’s right to free expression. And a fundamental consideration, it seems to me, is that the student is paying for the education and the faculty member is being paid to provide it.

Likewise, I cannot resist noting that the many of same people who will argue most vociferously for the faculty member’s right of freedom of expression not only are the most vocal critics of faculty members’ expression of views that they deem to be “radical” but also are the most vocal advocates of workplace rules that increasingly limit employee rights. More specifically, the same people who argue that collective bargaining and exclusive representation are a violation of some public employees’ free speech rights seem to be doing everything they can to actually reduce all sorts of workers’ rights. One might argue that this consideration is tangential to the issues in these two cases, but others, not I, have made it a major element in the debate.

In terms of this first case, I am focusing on just the views expressed about women’s dress and not on the views about gay marriage. I am not suggesting at all that gay rights are less important, but the issue involving women’s dress are more germane here because it involves an assumption that there is a direct correlation between appearance and values.

An associate dean of the Oklahoma University College of Law resigned amid backlash from a book in which he referred to gay marriage as “insanity” and expressed outrage over women who wear pants.

“Women must veil their form to obscure its contours out of charity towards men,” Brian McCall wrote in his 2014 book, To Build the City of God: Living as Catholics in a Secular Age. “To know that women in pants have this effect on men and to wear them is thus a sin against charity as well as modesty.”

McCall—who worked at the university for 13 years—said he was “saddened” by the situation and “troubled by the hypocrisy” in higher education.

“People should be evaluated on the merits of what they do, not what they believe and who they are,” he told Daily News.

OU Law Dean Joseph Harroz, Jr., released a statement condemning McCall’s views.

“The OU College of Law is a place of inclusion. Beyond ensuring the college is free from illegal harassment or discrimination, the college must prepare tomorrow’s leaders–our students–for the world in which they will serve,” Harroz said in the statement.

 Harroz said an outside law firm conducted an investigation and there was no evidence of harassment or discrimination involving McCall.

The excerpt is from an article written by Goldene Brown for the San Diego Union Tribune. The complete article is available at: sandiegouniontribune.com/news/nation-world/ny-news-oklahoma-dean-resigns-20181004-story.html.

A brief news report about the second case appeared in the Columbus Dispatch, and noo individual author is credited.

A Shawnee State University professor is suing school officials after receiving a written warning for violating its nondiscrimination policy by not addressing a transgender student using the gender terms preferred by that student.

In a federal lawsuit, Nicholas Meriwether contends the school violated his rights by compelling him to speak in a way that contradicts his religious beliefs as a Christian.

Meriwether, a philosophy professor in the Department of English and Humanities, argued he didn’t discriminate and that he treated the student like “other biologically male students.”

He unsuccessfully challenged his reprimand in a grievance process.

The university wouldn’t comment on the lawsuit, but said in a statement that it values freedom of expression and provides a nondiscriminatory environment.

 “We expect that as this case progresses, and details come to light, it will become clear that we made decisions in an effort to both respect our faculty member’s deep-rooted religious beliefs and our student’s right to equal treatment in the classroom,” the university said.