BY NADINE STROSSEN
The following is a letter to Columbia University President Lee Bollinger from Nadine Strossen, the John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law Emerita at New York Law School, Past National President of the American Civil Liberties Union (1991-2008), and author of HATE: Why We Should Resist it With Free Speech, Not Censorship.
Dear Lee,
Again, it was a pleasure to share the podium with you at the recent Columbia Law School event about social media free speech issues, and I look forward to the book you and Geof are co-editing on point.
I am writing now about other free speech/academic freedom issues directly concerning Columbia: namely, the EOAA complaint against Dinah PoKempner, an adjunct professor at Columbia’s Institute for the Study of Human Rights. The complaint arose from her use of the “N-word” in a course on international human rights law, in a class specifically about the treatment of “hate speech” in various legal systems. As you know, the controversy has been reported in various publications, including the Spectator and the New York Post. My understanding of the situation results from the press coverage, and the accompanying videotape of Prof. PoKempner’s statements that spurred the complaint. These materials show that Prof. PoKempner had valid pedagogical reasons for using the word, to demonstrate (among other things) that racial justice advocates may invoke it strategically in pursuing litigation against white supremacists. To be sure, as Prof. PoKempner herself has acknowledged, she may be faulted for not having been sufficiently sensitive to students’ potential negative reactions to the word notwithstanding her positive pedagogical purpose. However, when students voiced those negative reactions, she immediately and repeatedly apologized, and invited them to discuss their concerns at length.
Given your positions as both Columbia’s President and one of the nation’s foremost First Amendment scholars, I urge you to use this incident as an opportunity to clarify and reaffirm the University’s policies on academic freedom, and to affirm that Prof. PoKempner was acting within the bounds of that freedom, while violating no University policies.
The Spectator summarizes the pertinent University policies as follows: “According to the University’s faculty handbook, an ‘important part’ of a faculty member’s duties is to `engage their students in discussions about issues that are contentious and emotionally charged’ and `to challenge them to reexamine deeply held beliefs,’ but such endeavors must be completed with `civility, tolerance, and respect for ideas that differ from their own.’ When faculty fail to uphold these tenets, students are encouraged to meet with the faculty member and seek resolution or undergo grievance procedures within their respective schools.”
The facts reported, as well as the video, demonstrate that Prof. PoKempner honored her duties as a faculty member, because she did “engage [her] students in issues that are contentious and emotionally charged”; she did “challenge them to reexamine deeply held beliefs”; and she did treat them with “civility, tolerance and respect.” Indeed, there is some concern that Columbia officials may have violated her rights (and her students’ rights) by sharing a recording of the Zoom class with Prof. PoKempnner’s employers at Human Rights Watch, who terminated her employment after viewing the video. As Adam Steinbaugh of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) said of the situation (as quoted in a 4/20/21 article): “While some may find those words or images objectionable or offensive, academic freedom gives breathing room to faculty members to determine whether and how to discuss relevant materials. A class discussing what the First Amendment protects will naturally raise the likelihood of hearing or seeing words people find offensive. While students have the right to criticize those choices or to complain about them, an investigation or punishment by the university would be a marked departure from its commitment to academic freedom.”
Ironically, I’m writing this letter on the very same day (5/2/21) that the Sunday New York Times published a guest essay by Columbia professor John McWhorter on the use of the “N-word,” in which he spells out the full word repeatedly — in fact, 34 times. An accompanying essay by the Times‘ editors explains why they thought it necessary and appropriate to publish the slur. Should Prof. McWhorter come under fire from Columbia students (or others) for his essay, I hope you will defend his rights as well.
With sincere thanks for your attention, as well as deep respect and best regards, Nadine.
Star Trek’s Black female Lt. Uhura, called once by another race, a “Negress,” was not offended whatsoever she said, and replied, “In our century, we’ve learned to not be afraid of words.”
Otherwise, the law professor is making an interesting appeal to her institutional authority (who has none in this kind of matter–one does not ask for, or need, permission to enjoy (un) enumerated rights, even at so-called private institutions), but it seems tenuous as to whether her enthusiasm for the First Amendment otherwise applies equally to any other epithet, real or imagined. I would suspect it does not, and it is obvious that the indulgence of the “N-word” in agenda media as she describes, is not about the freedom to so invoke it, as it is the opportunism to deploy it for coercive moralism and ‘shaming” purposes, as White guilt, terror and reparations are all the rage in the law academy, especially at the primary legal reconstruction schools of which Columbia is comfortably nested. Regards, ’96, UChicago; ’84, UTexas Austin
Some of you may not be familiar with the case described in the link below, but whenever I’ve discussed this situation with academics, to a man and woman they all agreed that the person who used the near-slur “niggardly” should have lost his job. It might be one of the first cases of someone losing his livelihood because he had a good vocabulary! (I’m sure it won’t be the last!)
https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/57228451/PC_and_Freedom_of_Speech.pdf?1534936591=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DPolitical_Correctness_and_Freedom_of_Spe.pdf&Expires=1620157664&Signature=ENnPIDsU6wRADmpZoTPl4y-e3QxnmFcB~iTgtwpNSqx1aQ-HgDgr-rmzggaAnSgwE5I5BigNAsNoIYNMg~u-5v4YO36kBNEdWQqtUlSvZRKbfsUDqKMHC1yEQTVoOdQceoF-f17LtAo1jAUpfAW2j1KQYcTKcHcv5d4qYJRrq97KrDbicMsPAKH4nIV0LQAsrLyQ3VoB3cdtNas4Twf8mgDwtcJGR0cBAEAmaQL~pRdDF18uecOWJ6jiXCBhoMcgrN0rEWyiITACBeBRZTulK9V97IOaJdhWHNRQ03ms3UjG4BH3XZ3pbFhHDrGdYXwbiAJUiOykjCkp-ME3EXSQXw__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA
Your link does not work, so I do not know what case you are referring to, but I wondered if it was here in D.C., back in 1999, when one of the mayor’s staff members used the word “niggardly” in a discussion of the budget? If so, I do not know of any academics who felt that the staff member should have lost his job — and in fact he resigned — and within a couple of weeks Mayor Williams offered him his job back. Is that the case you are mentioning?
Barbara: Yes, that’s the case I was referencing. And you describe it correctly, including the mayor’s wise resolution. Like my situation at CCNY, though, I think that the person in question underwent a FORCED resignation, which was not merited by his use of the perfectly legitimate vocabulary word “niggardly.” probably those who were “traumatized” by that word had no idea what it meant.
Barbara et al.: Here’s a link about the “niggardly” flap that is probably accessible: https://www.academia.edu/37274118/Political_Correctness_and_Freedom_of_Speech
I would like to nitpick one argument that is used above because it is a premise that is used only for apparent leftists, liberals, and Democrats: “To be sure, as Prof. PoKempner herself has acknowledged, she may be faulted for not having been sufficiently sensitive to students’ potential negative reactions to the word notwithstanding her positive pedagogical purpose.”
When *I* was thought to be “insensitive,” I was accused of using a MICRO-aggression and I was forced to resign an adjunct Full Professorship, lose almost a whole semester’s pay, and suffer a loss of dignity and reputation. *I* also had a “positive pedagogical purpose” in using the term “‘hood” in class and ended up suffering the consequences because I was misunderstood (or too rigorous with grades and students who didn’t submit their work or read the textbook) by three out of thirty students.
Here’s my story. Let Prof. PoKempner get the same treatment — OR, let AAUP come to MY defense.
https://www.academia.edu/23593134/A_Leftist_Critique_of_Political_Correctness_Gone_Amok_Revised_and_Updated
I’m waiting …
Thank you for posting this letter here. We have a case on this issue at The Ohio State University, I will share this letter with our chapter’s Committee A chair, and also with our university’s Committee on Academic Freedom and Responsibility.
Sure, just pass it on through channels. Ignore MY comments and situation, as per usual.
Brilliant and timely analysis!
As a side point: so much for any idea that HRW supports free speech–clearly they would like to cancel Israel the way they have canceled Prof. PoKempner.
> …let AAUP come to MY defense.
Ah, wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for that, Prof. Tomasulo.
As regards the letter itself, Columbia will not, of course, say a word to Prof. McWhorter about his recent op-ed. Institutions target the vulnerable, and nothing I’ve heard about Prof. McWhorter, though I don’t know him personally, leads me to believe that he would not respond fiercely, and effectively, to any trespass upon his academic freedom.
Adjunct professors are the gazelles of the academic herd: easily picked off. This blog-post, I venture to predict, will represent the limit of the AAUP’s involvement in the case also.