By JOHN K. WILSON
Christian Coons, an associate professor of philosophy at Bowling Green State University, has been suspended and faces a hearing on March 20 that could lead to his dismissal. His crime? Sending emails to his colleagues about his department’s alleged past misconduct in hiring decisions. A university is seriously considering the dismissal of a tenured professor for sending some emails to his colleagues that they didn’t like.
The controversy began in 2015, when the department hired a professor and Coons felt the candidate did not meet the qualifications for a history of philosophy position. Coons was told that “the application alone leaves out critical information that is very important,” and he soon found out what was so important about this professor. In 2019, that professor helped the department receive a $1.6 million grant from the libertarian Charles Koch Foundation. Coons has expressed his view that the Koch money corrupted the hiring process in the department and continues to occasionally raise these concerns in emails to colleagues. Coons is not crazy to think that Koch money could corrupt academic values. There is overwhelming evidence of how the Koch Foundation at the time used its funding to influence academia, including (as one Institute for Humane Studies proposal to Koch put it) using “trusted faculty” who “acted as our agents.”
There is no doubt that Coons’ colleagues and the administration are annoyed at him and would prefer he shut up about the past disputes. Unfortunately for them, both academic freedom and the First Amendment do not allow their preferences to be imposed on Coons.
Coons is accused of three crimes: sending emails to faculty who didn’t want to receive them, insubordination for violating an order not to send emails, and violating a provision in the union contract urging faculty to show “respect” toward others.
First, there is no right not to receive email. People are perfectly free to ignore Coons, but not to silence him. What Coons wrote does not meet a harassment standard.
Second, there is no subordination because there was never a direct no-contact order to Coons that sending emails would violate campus policies. (Indeed, in a Feb. 1, 2023, email that led to his suspension, Coons wrote, “I still need a rule for the emails I can’t send you. I’ve asked for guidance from everyone, and no one will share any rules.”) And there wasn’t a direct order because a ban on sending emails is not legal.
The third charge against Coons is more complex, but equally implausible. Coons is accused of violating a provision of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) stating that faculty “should be respectful toward all members of the university community and are prohibited from any oral, written, or physical actions that: (a) have the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s employment or professional performance; and/or (b) have the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, offensive, or abusive climate for an individual’s employment, academic pursuits, living environment, or participation in a University activity.” Obviously, saying that faculty “should” be “respectful” is not enforceable, but creating a hostile climate is prohibited. Still, it’s hard to imagine how unwanted emails from someone powerless to do anything can be deemed a hostile climate. (Coons’ critics and the administration, by seeking to have him punished for his emails, have much more clearly violated this rule by creating an intimidating climate for Coons.)
It’s important to point out that the rule in the CBA is actually illegal. As BGSU’s Freedom of Expression policy points out, Ohio state law compels universities to strictly follow specific required language for any harassment policy such as this. Any alleged harassment must not be protected by the First Amendment (Coons’ email opinions clearly are) and must be “so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively denies an individual equal access to the individual’s education program or activity.” It is hard to imagine how Coons’ emails deny anyone equal access to anything on campus.
Even if Bowling Green officials come to their senses and realize that whistleblowers cannot be fired simply because their charges annoy the people they accuse, enormous harm to academic freedom has still occurred. Coons was banned from teaching his classes in the middle of the semester (despite no allegations of any problems with his teaching), banished from stepping foot on campus, and prohibited from any contact via email or phone with people on campus (except specific administrators concerning his hearing). The letter banning him says it was because his emails have “prompted safety concerns.” However, none of the charges against him mention any safety issues. If there actually was a safety concern from his emails, he should have been charged with endangering someone’s safety. He was not.
A suspension and banishment are very serious penalties, and should not be used against anyone presumed innocent of charges unless there is actual evidence of a physical threat to the campus or immediate harm to the rights of others. By suspending and banning Coons, Bowling Green has violated his academic freedom to teach his classes, the freedom of students to hear his ideas, and the right of Coons to contact people on campus about his case. By suspending Coons on false pretenses, Bowling Green is causing a chilling effect to all campus critics who wish to dissent, since mere unsupported allegations can be used to justify severe penalties and a coerced public shunning.
Bowling Green needs to reject the idea that professors can be fired for critical emails, and fix procedures to ensure that investigations of protected speech (and preemptive suspensions) never happen again. If Bowling Green fires Coons for making allegations of corruption, they will prove he was right.
John K. Wilson was a 2019-20 fellow with the University of California National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement and is the author of eight books, including Patriotic Correctness: Academic Freedom and Its Enemies and the forthcoming work The Attack on Academia.
Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons and edited using Canva Pro.
UPDATE: Mike Danylak of the Charles Koch Foundation responded on April 7, 2023, with the following comment:
On the Record Quote from Charles Koch Foundation Spokesperson:
Our giving standards and principles are based on our core belief that academic independence and openness are a pre-condition for scientific progress. We form partnerships based on a shared vision and complementary capabilities. Each partner has the freedom to drive their idea wherever it may take them. That fact is essential to discovery, and it is essential to finding solutions that will remove the barriers preventing people from reaching their potential.
Regarding personnel matters at Bowling Green University, it is a university issue, and we abide by the institution’s process and procedures.
We have to remember that our institutions own their education email servers. That’s how I got fired–my administrators were looking for an excuse, any excuse (since I was an academic labor leader) and poked around in my email and also my students’. AAUP later came in and censured them regarding my case. But I still lost the job in year 42 of service. .Edu email is NOT secure.
As you point out, your employer owns the computer, the servers and the bandwidth that support the email system. An employer has the right to monitor the use of their email system in the same way that they have the right to control the use of a company-owned vehicle. Email is also fully subject to discovery if you end up in a lawsuit. Never put anything in a company-controlled email that you might have to defend to your supervisor, or have shoved in your face on the witness stand by a plaintiff’s attorney (don’t ask me how I know).
It also sounds like the provision you quote of the CBA at Bowling Green would prohibit any discussion among faculty of a tenure/promotion case or contract renewal, unless that discussion was uniformly positive and supportive.
I’m not defending this but I presume the university would distinguish confidential discussion before the decision and complaining about it afterwards.
While I firmly believe it should be protected I could imagine a situation where someone kept sending out emails saying “our latest hiring deciscion choose an unqualified canidate” and I absolutely see why that would be very upsetting to receive for whoever was just hired.
Not saying that’s what happened here (process crit feels different) but even if that did happen the right response when an academic is using their freedom in a way you think is socially rude is social shunning not firing.
“I’m not defending this but I presume the university would distinguish confidential discussion before the decision and complaining about it afterwards.”
The issue may come to be whether a court finds that distinction in the written policy. As quoted here, there is no such qualification, and every faculty member and staff member should be concerned about he possibility of arbitrary use of such a vague policy.
However, the professor in question shared this very same information with others–that he was hired despite his lack of qualification in the specialization area. It’s simply a statement of fact.
I was a tenure-track faculty member in the BGSU philosophy department from 2015 to 2020. I supported Christian Coons, and so they made my job there so miserable I ultimately resigned. I want to comment on the CBA provision you quote, which prohibits actions that “have the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s employment or professional performance.” This provision was clearly violated by two of my other colleagues in the department, who almost completely ignored me for a year. Being ignored–not getting an opportunity to speak in meetings, not getting replies to my emails, and even being prohibited from taking part in faculty votes–clearly interfered with my job performance. Indeed, I would say I was hardly able to contribute any work at all to the job search committee I was on in 2018-2019. I asked to be taken off the committee, given that my contribution was clearly not desired, but I was told that if I resigned from the committee the department would not be in compliance with a university rule that a woman had to be on the search committee.
You do not have to be in a position of power in order to create a hostile work environment and Constantine sending emails about the same thing or complaining non stop when told to stop definitely constitutes a hostile work environment. He should have been fired. The university did the right thing
There was no directive to not send these emails; in fact, there was a new reporting policy with which he was complying in sending these emails. If he is telling the truth about investigative misconduct at the University (which he is), then “non stop” telling the truth until there is accountability is not creating a hostile work environment.
That’s awful behavior by the university but on the list of things that seem particularly chilling be told to stop teaching your classes isn’t that high.
On the plus side I do feel academic freedom is strengthed a little when a university tries to violate it and then has to back down. No one likes to back down like that so it hopefully will give other admins pause.
Pingback: BGSU Threatens Whistleblower Philosopher’s Job | Daily Nous
Does anyone else smell LAWSUIT!
Having dealt with a similar situation at BGSU, this story does not surprise me at all. Retaliation is sadly a very common thing there. And politics. Definitely politics.
Congrats BG for getting rid of someone whose attitudes clearly don’t fit at BG or anywhere else.
Pingback: Suspension of BGSU Faculty – UT-AAUP