We have another example of a teacher being disciplined for an act of free speech in his private time. I have previously written about the increasing scrutiny given public school teachers in their use of social media sites. University of Kansas Associate Professor of Journalism David Guth has been placed on administrative leave after posting an anti-NRA tweet following the recent Navy Yard shootings that killed 12 people. Guth tweeted” “blood is on the hands of the #NRA. Next time, let it be YOUR sons and daughters. Shame on you. May God damn you.”
Chancellor Bernadette Gray-Little issued the following statement after Guth was placed on administrative leave:
“In order to prevent disruptions to the learning environment for students, the School of Journalism and the university, I have directed Provost Jeffrey Vitter to place Associate Professor Guth on indefinite administrative leave pending a review of the entire situation. Professor Guth’s classes will be taught by other faculty members.”
While the statement is framed in terms of avoidance “disruptions,” it does not appear to be at the request of Guth. Free speech is often limited in the name of maintaining order and avoiding disruptions. Once again, I find the statement of Guth to be repulsive in wishing the death of the children of gun rights supporters. Yet, it was clearly a political statement made outside of the university.
Nevertheless, Kansas State Senator Greg Smith wants Guth to be fired for engaging in free speech. He is further promising to oppose any appropriations for the university. That sounds like threatening students in protest of a tweet deemed threatening to children of NRA members. A curious moral high ground.
Smith, a former law enforcement officer, however may feel such a threat particularly acutely. His website cites the kidnapping, sexual assault, and murder of his daughter, Kelsey, as his motivation to continue in public service. I can certainly understand why Guth’s words would be particularly hurtful to Smith. Yet, threatening an entire academic institution for the views of a single faculty member is excessive and wrong-headed.
Likewise, the Kansas State Rifle Association President Patricia Stoneking has pledged that it “will do everything possible to see to the removal of this man . . . He should be fired immediately. His statements are outrageous!. . . Is this who you want teaching your children? I certainly do not want him teaching mine.” Of course, these are not children but college students who are part of an academic community built on the exchange of different ideas and values.
For his part, Guth is not backing down. He is quoted as saying “I don’t apologize for it because I’m not saying in the tweet that I want anybody harmed, and I expanded on it in my blog.”
He is not getting a lot of public support from Ann Brill, dean of the William Allen White School of Journalism and Mass Communications. Brill wrote that “While the First Amendment allows anyone to express an opinion, that privilege is not absolute and must be balanced with the rights of others. That’s vital to civil discourse. Professor Guth’s views do not represent our school and we do not advocate violence directed against any group or individuals.” The reference to the limits of the first amendment by Brill would seem to encourage those who want Guth disciplined by suggesting that this case might fall within those limits. However, this is an expression of a teacher on a matter of great social and political debate. I do not believe that he actually wanted harm to come to NRA family members. He used injudicious and offensive words to convey his passion. Since some of his students are likely gun rights supporters, it was particularly disturbing. However, he was on a social media site expressing his anger in the aftermath of a great tragedy. I do not see how the “limits” of free speech would allow the discipline of a teacher for such a statement in such a circumstance. Notably, it is Brill’s”limits” point that was quoted by the Regents of the University.
Ironically, Guth specializes in public relations according to his resume. He has a M.A. in Journalism, University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill (1990) and a B.A. in Radio, Television and Speech, University of Maryland at College Park, 1973.
Do you believe that a professor can or should be disciplined for such a posting on a social media site?
For those with a real interest in the phrase “Academic Freedom” and its development here in the States, I refer you to this article:
1915 Declaration of Principles on Academic Freedom and Academic Tenure
” … the right of university teachers to express their opinions freely outside the university or to engage in political activities in their capacity as citizens …”
” On the other hand, in our state universities the danger may be the reverse. Where the university is dependent for funds upon legislative favor, it has sometimes happened that the conduct of the institution has been affected by political considerations; and where there is a definite governmental policy or a strong public feeling on economic, social, or political questions, the menace to academic freedom may consist in the repression of opinions that in the particular political situation are deemed ultra-conservative rather than ultra-radical. The essential point, however, is not so much that the opinion is of one or another shade, as that it differs from the views entertained by the authorities. …”
http://www.aaup.org/report/1915-declaration-principles-academic-freedom-and-academic-tenure
This threat to Academic Freedom from NRA supporters and politicians who accept large donations from the NRA is nothing new.
A PR professor? He’s guilty of poor judgment for sure. I don’t agree or support what he said, but punishing speech is a very slippery slope. Odd that the journalism school doesn’t have a strong message of condemnation, tempered by any number of citations regarding the First Amendment. They teach it semester after semester.
Interestingly enough, Guth agrees that the university’s action in putting him on administrative leave was appropriate in light of email threats he and others at the university had received. ” Unfortunately, this is a topic that generates more heat than light.” (One can see the P R twist in those statements. 😉 )
I would be more concerned about the manner in which the University handled this matter. As far as I can tell the suspension was handed down without notice or hearing thus without due process that the rules for KU faculty demand in the protection of freedom of expression for said faculty members. Also, it appears, at least on the face of it, that the suspension was mainly driven by demands from politicians who accept large donations from the NRA. That appearance, in and of itself, marks academic freedom as a target at gun point.
Douglas Adams instructions on how to fly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_gz3YHYmMU
We humans have a heard mentality. I’m surprised Adams hasn’t been sued for causing numerous injuries, or his books been banned for such preposterous folderol. …..
PS but I hear if you really believe, it does work.
SWM, that would do it. (at least if congress is any indication. NRA$$$ has a louder voice then the constitution concern about the people of tis country, the democratic process……
“While the First Amendment allows anyone to express an opinion, that privilege is not absolute and must be balanced with the rights of others.”
Which rights would Brill be referring to?
Reblogged this on Brittius.com.
A university professor or teacher is not a “public school teacher”, that is reserved for the folks who work from kindergarten through senior high in a public school. It is ironic that he is in journalism. Toto must be sad today because this brings shame on Kansas. The Missouri Tigers are laughing are you week willed Jayhawks. This guy may be an overweight fellow who feels a need to tweet with the twits but he was exercising his free speech rights on a matter of public concern to remedy a situation and to petition his government for redress of grievances on a blog which is free press. So, his case rests on many Prongs of the First Amendment and if he gets a good lawyer who can read this blog then perhaps he will make some headway out there in that vast plain called Kansas that has made itself look just plain stupid.
“If you do not speak up when it matters, when would it matter that you speak?” — Jim Hightower
lee, I don’t know how much money the university receives from the NRA but the legislators that control the purse strings receive plenty.
David you are the arbiter of what has and does not have “intellectual value?”
And if someone is in opposition to your reading of the 2nd amendment then they therefore hate the constitution?
This is pure right wing “intellectual” debate.
leejcaroll –
The speech has no intellectual value because it expresses hatred, desiring for the children of NRA members to die, and calling upon God to damn them.
Intellectual dialogue would be something like a statement to the effect that if we had tougher gun laws, the tragedy would not have happened. People can disagree with that or agree with that, but to call for the death and damnation of people is simply vile hatred. It has no redeeming value. It is more reminiscent of the Southern Democrat KKK type of rhetoric.
I think the speech is allowable under Free Speech of the First Amendment, but the University has an obligation to foster constructive intellectual dialogue. The man needs to be schooled in communication skills that are inline with the goals of the University.
I think the professor felt comfortable saying what he said because it represents the sentiment of most of his colleagues and was probably viewed as being supportive of the university administration.
RWL 1, September 23, 2013 at 10:12 am
Maybe it is me, but why would you open your mouth, knowing that it could put your job in jeopardy, about an issue of this magnitude?
=======================
Perhaps he didn’t know the mentality of the University Big Wigs?
He did not think he was in Kansas anymore perhaps?
The government should not be involved, but the university certainly should reprimand him. His speech has no intellectual value whatsoever. It is an expression of hatred toward those who embrace the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution. What university wants its professors expressing hatred toward those who love our Constitution? Instead, the university needs to instruct this professor to engage in intellectual dialogue rather than expressing hatred toward Constitutionalists.
Professor Guth should consider that the shooting caused so many deaths because the Navy Yard was a gun free zone, which is contrary to the sentiments of the group toward which he expresses hatred.
RWL response is the reason why free speech is under attack from the right and left. Keep people in fear of saying something and they will say nothing. .
Maybe it is me, but why would you open your mouth, knowing that it could put your job in jeopardy, about an issue of this magnitude?
Nick, he did not “God Damn” innocent children.” Re read the tweet.
I wonder how much NRAA $$$ the college receives? Sadthat a good lesson in the Bill of Rights and free speech was instead turned into this ridiculousness over someone exercising their rights..
Purely on grounds of academic freedom I’d keep him but his statements were outrageous — though protected — free speech. I have no love for that trade group masquerading as the NRA but calling for harm to them and theirs is over-the-top no matter how you slice it.
Of course that doesn’t exonerate the NRA for all its sins nor does it paint its critics as fanatics either. It’s just one guy getting too worked up and using social media as a circular firing squad.
Sheriff’s saying they want to shoot liberal pols who support gun control. Professors “God Damning” innocent children. “What a wonderful world.”
It seems to me to be an expansion of the “rights” granted by the 2nd Amendment to include that thou shall not talk harshly about gun ownership advocates. That seems to be one hell of a powerful amendment, however, I’ve always, strangely perhaps, felt that the First Amendment took priority.
Land of the free and home of the brave……no way! Not if you are anti NRA.
The tweet was so mild it hardly raises to the level of criticism. It wasnt a threat. The complaint was ridiculous. He should not be sanctioned. Universities really need to get a grip on their priorities.