There are new calls for the termination of incoming Boston University sociology professor Saida Grundy after disclosure that she has a criminal record from Michigan. Grundy has become the best known academic at BU before even starting her academic career at the institution . . . for all the worst reasons. However, at the risk of being called an apologist, I again believe that this is not grounds for termination and that BU should allow Grundy to assume her teaching post.
The first calls for her termination came after it was disclosed that Grundy used Twitter to denounce white men as the central problem population at universities and described how she tries not to do business with white people. After an outcry from alumni, Boston University president Robert Brown expressed “disappointment” with her statements and Grundy herself apologized for what she called “indelicate” wording. New calls were heard after it came out that Grundy attacked a white woman and rape victim on Facebook who expressed her personal feelings over an article criticizing actress Patricia Arquette for her call at the Oscars for equal pay for women.
On both occasions, I wrote that I would have had great reservations about hiring Grundy on a faculty but that, as a current professor, she should be afforded the protection of free speech in making controversial and even racist comments. These controversies highlight a long-standing debate that we have had over the increasing trend toward firing people for their speech on social media and associations in their private lives. This can range from teachers posting vacation pictures to obnoxious employees engaged in sexist or offensive comments.
In this case, you have an actual crime but it was presumably disclosed (if it was not, that would clearly be grounds for termination). In 2008, Grundy admitted that she used multiple pictures of another woman to create a fake account on an adult website in a jealous rage over the woman dating a former boyfriend of Grundy. She was a graduate student at the University of Michigan at the time. Grundy was charged with felony counts of identity theft and using computers to commit a crime as well as a misdemeanor count of malicious use of a telecommunications service.
She eventually pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor count in exchange for the dismissal of the felonies and given probation until June 2009.
Frankly, I was a bit surprised that the severity of the charges in a case of an obvious jealous rage. This was not done for financial or pecuniary benefit. It was stupid and was legitimately reported to the police. The sounds like the type of count stacking that prosecution engage in to force people to plead, though there was probably little need for coercion in this case. It remains a simple misdemeanor committed years ago. As long as it was disclosed, I would not view that crime as a barrier to employment.
None of this changes my view that BU is legitimately under scrutiny for the original hiring decision of someone who has such obvious anger issues and holds what appear racist and sexist views. If those issues were not raised during the hiring process, the question is whether there was an adequate review of Grundy and her history. I would have a great number of questions for someone who holds such views that relate directly to her scholarship and intellectual approach. However, she was hired and I have greater concerns over the disciplining of academics for expressing unpopular views in their academic writings or public commentary.
As I discussed before, there is a contrast in this approach with the rising number of terminations of non-academic employees for public conduct or social media postings. However, in addition to raising concerns about some of those cases, there is the added element of academic freedom that runs to the core of our profession. Academics are given tenure and protections precisely to allow them to challenge conventional thinking or social mores. That sometimes mean that we protect low-grade lows like those of Professor Grundy and others. However, the alternative is a slippery slope of speech regulation for academics that endangers the entire academic enterprise in my view. This issue of speech limitations have become a rising concern on campuses across the country. I would hope that Professor Grundy would be the first to come to the defense of an academic who uses the same freedom to criticize African-Americans as she has criticized whites as in the case of the Duke professor. Indeed, that is one academic paper that I would be eager to read from Professor Grundy once she starts at Boston University in July.
What do you think?
bam bam wrote: “Grundy didn’t just dislike another woman, she set about to harm her, resulting in the commission of a felony.”
Harm her? If her speech constituted a threat, which means that she expressed an intention to commit violence against her and she had the ability to carry it out, then that would be speech that is a crime. But from what I have seen, her speech was protected speech. Her speech did not constitute a threat.
I don’t think you’re following the accusation. Grundy placed an ad for someone else (using her real name and photograph) on an adult website requesting casual sex. Placing that add is not speech.
Rick wrote: “I don’t think you’re following the accusation. Grundy placed an ad for someone else (using her real name and photograph) on an adult website requesting casual sex. Placing that add is not speech.”
That is a totally different issue. Identity theft / impersonation is not verbalization. I was addressing the statement made by bam bam that verbalization of thoughts transforms ideas into a crime.
I agree with the professor. If the crime was divulged prior to her being hired, and they hired her knowing about it, then that issue is off the table.
The question on Planet Earth is this: Whose people have itShay that does not stink?
You might read this and ask : what is this dork saying?
Well, Planet Earth people: do you have friends, or do you, belong to a country club? Do you belong to a church which is all one race of belongers? Do you “look down” on other humans because they are of a different race, religion, ethnic group, political party?
The country club people are the first to think that their itShay does not stink. All church goers think this.
The RepubiCon Party embrasses people who do look down on other humans. It is in fact a predicate of belonging and joining the RepubliCon Party. Yeah, they have some Uncle Toms or Uncle Clarences (Clarence Thomas) but they are essentially the White Boy Lets Steal All We Can Party.
I’m in agreement with JT on this.
———————————-
Paul, A new study shows that over half of Democrats wish to make this “hate speech” and criminalize it. Only 35% of Republicans wish to do the same. So, Grundy would be “hung” by the very party she votes with.
How do you know how she votes?
bettykath – you are correct. She could vote for the socialist workers party or the communists.
DBQ
Her THOUGHTS went beyond her own, random ideas, swirling around in her head. Her THOUGHTS, expressed in no uncertain spoken words, expose her as one incapable of fair and equitable treatment with regard to her students, yes, customers of the university. Just like an employee of any other company, her words render unfit to fulfill her duties, namely, teaching and grading all students in a balanced and impartial manner. Her obvious and blatant hatred for whites will impede her ability to perform her duties as a professor. Her words, not just her demented thoughts, are her downfall.
Paul
I agree with you, but if they did fire her for her comments, they can likely expect a lengthy and expensive legal battle over her First Amendment Right to be a racists a-hole.
They screwed up by hiring her in the first place. Now they have to figure out how to get rid of her without getting embroiled in a nasty controversy and likely have other racist students agitating and creating chaos.
What a mess.
@ bam bam
I was referring to her tweets about white men being the problem as being a thought crime….as in George Orwell’s Big Brother.
Her other crime, a real one, where she put another person in danger, actual physical danger and stole her identity to harm her enemy…..THAT is a real crime that should have prevented the University from EVER considering hiring her. She is an unstable, hateful personality. However, expressing those hateful opinions about white people and being a racist is within the parameters of Free Speech. While I would like it, she can’t be fired for thinking ‘bad thoughts’. Acting on them YES. Thinking and speaking…not so much.
She is an employee, nothing more. The students are customers. She has, in no uncertain terms, expressed an inability to treat all students–customers–in a fair and impartial manner through her VOICED opinions. She is unfit for the position of professor, on many levels.
We are in 100% agreement.
“It remains a simple misdemeanor committed years ago. As long as it was disclosed, I would not view that crime as a barrier to employment.”
It should be a barrier to teaching and any position that may influence thinking. She should do manual labor perhaps.
I’d say, if she’s already hired, then so be it. Students will quickly figure her out and avoid her classes, if her views are repugnant to them. In my college daze (60’s) we all “shopped” professors, especially for courses dealing with Shakespeare…where political opinion had no place. We had a few “card carrying” Communists as professors, and frankly I took some of those courses taught by them…as I have said in the past. Those courses were among the best we had, seminar style, and illuminating, even if we disagreed with the professor and/or the instructors’ outlooks. We were lucky I guess because our disagreement did NOT impact our grades, only our arguments that held to a point on one topic or another. I’d be far less certain of that in Ms Grundy’s place…could she ignore differences and reward thoughtful argument?
Academia is a strange place, but to stifle opinion, however divergent, would ruin the purpose of it all. All said and done, she has no “power” save that accorded her by the students who opt to take her courses. Her opinions exist in a wider panorama and to ignore them is to fail to try and understand, and rebut when necessary. College must be very different today if we can’t handle the divergent.
A man once impersonated a doctor in a rural town, then after he did his moved to another rural town and impersonated a preacher. Before moving he left more deaths. When he was caught he said, ” I did no harm to anyone alive.”
Another man assumed the identity of a doctor and escaped from a mental hospital prison. He ended up in a maximum prison as a mental doctor from California. A mental prisoner going i and out prison as a doctor.
A woman stole over 60 identities and still not behind bars for those thefts or the property and money she stole, not to mention the marriages she broke up in order to steal her victim’s property.
Who is this woman really, she may even be sent here to start trouble by her friends in ISIS or ISIL.
Why does no one talk about the “Islamic State in America” (ISIA) and the racial riots they are causing.
Never trust a person who impersonated another person for personal gain.
Actors are licensed impersonators. Just in case someone says, What about actors?
DBQ
This isn’t what you refer to as a THOUGHT CRIME. No one gives a hoot about random thoughts milling about in her small and racist mind. If I contemplate murdering someone, have I committed a crime? No. If I then SPEAK those thoughts, which were previously benign and hidden in my mind, my verbalization of those same thoughts transform my ideas into a crime. Grundy didn’t just dislike another woman, she set about to harm her, resulting in the commission of a felony. Her thoughts weren’t a felony, her actions were. The mere fact that charges were ultimately dropped against her, as part of a plea deal, doesn’t detract from the fact that she was arrested for the crimes.
She is an employee, nothing more. The students are customers. She has, in no uncertain terms, expressed an inability to treat all students–customers–in a fair and impartial manner through her VOICED opinions. She is unfit for the position of professor, on many levels.
bam bam wrote: “If I then SPEAK those thoughts, which were previously benign and hidden in my mind, my verbalization of those same thoughts transform my ideas into a crime.”
No, speaking thoughts do not transform ideas into a crime. Speaking ideas is how we test ideas. We speak what we are thinking, and then somebody judges what we say and either approves or disapproves, hopefully with reasons why.
bam bam wrote: “Grundy didn’t just dislike another woman, she set about to harm her, resulting in the commission of a felony.”
Harm her? If her speech constituted a threat, which means that she expressed an intention to commit violence against her and she had the ability to carry it out, then that would be speech that is a crime. But from what I have seen, her speech was protected speech. Her speech did not constitute a threat.
bam bam wrote: “She has, in no uncertain terms, expressed an inability to treat all students–customers–in a fair and impartial manner through her VOICED opinions.”
Perhaps, but what if she has seen the error of her thoughts and expression of her thoughts from all the feedback over it? Would she not then be able to treat all students fair? I do agree that if she cannot treat all students fairly, then they should replace her, but there are a lot more factors involved than just her tweets to establish this.
davidm
If I merely ponder the possibility of assaulting or murdering you, I have committed no crime. Once I express my desire, in the form of either spoken or written words,
to assault or murder you, I have, in fact, committed a crime. Conspiracies, to commit a crime, are merely words, yet the commission of the act of conspiracy to commit a crime are actionable.
Perhaps you did not read about Grundy’s felony, where she put her hatred, with regard to another woman, beyond mere thoughts and assumed her identity. That goes beyond a simple opinion and is not protected. Her words and her deeds, with regard to her victim, transformed her actions into a crime.
Her tweets, along with her criminal past, make her unqualified to teach and grade the students, who will be incapable of attaining grades or scores based upon merit alone. Her response, to the criticism, does not include a denunciation of her previous racist remarks. Her failure to do so is further evidence of her incapacity to be accorded a position at the university.
bam bam wrote: “If I merely ponder the possibility of assaulting or murdering you, I have committed no crime. Once I express my desire, in the form of either spoken or written words, to assault or murder you, I have, in fact, committed a crime. ”
Yeah, that is pretty much what I said. Glad we are on the same page now.
Ergo, her twitter postings were free speech. Agreed?
test
DAVID M..2575 And I’m sure, academic freedom and balance being what it is, that colleges and universities will now be beating down the doors to hire KKK professors.
One specific question for Prof. Turley.. I can’t determine from your columns if your position is that she SHOULD not be dismissed in the interest of freewheeling free speech?
Or that she CAN NOT be dismissed due to First Amendment protections?
I.e., is this a case a constitutional lawyer would consider taking on her case on her behalf if she’s dismissed?
Since she actually hasn’t started teaching, I am not sure where she is for contract law on her contract. If they have a morality clause they might have an out.
” I’m trying out baby back ribs in a special barbecue sauce as a distraction to world problems.”
@ Jerry
Season the ribs with cracked pepper, garlic powder. Score the back side where the tough membrane is. Coil the ribs in a spiral. Stand them upright in a covered steamer and steam on a medium heat for at least and hour and half. Uncoil. Cool. Cut into appropriate sized slabs. Then top them off on the grill with your special sauce so they are heated through and with just a slight edge of crispness here and there. They are already cooked so you won’t need to take a lot of time. These will be tender and juicy. Enjoy…….:-D
(We used to own and operate a smoked foods deli -http://recipejunkie.blogspot.com/search?q=ribs- delinked so as not to be a link-wh0re and cooked a lot of these at a time.)
“I would hope that Professor Grundy would be the first to come to the defense of an academic who uses the same freedom to criticize African-Americans”
I keep hoping that I will wake up and find a Mercedes 600 SL Roadster in my driveway. It’s good to have hope 🙂 But I don’t plan to build my life around hope.
The University made a mistake and did not vet this person. They can’t or shouldn’t just fire her for her thoughts as repulsive as they may be. Thought crimes are not punishable….yet.
However, if she did not disclose a criminal history then they could decline to hire her. They may be stuck with her and their only recourse would be to not renew a contract OR if there are proven complaints against her performance then they can let her go.
DBQ – much as I am against censorship, her comments make it clear she could not be fair in the classroom. BU needs to get rid of her.
Reblogged this on Scoop Feed.
Jerry @ 8:37 am
Exactly.
Hefner AKA ‘Cheap Shot’
I’m a LIBERAL and I say sack her.
Her published racist and sexist rants are not prohibited by law due to our First Amendment free speech protections.
A prospective employer has the right, and some responsibility, to have some standards of integrity, sanity, and common sense in hiring educators, law enforcement, etc.
Refusal to hire her, or dismissal at this point, in not, in my view, a violation of her First Amendment Rights.
Rather, her dismissal (or retention) tells me at least as much about the institution as it does the flake professor.
I”ll re-read your column, Prof. Turley, to see if you’re making the case that dismissal would be a de jure violation of her free speech rights ….I would not agree…..OR…The college should go the extra mile to accomodate extremists, racist, sexist professors as “extra homage to” freewheeling free speech rights.
I don’t agree with the latter, either, but would a KKK professor be acceptable in the interests of consistency to this “freewheeling free speech”?
Tom Nash wrote: “… would a KKK professor be acceptable in the interests of consistency to this ‘freewheeling free speech’?”
Yes… so would a Skinhead or a member of the Nazi party or even a Republican professor!
david – I agree as well.
Yes let her racist views contaminate the students along with Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn
Paul C. Schulte
1, May 22, 2015 at 9:33 am
Rick – there is some movement in the LGBT movement to make hate speech the next issue after same sex marriage.
Not surprising, they have to move to something else or risk losing their purpose and funding. I’m not disputing the left supports hate speech restrictions, especially activists and those who control their institutions. I’m disputing what they will count as hate speech. They will always exempt themselves and their allies. Just as their definition of racism carefully excludes any possible action they could take they will define hate speech to exclude their own speech even if it is vastly more hateful than what they consider hate speech when directed at them.