History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
Douglas Giles, a philosophy teacher who currently teaches at Oakton Community College, holds this teaching philosophy: "That students deserve the opportunity to learn divergent viewpoints and make up their own minds. Thus, he believes that the instructor has a duty to present the beliefs of philosophy and religion honestly and without bias. That means all students are invited to participate and free to speak their minds so that learning becomes a fun collective pursuit."
Fair enough. However, when he was teaching at Roosevelt University, Chicago last year, he was fired from his job for doing exactly that. As he wrote in a diary at dailyKos recently:
Roosevelt University's Chair of the Department of History, Art History and Philosophy, Susan Weininger is an art history professor who has never taught religion or philosophy. Other than the interview in which she hired me in December 2003, she and I had not spoken before a series of phone calls she placed to me at my home in September 2005. In these phone calls, she told me, as department chair, to change my World Religions curriculum to exclude certain opinions and facts:
* Students should not be allowed to ask whatever questions they want in class
* Nothing should be mentioned in class, textbooks, or examinations that could possibly open up Judaism to criticism, especially any mention of Zionism
* Nothing related to Palestinians or Islamic beliefs about Jerusalem should be mentioned
* Discussion of Zionism or the Palestinian issue was"disrespectful to any Jews in the class"
In spring semester 2005, a member of RAFO, taught two world religions courses at Roosevelt. During a discussion of Judaism in one of the classes, a student asked whether Zionism was a racist position. The discussion then turned to the religious beliefs of Judaism and Islam regarding the Holy Land. The book he used also has a short section on this question. The final examination included an innocuous question as one of several options that students could answer.
In the fall semester of 2005, a student challenged his grade on the basis of his answer to that question. The supervisor reviewed his claim and determined that in fact the student had deserved the grade he got.
During the review, the supervisor had two telephone conversations with the adjunct about the case. According to the adjunct, the supervisor was disturbed that a test question about Zionism could have been included on the test and was disturbed that a discussion about Zionism was allowed in the classroom. The supervisor advised the adjunct that a world religions class should not follow any kind of discussion format and that only the basics about the religion should be discussed. The supervisor argued that to discuss Zionism was to make Judaism vulnerable to criticism. The adjunct argued that such a discussion did not guarantee such a response. As they talked the passion escalated until the supervisor discredited the Palestinian claims to the land and characterized them, especially suicide bombers, as less than human. The supervisor copied the adjunct on an e-mail memo to the student, saying that the adjunct had been told not to introduce political content in a world religions class.
After the adjunct had requested a class for Spring 2006, he soon received a letter of non-rehire. RAFO filed a grievance, claiming a violation of the academic freedom provision in our contract.
If the facts of the case are as they stand right now, this has to be one of the most troublesome cases for all of us in academia. I am not clear if there is any single position taken by Roosevelt University - nor what Dr. Susan Weininger has to say. Douglas Giles and his students have a yahoo! group and looks like they are working on a petition and national attention on the case.
I welcome your skepticism because I can answer any objections anyone would have. I do not know how you came by the idea that I am refusing to release my exams or syllabus. Not so. I will happily share them, and all other documentation, with anyone or answer any questions you have. Everyone who has seen all of the evidence has been convinced that I am telling the truth and I am confident you will be also.
A couple of words on Roosevelt's statement. First, Roosevelt's claims of "incompetence" were made four months after my dismissal, only after my union filed for arbitration, and only after I declined Roosevelt's offer of a semester's salary if I would drop the arbitration. Here is my union's response to the claims of "incompetence:"
May 30, 2006
The Roosevelt Adjunct Faculty Organization believes that the accusations of teaching incompetence against Douglas Giles are manufactured in an attempt to cover up the academic freedom violation. The accusations are dubious, and in the process of making them, Roosevelt has committed two additional violations of the union contract.
These violations lend credence to our contention that Douglas Giles was actually terminated for the reasons testified to in the academic freedom grievance, despite Roosevelt’s attempt to divert attention from it with unsubstantiated claims of teaching incompetence.
Sincerely,
Beverly L. Stewart
President, RAFO, IEA-NEA
Douglas Giles -
6/22/2006
Greetings, I am Douglas Giles. Thank you for the attention to my case and the even-handed and respectful manner in which you all have discussed it. The facts as you state them are correct. (Except, I teach at Harper College.)
As amazing as it sounds, I was indeed terminated because I refused to teach a biased course and refused to censor my students. As Manan Ahmed rightly points out, this is an extremely troublesome case. What is at stake here is not just a professor's teaching assignment, but all of education. I don't want to overspeak, but this is about what kind of society we want to have. We as professors must be allowed to present diverse viewpoints, must be allowed to let students speak in class, must be allowed to answer student questions. If students are not allowed to think and question, not allowed to consider alternate viewpoints, we will end up with a stilted and unthinking society. Academia, whether philosophy or history, requires the freedom to think, speak, and question.
It's not clear to me, though, that Roosevelt wasn't required to show cause. The email that Manan supplied seems to provide cause ("In the current case, the University made a decision that an adjunct was not
competent and should not be rehired . . . Since the time that the adjunct was notified that he would not be
rehired, he has had multiple opportunities to present his case to the dean and the provost. They have listened to the adjunct's grievances,
investigated the issues in depth, and confirmed that the decision not to
rehire was appropriate.") So this wasn't simply an out-and-out dismissal.
I guess our normal roles are reversed, but only partly--if the story is as Giles has alleged, I would agree completely that he was wrongfully terminated. But I haven't seen any evidence of that, other than his version of events, which (because of the Muslim comment he claims the chair made) strikes me as less than credible.
Oscar Chamberlain -
5/14/2006
You know, KC, if your suspicions are correct, the situation shows how improving academic protections for adjuncts could also offer a degree of protection to the employer.
If the Roosevelt U. had been required to show cause for the non-renewal,it would have needed to look at the situation more carefully. If it was as the instructor claimed, then the "dismissal" could have been rectified. If it was more like what you think, then the reasons would have been documented.
Final thought: have we reversed roles? Aren't you usually questioning academic governance while I'm usually defending it?
Robert KC Johnson -
5/13/2006
I guess my objection (or skepticism, at this stage, I suppose) is two-fold:
1.) If an adjunct is hired to teach a course (in this instance, it appears, a survey course on world religions), and then doesn't teach the course in the basic way as desired by the department, yes, I think that's grounds for dismissal. Just as, at Brooklyn, if we hire an adjunct to teach our Western Civ class, and he/she instead teaches a course that spends 75% of its time on post-1945 Western Europe, it would be grounds for dismissal.
2.) On the second question, Giles has produced no documentary evidence (thus far refusing even to release his exam or syllabus). We have his word alone on what he was told by the department chair--ie, to exclude a legitimate topic and suppress all discussion. I'm still finding it really hard to imagine a situation where a department chair would claim that a Muslim student shouldn't be allowed to speak in class--as Giles has claimed occurred in this instance--and so I'm dubious about the rest of his version of events. I'm not saying it couldn't have happened as he claimed.
Oscar Chamberlain -
5/12/2006
KC
I'm not sure if I understand your objection here. Even if an instructor in a religion course did spend a disproportionate amount of time on Zionism, is that alone grounds for dismissal? And would that justify being ordered to go to the exteme of excluding a legitimate topic entirely and suppressing discussion of it?
Robert KC Johnson -
5/12/2006
Hm. Unsurprising response, I suppose, in that it doesn't really shed any light on the issue. I wonder if Roosevelt has the authority to release the final exam questions and the syllabus.
In dailykos, Giles quotes the administration defending Weininger's alleged statement's, but I see nothing of that in this release.
Manan Ahmed -
5/12/2006
As far as I can trace it, this email message is the official RU stance:
Roosevelt University Statement
Concerning Academic Freedom for Adjunct Faculty
Roosevelt University confirms its commitment to academic freedom for all
faculty-both fulltime and part-time. The Roosevelt/RAFO contract provides
even greater academic freedom for adjunct faculty than that which is called
for in the AAUP statement. The contract states "An adjunct faculty member
shall have full freedom to conduct classes consistent with the course
description or outline and established academic policies or standards.
Outside of the classroom, an adjunct faculty member, as a citizen, shall be
able to speak or write free from institutional censorship or discipline. An
adjunct faculty member's right to academic freedom as described in this
section is at all times subject to his or her ability to perform his or her
duties for the University." (Article Section A)
The RU/RAFO contract also provides due process allowing adjunct faculty to
grieve any perceived violation of academic freedom or any other provision of
the contract. The final step in this process is binding arbitration before a
member of the American Arbitration Association.
In the current case, the University made a decision that an adjunct was not
competent and should not be rehired. This decision was based on the judgment
of full-time faculty members, the issue having been raised by students in
the class. Since the time that the adjunct was notified that he would not be
rehired, he has had multiple opportunities to present his case to the dean
and the provost. They have listened to the adjunct's grievances,
investigated the issues in depth, and confirmed that the decision not to
rehire was appropriate.
Louise Love
Senior Associate Provost
Roosevelt University
430 S Michigan Ave
Chicago, IL 60605
312-341-2098
Robert KC Johnson -
5/12/2006
I agree that what Ralph and Jon say might be the case in this instance. I went on the Roosevelt University site to see a description of the course, but the description was boilerplate.
I'd feel a lot more comfortable labeling this an academic freedom violation if the instructor had released his "innocuous question" about Zionism; and if there was any sense from a syllabus, etc., how much time the class devoted to modern Middle Eastern affairs as opposed to the philosophy of world religions, the stated topic of the class.
I know Jon's right that sometimes people get really upset on outsiders commenting on religion--but I still find it almost incredible that a department chair (and a published one, at that) could have rebuked an instructor for allowing a Muslim student to speak in class in the words that Giles claimed the chair used. If true, this would be grounds for immediate removal of the chair, which Roosevelt hasn't done. I've looked for some sort of official statement by the university on this case, but haven't been able to find one. Nor, as I far as I can tell, has Giles released any documents to substantiate his claims.
David Silbey -
5/12/2006
I'll say it.
Ralph E. Luker -
5/12/2006
I think Jon's essentially correct about this, KC. Zionism would be a modern, somewhat secularized, manifestation of Judaism and thus quite appropriate for discussion in a World Religions course. Ruling it out of bounds would make no more sense than ruling out any discussion of the complex relationship of what some people call "Islamism" in a section of the course on Islam or excluding discussion of Hindutva from the treatment of Hinduism.
Jonathan Dresner -
5/12/2006
All due respect, KC, you're wrong about most of this.
Zionism -- and modern Middle Eastern affairs -- is an entirely appropriate topic for a World Religions class, unless it's a pure theology class with no sociology or history of religion permitted (and, as I understand it, most World Religions courses include pretty significant discussions of sociology, praxis and interfaith relations). I could easily see using a question about Zionism on a test to force students to draw threads together; I love using those points of intersection, conflict, comparison for essay assignments.
There are people out there who really, really believe that outsiders, particularly presumably hostile ones, have no right to speak on "our religion." Some of us have Ph.D.s, but still get pretty worked up when, to use the Talmudic metaphor, it's our own ox being gored.
Jonathan Dresner -
5/12/2006
Ralph,
You're right: tenured and adjunct faculty usually live in very different worlds. I think that's incredibly short-sighted of tenured faculty, generally speaking.
You're also right that the employment of adjunct faculty is -- in most cases -- vulnerable, but that doesn't mean that academic rights are necessarily meaningless. For example, as Chris and Oscar pointed out below, a department in which central contested topics were predetermined and out of bounds would provide an incomplete education, thus infringing on the value recieved by students and on their right to consider questions without fear or favor....
Manan, one of my favorite theory quotes of all time is "No good model ever accounted for all the facts, since some data was bound to be misleading, if not plain wrong." -- James Watson, quoted by Francis Crick.
Robert KC Johnson -
5/12/2006
There are a couple of confusing items.
First, there are two different descriptions of the test question. In the first paragraph, the test question (which isn't reproduced) is described as about Islam and Judaism regarding the Holy Land. In the third para., this same question is described as being about Zionism. If it's the latter: I can't see how a final exam question about Zionism would be appropriate in a World Religions class. This wasn't a world history class.
Second, it's not clear to me the specific context of the course. For instance, at Brooklyn, we hire adjuncts to teach our required Western Civ class, and we've occasionally had problems with people refusing to teach to the course description. With a tenure-track or tenured faculty, there's really nothing you can do in such circumstances, but with adjuncts, it seems to me that it's perfectly appropriate for a department chair to step in. So if Giles were spending a good chunk of his time on contemporary Middle Eastern in a course that's supposed to survey world religions over several thousand years, why wouldn't a department chair intervene? As far as I can determine from the dailykos post, this is Roosevelt's position (or at least its position, as described by Giles).
In the dailykos post, Giles also quotes the department chair as saying, "I hear you even allowed a Muslim [student] to speak in class." It's very, very hard for me to imagine a department chair anywhere in the country, much less in an urban environment such as Chicago, ever saying something like that.
Manan Ahmed -
5/12/2006
Here at Chicago, we have a popular tshirt. On the front it say, "That's all well and good in practice." One the back: "But how will it work in theory?"
Ralph E. Luker -
5/12/2006
What Jonathan says is good in theory. Invisible Adjunct used to tell us regularly, however, that the reality is that adjuncts and tenured faculty live in different realms. An adjunct is fortunate if a tenured faculty member so much as says "Good morning." In my experience, adjunct faculty are just useful, replaceable equipment in a department's tool bag. No need to talk about "rights". The rights of an adjunct are an illusion.
Jonathan Dresner -
5/12/2006
Thanks, Manan.
I'm still waiting to hear someone tenured say it, though.
Oscar Chamberlain -
5/12/2006
Chris
You are absolutely right. It would be unbelievably dreary. And the teachers in that hell would truly be "just another brick in the wall."
Oscar Chamberlain -
5/12/2006
I agree entirely Ralph. There are consequences. Those who have been there do have a responsibility to make that clear, as you did. I simply felt it important to bring up the thought that even when we are unprotected, we have some responsibility.
Chris Bray -
5/12/2006
How dreadful to be a student in this kind of padded room. You might as well just buy a college degree off the Internet -- it'll be just as exciting and productive, and save you four years of anodyne mumbling by a corps of service-industry "professors."
S J -
5/12/2006
Man, I can't wait until I'm an adjunct. Geesh.
Manan Ahmed -
5/11/2006
Thanks, Jonathan. Thats what I was hoping _someone_ would say.
Jonathan Dresner -
5/11/2006
I agree that adjuncts should insist on their rights and freedoms. I also want to be absolutely clear that tenured and tenure-track faculty have a strong self-interest -- not to mention a moral obligation -- in protecting those rights and freedoms.
The first call an adjunct should make is not to a lawyer, but to other tenured members of the department....
[Full disclosure: not only did I talk about Zionism in World History, it was an option on my final. So was Israel, Mao, Hitler, 9/11.... Yeah, I have a self-interest in free discussion of controversial and complicated issues.]
Ralph E. Luker -
5/11/2006
Oscar, As someone who died in every ditch he came across in the last 40 years, I can say: "Sure..." I also feel obliged, however, to say: "... but there probably are consequences."
Oscar Chamberlain -
5/11/2006
That's logical advice, but is it right? It may seem sort of silly in this nasty cover-your-ass world, but when we are asked to go against the core of our academic values as we understand them, don't we have a moral obligation to resist?
Ralph E. Luker -
5/11/2006
I think Mr. Clark's comments are generally to the point. Unless at that particular institution, adjuncts have some sort of union protection, they are "at will" hires. In fact, I don't even think you get to the point of saying "I'll have to run that by my attorney." Once the attorney reference is made, there'll be no contract renewal.
John Richard Clark -
5/11/2006
1) If you are an adjunct professor in search of a tenure-track position, you should stay out of ideological/political minefields.
2) If your department chair calls you at home and demands that you alter your curriculum, ask: "Is that departmental policy? If so, would you please put it in writing for my records?" If the department chair refuses to put the demands in writing, say: "I would have to run that by my attorney. I'm not sure about the legality of your demands."
3) Don't have a "series" of home telephone conversations with the department chair. After the first call, start phone screening.
4) If you are an adjunct and your department chair starts making life difficult for you, it's time to start looking elsewhere for work.
