The following is not – repeat not – from a Monty Python skit satirizing a priggish university don:

“When individual behavior conflicts with the values of the University, the individual must choose whether to adapt his or her behavior to meet the needs of the community or to leave the University. This decision, among others, assists each person to determine who he or she is with respect to the rest of society.”

On the contrary, it is the statement of an actual university official, or, considering that it reads as if written by committee, a cluster of actual university officials (we don’t call them ‘dons’ on this side of the pond) of the actual University of Vermont.

There is no indication that satire was his, her, or their intent.

Now let’s be fair to the staff of the Center for Student Ethics and Standards, author of the italicized paragraph above. What it is doing here is entirely justified. The paragraph is part of a disciplinary proceeding – a punishment, if you will – and it is directed at students who violated University rules.

Punishment, therefore, would seem to be in order.

Nor is this punishment all that severe. The plan, at least, is neither to suspend nor expel. All the miscreant students have to do is….well, eat crow.

Last April, the students in question, to protest university plans to raise tuition and cut faculty positions, walked into the campus building that houses the president’s office, and refused to leave after business hours and despite being ordered to disperse.

They occupied the corridor.

This exercise in civil disobedience didn’t do much good. The 32 protesters were a tiny fraction of the roughly 9,500 members of the student body, most of whom went about their business. The budget cuts at issue were imposed, slightly reduced thanks to federal money, not student complaints

But neither did the protesters do any harm. They hurt no person and damaged no property, unless one counts spilling a few crumbs of the pizzas smuggled in by sympathetic professors.

Still, they were punished. The students having violated not merely university rules, but the laws of the state of Vermont, said state charged them with trespassing, to which they (sort of) pled guilty and were sentenced to community service. Said service having been completed (this being a piece about academia, the ablative absolute is appropriate), their records are now clean.

In other words, as the state’s attorney clearly thought, it was no big deal. Better yet, for months, this not-so-big deal has been O-V-E-R over, which is, one would think, just what UVM’s bigwigs would want.

Not the folks at the Center for Student Ethics and Standards. They decided that community service was insufficient. The students may have been punished, but they would have to be re-punished.

Why? Well, a message to the University’s Communications Office seeking an answer to that question having gone unanswered, we will have to resort to conjecture based on a careful reading of the Center for (Yakkety-Yak)’s statement on the matter.

Which reads, in part, “you will note that your acceptance of the charges will result in a simple sanction that asks you to create a reflective response that attempts to prompt your thoughts specific to the incident. Once that response is submitted by the deadline noted, the matter will be considered resolved…”

This “reflective response” is to be a 1,000-word essay in which the student must “engage…in purposeful thought about what it means to be a member of the University of Vermont community. While it is intended to be a reflective assignment, and your completed work will not be evaluated on its content…be advised that your paper may not serve to merely justify your own actions or evaluate the actions of others”

(Memo to Center for Yakkety-Yak: You should really hire someone who can write a simple, declarative, English sentence).

Failure to complete the assignment , “will result in a $100.00 non-compliance fee, the cancellation of all pre-registered classes, a hold on… registration until these sanctions are completed, and/or further disciplinary action from the University.”

Now remember, we are still in the realm of conjecture, but here is what appears to have happened: Some folks at the Center for (whatever) sat around one day and said, “let’s devise a punishment which will humiliate these students to the utmost of our ability, and make it clear that we are grinding their noses in the dirt because we have the power to do so and they have no recourse whatsoever.

“Better yet, let’s express ourselves in the most pompous, priggish, pedantic language we can muster, just to prove that we are university bureaucrats.”

All of which might have been a touch less obnoxious if the boys at Ethics and Standards were known around campus as consistent executors of disciplinary action. They are not. Students who are part of the enforcement apparatus tell tales of nonfeasance even after they write up violations for drug and alcohol offenses. Present and former athletes report that –as in the old days well-connected Chicagoans took their traffic tickets not to city court but to the precinct committeeman who would “take care of it – so do members of certain teams take their write-ups to their coaches, who “take care of it.”

But some good may yet come of this. If, that is, these students possess both grit and wit. Grit they must have, or they would not have occupied the corridor. Wit is more doubtful. Student protesters are oft afflicted with earnestness, wit’s rival.

But (the rest of this is addressed to those 32 students), a few of you ought to be able to create an essay which, while meeting the terms of your penalty, also exposes those who set those terms as the priggish, pompous, self-righteous twits they are.

If so, send a copy to this web site. The best (assuming any are good enough) will be reprinted here (yeah, yeah; “printed” isn’t exactly the right word). It could be the beginning of a writing career.

As has been noted here before, sometimes very smart people act in ways that are…oh, for now let’s just say that are not very smart.

As has also been noted here before, some of these very smart people are senior officials at the University of Vermont.

Their very-smartness is proven not simply by their advanced degrees, fancy titles, high salaries and sumptuous offices, but also by their obvious success as senior officials at UVM. The university is bigger than it was a few years ago. Its larger student body has higher SAT scores. Its larger faculty earns more money. The entire institution has a higher reputation in academia nationwide. These officials must be very smart people, indeed.

So why do they want to suppress freedom of speech on campus?

Well, that’s a stupid question. All people in power want to suppress free speech in their realms to avoid being criticized, ridiculed, and opposed. This instinct applies to governments, corporations, foundations, universities, churches, and the Kiwanis Club. So let’s re-phrase the question.

Considering that this particular attempt to suppress free speech on campus is possibly illegal, probably unconstitutional, certainly confrontational, and therefore doomed to fail, why did the very smart senior officials at UVM decide to make themselves appear to be not simply would-be tyrants but bungling tyrants?

In fairness, the University has not circulated a document entitled “Proposed Policy to Suppress Free Speech on Campus.” Furthermore, the document that was circulated by UVM’s Provost and the General Counsel’s office – the “Interim Policy on Solicitation,” has not been vetted by a lawyer for either the News Guy nor the UVM faculty. It is conceivable, then, that the policy does not attempt to suppress free speech on campus, but only seems so to attempt.

Meaning the folks who composed it brought trouble down upon themselves unnecessarily. Still not smart.

But not likely, either. Laymen though they may be, the News Guy and the professors can read. And if the words on the page are not designed to give University officials the power to decide what may or may not be espoused, opposed, posted, organized for (or against) or debated, they’re a mighty good imitation thereof.

To be sure, colleges should have policies restricting commercial solicitation. Students ought not be bothered in dormitory rooms, study halls or library stacks by peddlers of software, soap, or sandwiches. But this policy statement is not limited to commercial solicitation. It also covers “Noncommercial solicitation,” which “includes, without limitation, petition drives, public opinion polling, membership drives for recognized groups and organizations, preaching, proselytizing, political organizing, political canvassing, and political campaigning.”

For such activity, the policy says, “prior approval” of the University administration is required. As Alan Gilbert of the Vermont American Civil Liberties Union pointed out, “prior approval is prior restraint,” which is Constitutionally questionable.

Not that the university shouldn’t impose some reasonable restrictions on where political activity could take place; the petition-gatherer need not pursue students into their dorm rooms or laboratories. But on all campuses certain areas are recognized as public forums. At UVM, these would include the big bulletin board outside the Bailey-Howe Library and the Green between the library and the buildings fronting Main Street, including the massive new Dudley Davis Center.

But the solicitation policy asserts that “Because of its fragility and its designation as a historic landmark, the University Green’s availability for solicitation is limited.”

Come on! This doesn’t meet the laugh test. As pointed out by David Shiman, the education professor who heads United Academics, UVM’s faculty union, “the University Green has historically been the agora for campus and community,” the place where debate, demonstration, and, yes, even confrontation, have taken place. It is the obvious site for them to take place. Requiring individuals or organizations to get “prior approval” before expressing themselves on the Green would constitute a blatant inhibition of free expression.

(Full disclosure: The News Guy, very part-time adjunct faculty at UVM, is a member of the union).

To give the credit which is due (which is minimal) the solicitation policy does promise a version of “viewpoint neutrality,” saying, “(i)n those instances in which the University, through the official and deliberate action of authorized officials, chooses to open a designated forum for public expression, the University will not discriminate on the basis of the viewpoint of those engaging in expression allowed within that forum. Defamation, obscenity, and other forms of unlawful speech are prohibited in all instances.”

Oh, now UVM hot-shots proclaim themselves arbiters of which speech is and is not “lawful.”

And no “defamation”? The heart of debate is defamation. All authority should be defamed, starting with presidents (of the United States and the University) and extending to almost everyone else, including the writer of this post.

Besides, as Shiman points out, the “neutrality” pledge is belied by another clause stating that the “approval of solicitation activities will generally be subject to applicable time, place, manner, and subject matter provisions unless, in the considered judgment of the responsible administrative official, the proposed activities are unlawful or are likely to be disruptive, to cause undue interruption of the essential operations of the University, or to infringe significantly upon the rights of University community members or members of the public lawfully using campus grounds or facilities, such as rights of privacy, personal security, or reasonably unimpeded ingress and egress.”

“These grounds for denial,” Shiman wrote to the Administration, “are so vague that the clause about neutrality becomes meaningless. The University…asserts that they may deny permission whenever they want. This is unprecedented for any university, other than perhaps a tightly controlled religious institution.”

Not unreasonably, Shiman wondered whether one of the administration’s goals was to stifle union organizing efforts. Labor organizations are not official university-recognized entities, and under the proposed rules their on-campus activities might have to “be sponsored by authorized University officials…”

or University-recognized student groups or organizations,” which, he noted, could “have a particularly chilling effect for union drives.”

Interim Provost Jane Knodell said it was not her office, but the General Counsel’s office which was in charge of the solicitation policy, and referred the News Guy to Deputy General Counsel Tom Mercurio. Mercurio did not return a phone call, nor did UVM spokesman Enrique Corredera. They might not have had time. Or they might not have wanted to try to defend the indefensible.

OK, it’s an “interim policy.” Perhaps before making it final, the very smart people of UVM will remember that universities are and ought to be places of vigorous, spirited, even if sophomoric (after all, some of the participants are actual sophomores) debate. The folks who run universities should encourage such activity, not stifle it.

Otherwise, they aren’t even slightly smart.

.

So, should a racist, anti-Semitic, neo-Nazi tenured professor be allowed to teach at the University of Vermont?

And suppose he isn’t any of those things. Suppose he just studies, writes about, and (apparently) admires some racist, anti-Semitic, neo-Nazis while pursuing his own scholarly interest in “the status of European heritage, or white Americans, including the way they are educated.”  Should he be allowed on the UVM faculty?

The questions arise because of an excellent piece of reporting by Daniel Barlow in the Sunday, June 14, Barre-Montpelier Times Argus about Robert S. Griffin, who has been teaching education courses at the university since 1974, and who at the very least maintains close professional contacts with white supremacists, anti-Semites, and maybe even neo-Nazis.

The answer to the questions is: Yes.

Griffin is tenured faculty, meaning the university has confirmed his academic credentials and his competence as a teacher.  That means he can only be fired for cause-not showing up for class (or at least not showing up sober),  failing to grade papers, abusing students, inciting violence, or the like.

Not for whatever belief or opinion he expresses. That’s the whole purpose of tenure-to protect academics from being dismissed for their views, however unpopular, bizarre, offensive, outrageous, or even disgusting those views may be.

Come to think of it, that’s one of the purposes of a university or college to begin with – to serve as a forum for ideas and opinions, however….(see list above).

Since, as far as we know, there has never been a formal complaint by a student that Griffin has committed any of the above-named offenses, his job is and ought to be safe.

But wait a minute! Suppose he tries – whether openly or surreptitiously – to convert his impressionable young students to his (seemingly) revolting way of thinking? Shouldn’t that be grounds for dismissal?

Nope. Not unless he does so with threats, intimidation, or by giving low grades to students who voice their disagreement. Again, there seems to be no record of students officially suggesting he has behaved in this way. There is one unofficial suggestion. On the ‘ratemyprofessors.com‘ web site, one student complained, “If you don’t agree with his thoughts, you get a bad grade.”

But as almost any faculty member will attest, it’s the students who don’t like a professor who are more likely to contribute to these sites. This student apparently got a bad grade, and may have been seeking revenge. At any rate, that one complaint hardly qualifies as sufficient evidence even to start a disciplinary proceeding, much less to take any action.

Final objection. Suppose a non-white student had to take one of his classes but felt intimidated. Wouldn’t some disciplinary action, if not dismissal, be in order.

Not unless Griffin took some overt action to intimidate. In a free society, there is no guarantee against feeling intimidated, any more than there is a guarantee against being insulted.

So Griffin gets to keep his job, despite complaints from some letter-to-the-editor writers and at least one web site.  (UVM was lucky that the story came out during summer vacation; five will get you ten that had it appeared in October, there would have been at least one small “Griffin Must Go” rally on campus).

But job security is the simplest question this case provokes, and therefore the least interesting. Start, for instance, with the question of just what kind of guy Griffin really is. Here matters grow more complex.

The case against him – the case for him being a real bigot – is compelling if just short of conclusive. Barlow lays it out in detail. To state just one of the more obvious examples, among the links on Griffin’s web site, robertsgriffin.com, is one to the Vanguard News Network, whose slogan is “No Jews. Just Right.”

Nor does Griffin always help his own case. Writing two years ago in Vermont Commons (the journal of the Vermont secessionist movement, the racist associations of which were discussed in an earlier post, Secessionist Delusions, February 12), Griffin said, “I think it is fair to say that the victors in the competition to insert their perspective into school programs have been the egalitarians, collectivists, multiculturalists, feminists, gays, environmentalists, internationalists, secularists, and Holocaust promoters.”

Holocaust promoters? That’s pretty strong evidence that he is a Holocaust denier, the ultimate combination of bigotry and willful ignorance.

But then take a look at his web site, where he links, admiringly, to a quote by Philip Roth, the novelist whose Jewishness is central to his fiction.

In fact, the Robert Griffin of the web site seems to be less a raging bigot than an interesting guy.

“My writings have been vehicles for an investigation of the whole of American society and culture and the way we conduct our individual lives,” he writes. ”That has involved me in considerations related to history, philosophy, race, religion, the arts, the mass media, parenting, the process of growing up, gender, education, sports, and personal health and fulfillment.

As to his racial views, “while I have written often about race this last decade, I do not consider myself to be a racial writer… I write whatever is there to be written, and if it is about race, so be it, but I don’t consider myself linked to that subject.”

Though he responded neither to Barlow nor to the News Guy, Griffin did email the Inside Higher Ed web site, denying that he was a racist and insisting that “even the most cursory review of my writings would show that I deplore violence.”

Inside Higher Ed also reached UVM education professor David Shiman, the head of the faculty union at the university, who is Jewish. Shiman  said that in the 35 years he has known his colleague he has “never seen from him an anti-Semitic remark, never heard him make a racist remark.”

Shiman said he once assigned Griffin’s 2001 article “Rearing Honorable White Children” in some of his multicultural education classes, and invited Griffin to answer students’ questions.

“I think the students need to hear diverse perspectives, need to challenge themselves and be exposed to views that cause them to reflect on the views they think they hold — and maybe get stronger holding them, but at least challenge themselves,” Shiman said.

All this apparent civility though, can not completely offset the rest of Griffin’s profile. He is the author of what Barlow called “a fawning biography” of  William Pierce, the author of the white supremacist novel  ”The Turner Diaries,” which helped inspire Timothy McVeigh to blow up the federal office building in Oklahoma City.

“I found Pierce to be a person of remarkable capability, decency, integrity, courage, and dedication,” Griffin writes on his Web site.” And the Vanguard News Network is not the only white supremacist web site to which he links.

Perhaps the most interesting way to look at l’affaire Griffin is to take him at his word that he is not a bigot, but only someone who teaches and and advocates white culture. On the face of it, that should be no more objectionable than teaching and advocating black or Latino culture, which has attained a modicum of respect in academia.

But no less objectionable either. It isn’t that there aren’t racial and ethnic subcultures worthy of study. Black and Hispanic, obviously, but also Appalachian, Italian-American, French-Canadian, rural New England.

In the final analysis, though, culture is neither racial nor ethnic. If it were, then, for instance, Sarah Chang, whose biological ancestry is Korean, could not so brilliantly play Mendelssohn’s Violin Concerto, a work steeped in the German musical tradition (if, for that matter, Mendelssohn, who didn’t have a drop of Teutonic blood in his veins, could have composed a concerto). Culture is a product of  intellect and consciousness, internal qualities indifferent to the color of the outer layer.

No one has to be English to appreciate Shakespeare, Dutch to understand Rembrandt, or African-American to dig Charlie Parker. From a university’s perspective, the problem with Robert Griffin is not that his beliefs are abhorrent, but that they are ignorant.