Free speech is an easy concept to rally around. We are ‘Mericans. We have the right to say any damn thing we want, any damn time we want, any damn where we want. Left or right, we are all wary of proposals that limit free speech, aren’t we?
And yet, we are uncomfortable with unfettered speech. We know how damaging mere words can be. We know that the phrase, “sticks and stones can break my bones, but names can never hurt me” is hopelessly naïve. “Names” can leave scars, often deeper and harder to mend than broken bones. We also know that speech can quickly lead to action, and that action can be very damaging indeed.
Knowing this, we accept limits on our speech. We don’t countenance those who barge into any setting shouting whatever nasty epitaphs might be running through our minds (unless they’re in Congress). We know that our place of work is not a free speech zone. Spouting off around the proverbial water cooler, or even worse, on social media, about what idiots your bosses are or how worthless your company’s products are, will get you fired, and we accept that.
These rules get a lot trickier when you are dealing with the efforts by the government, or even entities funded by the government, to curb speech. The First Amendment was directed at the government for good reason. Censorship has been the cornerstone of authoritarian regimes since time immemorial. Control what is said, and how information is disseminated, and you go a long way towards controlling the populace.
These days the tension between concerns about governmental regulation of speech and the recognition that there are limits to free speech is being played out in classrooms nationwide. Most of the focus has been on limiting topics to be covered in K-12 schools, or what books are acceptable in school libraries, but these tensions have spilled over to the university level as well, where notions of academic freedom make boundaries much harder to negotiate.
In 2022 Florida (where else) passed a statute that establishes a new post-tenure, five-year review cycle for professors at the state’s public institutions. Governor DeSantis was not shy about his reasons for signing this bill (is he ever?). He was quoted as saying that the bill would keep faculty and curriculum in line with what he calls the state’s priorities, which, of course, means his priorities. Considering the nature of politics in the United States, no doubt similar bills will soon crop up in other states around the country.
It will be interesting to see how this law is enforced. At first blush, tenure or no, it is hard to see how the firing of a professor for statements that angered the powers that be can pass constitutional muster. In fact, such a firing would go to the very heart of the of the First Amendment. My guess is that Florida really doesn’t care about constitutionality and is more concerned with the optics of such a bill and the angst it will bring.
Another side of this coin is presented by the case of Kareem Tannous, a non-tenured business professor at Cabrini college. Tannous was recently fired after a series of personal tweets became public criticizing Israel in harsh terms. Among the tweets was one saying that “Israel and Ukraine [elsewhere called Zionazi Ukraine] are societal cancers and must be eradicated”. Another urged that we “dismantle #AparthiedIsrael by any means necessary”.
Tannous is one in a growing list of academics disciplined, or fired, for expressing incendiary opinions. Some have successfully sued for damages or reinstatement. Others have weathered the storm and continued to teach. Tannous claims that he is now blacklisted and has sued Cabrini arguing that, as an institute that receives state and federal support, it violated his First Amendment rights.
In attacking Israel, Tannous targeted one of the few issues on which both left and right kind of agree. While the left (I realize that I am shamelessly generalizing here) is often uncomfortable with the machinations of the Israeli government, especially under Netanyahu, there is still widespread support for our most reliable ally in the Middle East. The right, with visions of Armageddon dancing in their heads, is even more hawkish in its embrace of Israel.
Yet, few would countenance the firing of Tannous if his criticism stopped at lambasting Israeli policy, especially since it was done outside the classroom. We recognize the need to allow debate, even where views expressed may be unpopular. In fact, many of us welcome those who speak at the edges of consensus, reminding us that none of these issues are so black and white that all sides shouldn’t be aired.
The question becomes trickier when the speaker goes beyond criticism to an incitement to action. In exhorting his readers to eradicate Israel “by any means necessary” Tannous is clearly endorsing violence. “By any means necessary” embraces war, terrorism, bio-chemical attacks and any other nasty iteration of mayhem that mankind can envision. It takes this from impassioned criticism to exhortation of the worst kind.
Tannous denies his comments are ant-Semitic, but if he wants to eradicate Israel, what does he propose to do with the seven million Jews that live there? Considering the history of violence against Jews, and the on-going and seemingly intractable anti-Semitism that continues to pollute our world, it is hard to imagine that Tannous just wants to wipe the state of Israel off the world map and leave the populus there. Is there any doubt that if he has us eradicate the state, he would have us eradicate the people there as well?
To all of this he would probably respond that he is just a nobody who has no following and no ability to carry through on his unrestrained fantasies. All of that is probably true. But, on the other hand, he is a teacher. And one of the things that we expect from teachers is that they will not judge their students by any criteria other than their performance. In Tannous defense, there is no evidence that he has discriminated against his students because of their ethnicity but could a Jewish student in his class feel comfortable knowing his views on “eradication”?
A similar issue arose with respect to Penn Law Professor Amy Wax who declared that the country would be “better off with fewer Asians” and that “on average, Blacks have lower cognitive ability than whites.” Wax is till teaching. Unlike Tannous, she did not advocate violence, but you still have to wonder how she can possibly be fair and impartial to Black and Asian students in her class while holding these views. I know that if I was of those ethnicities I would avoid her classes like the plague, even if it meant missing a class I would otherwise like to take.
There is no doubt that this is a slippery slope. If we advocate for the removal of Wax and Tannous we open the door for the Floridians who would remove any teacher who says something they do not like. And, for that reason, maybe it is a door that must stay firmly shut. But if you’re going to take that position have the guts to look a Black or Asian or Jewish student in the eye and tell them this yahoo is who their stuck with.
Interestingly I was at the Jewish Federation if Philadelphia’s office the day they were served with Tannous’ lawsuit.
I didn’t know that he sued the Jewish Federation too. This should be ab interesting case to follow.