ABQjournal: Professor's Words Test University

Thursday, October 4, 2001

Professor's Words Test University

By William C. Gordon
President, University of New Mexico
    During the past two weeks I have received more than a thousand calls, letters and e-mails concerning the remarks that Professor Richard Berthold made to his students on September 11. The nearly unanimous opinion of the people who have contacted me is that his remarks were highly offensive or even worse. Even those who supported Professor Berthold's right to say these things and those who expressed support for his approach to teaching, find his words to be highly inappropriate given the circumstances.
    While there has been almost universal disapproval for what he said, opinion over what the university should do has been sharply divided. Many have demanded that his faculty employment be terminated and have stated bluntly that anything short of this step will cost the university dearly in terms of its reputation and support. Many others have expressed the view that if any sanction is levied against Berthold, it would constitute a violation of his First Amendment rights and would, again, cost the university dearly in terms of its reputation and support.
    If there is any up-side to this situation, it is that there can be no temptation to be guided by public pressure in what we do because the public outcry will be significant whatever we do. As president of the university, I have to be guided in dealing with this issue by the first amendment to the Constitution and by the principle of academic freedom, which is one manifestation of the first amendment as it applies within the academic community.
    Just as our constitutional protections serve as the basis for a free and democratic society, academic freedom is the foundation for learning and the pursuit of truth on university campuses. The existence of these protections does allow for the outrageous and even the inane to become a part of our public discourse. But, there is no clear way to exclude speech of this kind without also excluding statements and ideas that may initially be distasteful but in the final analysis work to the betterment of society.
    If a public university succumbs to pressure to silence protected speech solely on the basis of its content, it is undertaking an illegal act. If a university disregards the academic freedom of its faculty, staff or students, it ceases to be a university and loses its capacity to serve society effectively. UNM has no intention of becoming such a university.
    The university's decision to pursue this matter through the internal faculty disciplinary process is not based on the belief that Berthold lacks the right to say what he did. Rather, it is based on a guiding principle, endorsed by faculty throughout this country, that faculty have a special responsibility to their students.
    Faculty have the obligation to treat their students with respect and to be civil in their interactions with them. They are responsible for creating a supportive learning environment and "for adhering to their proper roles as intellectual guides and counselors" (American Association of University Professors Statement on Professional Ethics). They are expected to "demonstrate an ability to interact with students in an encouraging and stimulating manner," to exhibit "emotional stability or maturity" and "to exercise appropriate restraint."
    The question in this matter is whether these responsibilities have been carried out. On Sept. 11, Berthold's students no doubt shared the thoughts and emotions that were so common on our campus that day. Most likely many were numb in disbelief, others were grief-stricken or concerned about the fate of loved-ones, and still others were fearful about what might happen next.
    Is it reasonable for a faculty member to discuss such a tragedy in class or to examine the political questions surrounding those events? The answer is clearly "yes." Is it reasonable, on the other hand, for a faculty member in such a situation to say, "anyone who blows up the Pentagon would get my vote"? Does such a comment reflect respect for students and their feelings? Does it suggest that the faculty member is creating a supportive learning environment and acting as an intellectual guide and counselor? Does it indicate that the faculty member is exercising appropriate restraint in this circumstance?
    Many people, I feel, think that the answer to these questions is "no." This is an exceptionally difficult matter to resolve, because it requires that we consider the different impacts a remark may have when it occurs in different contexts. It is also difficult because it may represent a colliding of free speech protections and faculty responsibilities. But it is also important that we seek a resolution to these questions because, while we cannot waver in our support of academic freedom, we also cannot ignore the responsibility we have to our students.
    This is not a matter that should be decided by a single university official or by the court of public opinion. It should be decided by the academic community within our university because it is the values of that community that are being tested at this time. This is a difficult and wrenching experience for the university, but I am confident that those involved in weighing these issues will be thoughtful and will balance the principles of academic freedom and faculty responsibility. Our university will be better and stronger because we will have put these principles to the test.