An e-mail from President Shirley Ann Jackson to the tenured and tenure track faculty stated her desire to have a code of conduct for faculty and for those participating in faculty governance. This opinion piece to The Poly addresses her desire.
Codes of conduct can be dangerous because they typically seek to suppress free speech, particularly speech that isn’t judged to be politically correct by whoever is making the judgment. I understand that one goal of a Rensselaer code would be to prevent contact with the media without administrative authorization. I regard this as an abomination.
It is vaguely possible that a code of conduct could be an affirmation of rights as well as description of misbehavior. Here is a portion of Carnegie-Mellon University’s code: “The University affirms the right of its members to organize and join political associations, to convene and conduct public meetings, and to advocate and publicize their views by verbal means and by public demonstration. It is entitled to expect from them that they maintain and affirm a continuing concern for the interests of the University as a whole. Sanctionable violations of these standards of faculty conduct include, but are not limited to: engaging in fraudulent or otherwise unethical conduct in academic affairs, or encouraging or tolerating such conduct in other members of the University; misuse of authority to harass, intimidate, or defame others; interference with the normal performance of duties and functions of members and invited guests of the University; theft or willful destruction of property of the University or of its members.”
Recent e-mails to the faculty from Jackson and Provost Robert E. Palazzo and an opinion piece in The Poly by Vice President for Student Life Eddie Ade Knowles have accused “some” faculty of behaving unprofessionally in the way they have criticized Rensselaer’s current administration. The remarks by Knowles even claimed that communications by “some” of the faculty were slanderous. I assume that Knowles understands that slander is a crime in New York State. He appears to have accused the unnamed “some” of committing a criminal act. I know of no acts by “some” faculty that were illegal or at all worthy of disciplinary action under Carnegie-Mellon’s code of conduct. A code that would make them punishable would be repressive indeed.
To understand the perniciousness of claiming that an unnamed “some” are guilty of unprofessional behavior, let alone a crime, please consult the Wikipedia entry for “McCarthyism.” Who are the “some?” People innocent of anything beyond voting in the recent referendum that sought restoration of the Faculty Senate may fear that they will be judged part of the “some.” Certainly there is at least one academic department where the leadership took such a strong stand against voting that retaliation could be a legitimate concern. Other faculty who have sent e-mails to colleagues or have attended meetings of the disposed Faculty Senate fear that they are part of the “some.” Still others, who have talked to the press, of which The Poly is a part, may fear that they too are among the “some.”
One administrative missive indicated that faculty participating in governance would need to be free of “conflicts of interest” with the Institute. Please consult the Wikipedia entry for “Blacklisting.”
At a meeting open to all Rensselaer faculty and held without a condition of confidentiality, Palazzo was asked who the “some” were and what they did? He declined to publicize names but said that the “some” had mocked the president and embarrassed the Institute. Let us first address the issue of embarrassing the Institute. It is hard to imagine anything more embarrassing than the suspension of the Faculty Senate. Did the administration think that this would be a secret undiscovered by The Poly, The Chronicle of Higher Education, the American Association of University Professors, or the Times Union? Can anything be more embarrassing than two editorials in The Poly that suggested in clear language that the president and provost might need to resign? To the administration: Do not blame the messenger. It was the message from the administration that was gravely embarrassing to the Institute.
As for mocking the president, I know of only one incident that might fit even a loose definition of mocking. I was quoted in the Times Union as referring to Jackson as the Queen. I regard this as appropriate satire. It is not particularly derogatory. I have a son and two grandchildren who, thanks to dual nationality, are the subjects of a real queen. I also note that presidents of the United States are routinely satirized (and indeed mocked) in the press. This is an American tradition that is more than 200 years old.
I have thought at length about this, the final paragraph of my piece. Some may think it inflammatory, but I think it an appropriate response to comments from the administration that faculty who do not like current policies should consider leaving. Our country, love it or leave it? No, love it but try to change it. Jackson earns far more than the President of the United States. Why should she be immune to dissent, criticism, or satire? As U.S. President Harry Truman said, “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”
Bruce Nauman
Professor of
Chemical Engineering
Vice President of the
Faculty Senate (deposed)
Editor’s Note: Professor Nauman correctly cited two Poly editorials (dated September 12th, 2007 and October 10th, 2007) that stated that President Jackson and Provost Palazzo may need to step down. It is important to recognize, however, that in these cases the Editorial Board only suggested that administrators resign if they refuse to recognize or take appropriate actions to repair the substantial damage they have done to the faculty-administration relations and the reputation of the Institute.
