Shortell Is Out

As Inside Higher Ed and the New York Sun report this morning, Professor Timothy Shortell has withdrawn his bid to become chairman of Brooklyn’s Sociology Department. I have generally been a critic of BC president C.M. Kimmich, but in this instance, Kimmich handled the controversy just right. Early on, he exercised his own free speech rights and issued a public statement noting his strong disagreement with Shortell’s views that religious people are “moral retards.” Then, as required by the CUNY Bylaws, Kimmich conducted an investigation into Shortell’s fitness for the position, which included a consultation with the entire membership of the Sociology Department.

Shortell, on the other hand, remained defiant throughout."We laugh at our critics,” he wrote in response to press criticism. “We will behold with joy their silly tantrums . . . We are becoming Ubermenschen.” Yesterday, in an email widely circulated around campus, he accused unnamed senior colleagues of “dishonesty and opportunism,” charging that they “demonstrated their capacity for and willingness to use all manner of unprofessional conduct.” He supplied no evidence for any of these wild allegations; throughout the controversy, Shortell’s departmental critics consistently declined public comment, and behaved as models of professionalism.

Two issues in the Shortell matter have broader significance. The first is that at CUNY, department chairmanships are extraordinarily powerful. As a result, the Bylaws impose additional requirements for the position—unlike the situation at most universities. The CUNY Bylaws require the college president to give" careful consideration . . . of the qualifications of those selected by the respective departments" to serve as chair. The president must also certify that the prospective chair can “act effectively as the departmental administrator and spokesperson and as a participant in the formation, development, and interpretation of college-wide interest and policy."

This clause originates from the controversial tenure of City College’s Leonard Jeffries, who was removed as chairman of CCNY’s Africana Studies Department in the early 1990s after he made continued anti-Semitic statements in public and in the classroom. Jeffries appealed his demotion to the Second Circuit, and lost the case, in Jeffries v. Harleston. The Jeffries court stated that colleges in the jurisdiction of the Second Circuit can remove department chairs if they have a “reasonable belief” that the publicly expressed views of the chair could harm the college, whether from negative publicity or the loss of pledges from donors.

Given the crudity of Shortell’s public statements, his case pretty clearly fell under the provisions of a Bylaws removal or the Jeffries decision. Indeed, in response to a question from the Sun, the AAUP’s Robert Kreiser question whether the affair was an academic freedom matter, remarking that an administration may not want to have as chairman someone whose views"are outside the mainstream" of the department or the college, since department chairmanships are partly administrative positions.

Second, the Shortell matter offers an opportunity to reflect on the definition of academic freedom. The CUNY union, the Professional Staff Congress, has adopted Shortell as its poster boy for academic freedom. The union’s conception of academic freedom, however, has left a bit to be desired. Under the terms of our contract, adjuncts have no right to reappointment. Yet in recent months the union has claimed a denial of “academic freedom” to two adjuncts who were not reappointed—Susan Rosenberg, convicted during the early 1980s of a variety of crimes related to her terrorist activity in the Weathermen underground; and Mohammed Yousry, tried and convicted for violating the special administrative measures for imprisoned cleric Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, mastermind of the 1993 attack on the WTC. Under the PSC's conception of academic freedom, the only adjuncts entitled to reappointment in the CUNY system would be those charged with or convicted of politically-related terrorist acts.

A more reliable barometer for defining academic freedom might be the 1940 AAUP Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure. This document notes,"College and university teachers are citizens, members of a learned profession, and officers of an educational institution. When they speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline, but their special position in the community imposes special obligations. As scholars and educational officers, they should remember that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances. Hence they should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others."

It would be hard to argue that Shortell’s public writings deeming religious people"moral retards," or comparing Karl Rove to Joseph Goebbels, or celebrating the higher death rate of older Americans fit these guidelines. Instead of following the AAUP’s suggestions to"at all times be accurate,""exercise appropriate restraint," and"show respect for the opinions of others,” Shortell elected to frame his statements in a way deliberately designed to inflame opinion. That, of course, is his right under the First Amendment. But he might have been better served to remember the AAUP’s guidelines impose obligations as well as confer rights.

In the end, I agree with CUNY Trusstee Jeffrey Wiesenfeld on this issue: “While [Shortell] is entitled to his voice, the school is certainly better off served by a different chair."