Dean Violates Student's Free Speech

[mahagonny]

...and resigns.

https://www.press-citizen.com/story/news/education/university-of-iowa/2021/02/25/university-iowa-college-dentistry-dean-step-down-david-johnsen-trump-executive-order/6815974002/

Discuss if you like.

[Hibush]

It looks like the Iowa Board of Regents wants to restrict the free speech of all the university administrators.

[RatGuy]

It looks like the Iowa Board of Regents wants to restrict the free speech of all the university administrators.

...under the guise of protecting free speech. That's how it reads to me.

[marshwiggle]

It looks like the Iowa Board of Regents wants to restrict the free speech of all the university administrators.

...under the guise of protecting free speech. That's how it reads to me.

From the article:

Johnsen, who has been with the university for more than 25 years, was called to testify about the incident before the Iowa House of Representatives' Government Oversight Committee earlier this month. He apologized at the hearing for the college's decision to summon the student to a disciplinary hearing, as well as his decision, as dean, to publicly condemn the Trump executive order.

It seems to me that the big issue was calling the student to the disciplinary hearing. Had he not done that, condemning the executive order on its own probably wouldn't have caused the problem.

[Caracal]

It looks like the Iowa Board of Regents wants to restrict the free speech of all the university administrators.

...under the guise of protecting free speech. That's how it reads to me.

From the article:

Johnsen, who has been with the university for more than 25 years, was called to testify about the incident before the Iowa House of Representatives' Government Oversight Committee earlier this month. He apologized at the hearing for the college's decision to summon the student to a disciplinary hearing, as well as his decision, as dean, to publicly condemn the Trump executive order.

It seems to me that the big issue was calling the student to the disciplinary hearing. Had he not done that, condemning the executive order on its own probably wouldn't have caused the problem.

Yeah, I think that's pretty obvious, and he didn't try to defend it, so I think it was obvious to him, as well. I guess I'm not well versed on administrators and their rights to academic freedom when they are performing administrative duties. I can't really tell from this whether he's saying that it was wrong to publicly condemn the rules in the same way he seems to be admitting it was wrong to have a disciplinary hearing for the student, or if he's just saying that it was just an error in judgement to do so.

[mahagonny]

It seems to me that the big issue was calling the student to the disciplinary hearing. Had he not done that, condemning the executive order on its own probably wouldn't have caused the problem.

It's a potential problem to people who have to read the first message, and then the ball is in their court lest it be perceived that the dean has now proclaimed that 'this is what we need to believe around here' and by your silence you give consent. Combine what he wrote and the presence of diversity staff who always, always lean far left politically, and there's a lot of pressure to conform. And there will always be a few, like this student, and me, who get a sick feeling from having it suggested that they believe things they don't believe.

It looks like the Iowa Board of Regents wants to restrict the free speech of all the university administrators.

I suspect sometimes they (deans, chancellors et al) don't even relish making a statement to the student body and faculty. They think they need to. I say let them off the hook. They can either understand that they can decline to comment on political things, or announce 'here's my view. what's yours?'
I think the fact that this guy apologized for not only the stupid idea of a disciplinary hearing for the student but the original send-all opinion means he very likely would have been happy staying out of the fray altogether, in hindsight. Now that he's learned something important, he quits. I might ask him to stay.
ETA: 'Cause, you know, who's gonna replace him, and what are they like?

[Wahoo Redux]

It looks like the Iowa Board of Regents wants to restrict the free speech of all the university administrators.

...under the guise of protecting free speech. That's how it reads to me.

From the article:

Johnsen, who has been with the university for more than 25 years, was called to testify about the incident before the Iowa House of Representatives' Government Oversight Committee earlier this month. He apologized at the hearing for the college's decision to summon the student to a disciplinary hearing, as well as his decision, as dean, to publicly condemn the Trump executive order.

It seems to me that the big issue was calling the student to the disciplinary hearing. Had he not done that, condemning the executive order on its own probably wouldn't have caused the problem.

I gotta say, I haf'ta agree with Marshy here (it happens once in a while).

The Dental Dean started any email thread objecting to Trump's policies.
A student responded with an alternative view.

The email set off a string of replies, which included comments from one student, Michael Brase, who argued the college should follow the order.

Testifying to legislators earlier this month, Johnsen said Brase was summoned to the hearing because he used a public platform — replying to everyone on a college-wide email —  to share his views.

But legislators were quick to point out that Johnsen started the email chain in condemning the president's executive order, and Johnsen agreed, telling lawmakers his initial email "should not have happened."

The Dean used his authority to bully the student with a disciplinary hearing.
The student's rights were violated and the Dean was forced to retire early.

It's fun to play the "what if / other way" game----what if the Dean was a MAGA-head and attempted to discipline a student for expressing an anti-Trump sentiment?

Don't get me wrong, I hate Trump and his bigotries.  But that doesn't justify trying to shut down dissent against dissent.

[mahagonny]

More stuff to stir the soup. I couldn't quite finish the article. I think I got as far as learning that you either declare that you support the 'Black Lives Matter' movement, whose wealthy founders want you to know they are Marxists, seem to have no objection to mob shoplifting and malicious destruction of property and oppose the 'Western nuclear family requirement' or you literally believe black people's lives don't matter. More of the usual liberal stuff, like for instance, feelings count as facts when you are a person of color. But there is some more information about what has happened, particularly the student's email communications, which contained some detailed questions.
Media bias fact check rates Vanity Fair left biased and mostly factual.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/04/how-a-reply-all-email-became-ground-zero-for-the-cancel-culture-wars

Vanity Fair thinks deans should have the right to stir up controversy among people who enrolled in college to learn dentistry by inserting themselves into political issues with send-all emails, but should only bcc the recipients so they cannot reply to the group. 
Suppression of free speech? As Pat Paulsen said facetiously 'the law doesn't say anything about freedom of hearing.'

^^ apropos of the question

It's fun to play the "what if / other way" game----what if the Dean was a MAGA-head and attempted to discipline a student for expressing an anti-Trump sentiment?

[marshwiggle]

It seems to me that the big issue was calling the student to the disciplinary hearing. Had he not done that, condemning the executive order on its own probably wouldn't have caused the problem.

I gotta say, I haf'ta agree with Marshy here (it happens once in a while).

I won't tell if you don't.

The Dental Dean started any email thread objecting to Trump's policies.
A student responded with an alternative view.

The email set off a string of replies, which included comments from one student, Michael Brase, who argued the college should follow the order.

Testifying to legislators earlier this month, Johnsen said Brase was summoned to the hearing because he used a public platform — replying to everyone on a college-wide email —  to share his views.

But legislators were quick to point out that Johnsen started the email chain in condemning the president's executive order, and Johnsen agreed, telling lawmakers his initial email "should not have happened."

The Dean used his authority to bully the student with a disciplinary hearing.
The student's rights were violated and the Dean was forced to retire early.

It's fun to play the "what if / other way" game----what if the Dean was a MAGA-head and attempted to discipline a student for expressing an anti-Trump sentiment?

Don't get me wrong, I hate Trump and his bigotries.  But that doesn't justify trying to shut down dissent against dissent.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't an executive order from the president, whether people like it or not, effectively a legal requirement? For a student to say the law should be obeyed, (again, regardless of whether it's a good or bad law), shouldn't be grounds for discipline.  If a student was advocating breaking some law which the administration liked, it would perhaps be more understandable.
(Although even then, I'd think the student's actions, and not just opinions, would matter more.)

[Anon1787]

It's bad enough when adminicritters try to discipline faculty for their speech but students are in an even weaker position. More adminicritters need to face serious sanctions for this sort of misconduct.

And it's not clear why adminicritters acting in their official capacity are/should be entitled to the same free speech protections as faculty and students (department chairs have been relieved of their position as chair for saying unpopular things).

[dismalist]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't an executive order from the president, whether people like it or not, effectively a legal requirement?

Executive orders of the president of the US legally bind the federal bureaucracy, subject to judicial review, and nothing and no one else.

[jimbogumbo]

I believe each of the following.

The student did nothing wrong, and should not have been disciplined.

The Dean, had he not resigned, should have been disciplined. I'm okay even if he had been fired.

The Board of Regents new policy is at least much too vague, and in my opinion, terrible policy.

[mahagonny]

How about this? Use the occasion for a good old fashioned splitting headache discussion, pitched as a friendly sit down. Something like what Obama did with officer Crowley and Prof. Henry Louis Gates. I happen to think we need more debates, and we need for people who are wrong to lose them. The dean gets to keep his job but has to answer the student's questions, since he prompted them:

from the Vanity Fair piece:

"He then posed five questions. Question number two read: "By condemning Executive Order 13950, does the COD support using federal funds to promote trainings that teach that certain races/sexes are inherently or fundamentally oppressive, racist, sexist, etc. (as defined above)?"

Question number four read: "Since Executive Order 13950 prohibits race/sex stereotyping and/or race/sex scapegoating, is it to be understood that the COD considers these elements to be in line with 'fundamental university values and practices?'"

incidentally...Surprising that the CHE didn't cover this? No, sadly.

[mahagonny]

It's bad enough when adminicritters try to discipline faculty for their speech but students are in an even weaker position. More adminicritters need to face serious sanctions for this sort of misconduct.

And it's not clear why adminicritters acting in their official capacity are/should be entitled to the same free speech protections as faculty and students (department chairs have been relieved of their position as chair for saying unpopular things).

Agreed. What can happen to a dean, anyway, that really resembles punishment? I can't think of anything.

I believe each of the following.

The student did nothing wrong, and should not have been disciplined.

The Dean, had he not resigned, should have been disciplined. I'm okay even if he had been fired.

Go on, get out and take your $100K and Cadillac benefits, you scoundrel!

It looks like the Iowa Board of Regents wants to restrict the free speech of all the university administrators.

There will always be another student, so screw him. OTOH, if someone can restrict a college dean's speech, then the little Baby Jesus, the controversial tenured academic is next, right?

There's other stuff going on in Iowa. Calls to end college tenure, for example. Many conservative students have reported they don't feel safe expressing themselves. The public may end up saying 'we'd like our state university back now, please.'
Remember, though thousands of Americans marched for BLM, many millions more knew they had the option to, but did not.
Conservatives and moderates need to start speaking out. Being right counts for nothing without a little bravery.
Bill Maher is a conservative, but he calls himself a liberal so people won't decide to ignore him once his lips move. Smart guy.

[Anon1787]

Agreed. What can happen to a dean, anyway, that really resembles punishment? I can't think of anything.

It's more difficult in this case because he was eligible to retire, but the obvious penalties are being fired, demoted, or docked a significant amount of pay & benefits (I'm not aware of this being done, but losing benefits for a period and forcing an adminicritter to buy health insurance on the open market, fund their own retirement, etc. like most adjuncts might sound appealing to you).