On March 1, the Faculty Senate heard a proposed revision to Chapter 8 of the Faculty Policy and Procedures. The potential addition of three sentences to the faculty speech code is a direct response to the 2006 Supreme Court case Garcetti v. Ceballos, in which an assistant district attorney claimed he was passed up for a promotion after being critical of his office. In a narrow 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court decided that Americans do not have free speech rights to speak out publicly in their official capacity against their place of employment.
Since the decision, all three district cases related to the Garcetti ruling have involved academic faculty. One case included a UW-Milwaukee professor who was dismissed after criticizing his university's handling of a National Science Foundation grant.
Protecting the academic freedom of UW professors is a crucial part of our education. To hear a diverse range of ideas, to ensure that our professors are candid and willing to criticize, public speech rights must be protected. Oftentimes, it can be difficult to separate official duties from private life, particularly for professors. As employees of the university, they know much more about UW than outsiders. For an honest perspective of the internal workings of the university, professors must be allowed to speak about internal problems that matter to the public, even in their official roles as professors. At the next Faculty Senate meeting April 5, this amendment must pass. No professor has a valid reason to vote against it.
The amendment plays into a much larger concern about the freedom to speak out against public institutions from the inside. Whistleblower laws and protections for employees of any government agency help ensure internal oversight. The best check against ineffective government is insiders and employees who know first-hand what government does right and wrong. Protecting their ability to bring problems to light helps improve the quality of our government. Although this faculty amendment is necessary and positive, it is only a small ripple in the larger pool of freedom to speak out against a workplace.
Political science professor and First Amendment scholar Donald Downs added that a large part of a professor's career is commenting and expressing opinions. Getting published and engaging in commentary are requirements for gaining tenure.
Both Downs and history professor John Sharpless support the amendment for protection in the future, not over concerns today.
""I can't imagine the current chancellor utilizing that power,"" Sharpless said. ""This has nothing to do with current leadership and administration. We're looking to the future and making sure we're all safe from dismissal if we want to speak to an internal issue publicly.""
Downs was quick to admit that the best way to resolve an internal conflict is not to go public. But professors already report to internal administrators first with concerns. Certain issues should be discussed in the open because they affect the public.
Healthy debate is par for the course on a highly political campus like UW.
""Let's say you're opposed to the war and you spoke out against defense contracts,"" said Sharpless. ""That could place you at odds with the university.""
The university, protected by the Supreme Court, could fire such an outspoken professor. But the campus is no stranger to controversy. Stem-cell research, animal testing, overseas apparel contracts—professors should be able to speak on pertinent public issues without fear of retribution.
Professors should not be spouting their ideals during every lecture. A math professor who begins each lecture with an ode to communism would be deemed inappropriate by the amendment, which only protects opinions ""regarding all relevant matters in the classroom.""
The issue is much broader than what professors say to students in the classroom setting. Whether writing for an outside journal or speaking at a conference, faculty should be allowed to speak their mind in their capacity as a professor.
""If it makes you comfortable as a student to have people able to express their opinions, this is a good measure,"" said Sharpless. He said graduate students should be considerably interested in this measure, which protects professors, but not teaching assistants.
The amendment only protects UW-Madison. In order to protect the university system statewide, a similar proposal should be on the Regents' desk soon. Such protections could actually benefit the UW system. If state universities are affording more freedom to be critical of their institutions, that could be a recruiting tool for the public system.
Downs expects the proposal to pass by a wide margin. ""We've gotten no pushback on this at all,"" Downs said. Hopefully, come April 5, he's right.
For students, faculty and the academic community at large, this amendment is the right thing to do.
