By Professor Doom
“Excuse me professor, but can you write me
a letter of reference?”
Every semester, one student, sometimes
more, will ask me for a letter of reference. Even with large classes, I still
have standout students, and so if I can remember even a little about the
student, I do so, presenting what I know in as favorable a light as honesty
allows.
There have been a
few times where I’ve had students ask me for character references for court
proceedings, and, again, if I feel I can honestly contribute, I do so.
Never once has
it occurred to me that my university may punish me for honestly trying to help
my students, but apparently this is a thing now:
The issue here
really isn’t the professor’s actions, or even the university per se. The
problem is the university has an entire fiefdom filled with Vice Presidents of
Troublemaking, eager to justify their cushy jobs by seeking out someone who
might cross an invisible (and undefined) line, and punish them.
So, let’s see
what “crime” professor Fischler committed:
Fischler's
former student, Kristie Torbick, is a high school guidance counselor in her
30s. She was arrested for allegedly having sex with a 14-year-old student. She
pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to serve between two-and-a-half and five
years in prison.
Before
Torbick plead guilty, her defense team asked Fischler if he would be willing to
submit a letter testifying to Torbick's good behavior in his class. Fischler
did so. He did not address the allegation—to do so would be inappropriate. He
merely testified to her excellent "performance as a student." He
essentially played the role of a character witness.
Wow, I’ve dodged
some bullets, I see, as I’ve done the “character witness” thing a few times as
well. Harmless enough, right? Fischler actually got off light:
The university declined to re-hire one
teacher for defending Torbick,…
You can
literally lose your job over
providing an honest opinion in a court case. How chilling will this be for future students asking for even a
little help? Fischler was higher up the food chain, and so not as easily
dismissed. So, not fired, but punishment will be meted out:
Administrators at Plymouth State University in New Hampshire are
forcing an education professor to undergo sexual harassment training.
Does anyone else think there’s a bit of overreach here? The
“training” will come from the Title IX fiefdom on campus. While Title IX was
supposed to be about preventing the cover-ups of sex crimes on campus, it also
addresses a wide range of issues, such as spending on various college sports,
and, apparently, the squelching of free speech.
I clarify:
the professor here merely submitted a written statement to the court system
regarding one of his students from years in the past; in no way did his actions
impact anyone on campus, or education in any form. He did not lie, he did not
violate any agreement with the university…he simply provided a letter of
reference for someone the university decided they did not like.
And he’s
being punished for it, while at least one other faculty lost his job. A few
comments indicate how the general public still doesn’t “get” what’s happening
on many of our campuses:
This is a state university. They cannot discriminate against
someone for testifying in a court. If they could, the government could fire any
employee who testified to something they didn't like.
I remind the reader, it took nearly 20 years before an open
academic fraud at state university UNC was finally established as fact, even
with thousands of students partaking in that fraud. Moreover, UNC paid no
penalty, and no administrator who took part in the cover-up lost his or her
job.
So…yeah, in
theory, if the professor here wants to fight, he could spend a decade or two,
along with hundreds of thousands of dollars, trying to convince the university
they’ve overstepped their bounds…or he just suck up 8 hours (I’m guessing,
could be quite a bit less or more) of mandatory sexual harassment training. I
completely respect his decision not to fight here.
But my
point remains: there will be a chilling effect on other faculty, who at the
very least will be reluctant to help students out, since no matter how honestly
they do so, the faculty will be risking their career with every letter.
This is more than about a professor's right to engage in free
speech. This is about the government's ability to deprive anyone of employment
or a benefit because they testify for the defense in a trial. That is a big
deal.
This comment is closer to the mark,
although we’re not yet at the point where our government does this (much). We
are, however, at the point where our campuses, a great source of expert
witnesses in trials, do clearly have the power to deprive defendants of those
experts.
Right now it’s just character
references, but what’s to stop this from progressing further?
No comments:
Post a Comment