USD Law Professor Under Investigation For Column Criticizing Chinese Government

From the column, Smith refers to accepting”a lot of c**k swaddle.” That resulted in a campaign to get Smith fired and also a statement from Dean Robert Schapiro not just announced a  formal investigation but seemed to denounce Smith.  It shows the identical blend of student cancelling campaigns as well as the empowering activities of school administrators.
He’s also somebody who writes from the public forum as a writer and columnist.
In his Right Coast column, Smith stated”If you believe that the coronavirus did not escape from the laboratory in Wuhan, you have to at least consider that you are an idiot who’s consuming whole a lot of Chinese c**k swaddle.”  It is clear a reference not to the Chinese public although the Chinese government. Many folks today agree the text of this column clearly shows that Smith was criticizing the regime. But Smith later added that caution to his column in an article script:”UPDATE:  It appears that some folks are interpreting my reference to”Chinese [c**k] swaddle,” in regards to an ethnic category.  That is a misinterpretation.  To be more clear, I was referring to the Chinese government.”
That wasn’t sufficient, however.  After sending a letter demanding an apology, the faculty’s Asian Pacific American Law Student Association filed a formal complaint along with the Student Bar Association.  APALSA also sent a list of demands including the shooting of Smith or reassuring”that Professor Smith not be permitted to instruct 1L students because they do not have the choice of picking and choosing their courses. We’d need this to use INDEFINITELY.”
When faced with the fact that Smith wasn’t intending to insult Chinese individuals generally, the pupils insisted that intent no longer matters in these controversies and Smith nevertheless had to be fired.  First-year student Benjamin Cope is quoted as saying”Maybe it wasn’t his purpose, but he chose really, very specific, unique, vibrant language. I understand everybody will have their own opinion, but as somebody who will and has been influenced by people’s words like this, I’m comfortable saying it was displaced, it was gruesome.”
As Eugene Volokh properly pointed out,  the California Labor Code shields”political actions” employees and the California Supreme Court ruled in Gay Law Students Ass’n v. Pac. Tel. & Tel. (1979) that”political activities” comprises not just electioneering but additionally”espousal of… a cause.”
An individual could have expected that the Dean could have stood firmly with free language and mentioned that the reference had been a criticism of the Chinese regime rather than the Chinese men and women. He advised the law faculty:

While the blog is not hosted by the University of San Diego, these forms of bias, where they occur, have an adverse impact on our community.
We’ve received formal complaints concerning the faculty member’s conduct, and according to university procedures, there’ll be a process to review whether university or law school policies have been violated.

We previously discussed these investigations generate a chilling effect on language when administrators show modest support for free speech. I understand the need to consider any formal criticism. However, Schapiro appeared to pre-judge that the allegations by referring to”these forms of bias” and adding that”it’s particularly about if the disparaging language comes from a member of our community” As mentioned in the new Smith College controversy, these statements shield deans and presidents from almost any criticism at the price of the accused — and more typically free speech values.
The announcement led a few college to compose Schapiro in protest:

Dear Robert,
We’ve read your email into the law school community as well as your email to one people. Here is our response.
The faculty member in question produced a political comment in forceful language. He’s got the right and maybe the responsibility as a citizen and a academic to comment on matters of public concern such as the Chinese government’s management of COVID, and to do this in evocative and strong language. No sane, much less lawyerly way of reading what he wrote could resolve anything other than this”Chinese [c**k] swaddle” was referring to propaganda of the Chinese government and certainly not denigrating individuals of Chinese descent or origin. The situation makes this absolutely clear.
Blog articles by academics fall within the boundaries of academic freedom according to the AAUP. Student concerns about discrimination should always be considered soberly. However , an academic institution committed to free inquiry cannot enable violate accusations of bigotry to turn into an all-purpose instrument for silencing critical comment. To let such offenses to undermine academic freedom ultimately ensures a feeling of fear and suspicion for many members of this academic community, endangering instead of simply ensuring a respectful and compassionate discourse. Describing the disputed comments in this case as”offensive language in reference to individuals from China” of a part with”hate crimes directed against the Asian and Pacific Islander (API) community [and] racist comment” inevitably creates the belief that judgment has been rendered beforehand and the results of the guaranteed review has been predetermined.
We’re worried that fixing these complaints how you are doing validates student responses and strained interpretations that are bemused, that reflect a lack of critical thinking, and that will chill faculty members’ scholarship and teaching. We sincerely hope it’ll be possible to operate with each other to find a better method.

What is remarkable about that letter is not it states unassailable truths regarding due process and free speech but it had been signed by seven members of their faculty.
The controversy highlights the increasingly frequent position that aim no longer matters if the use of phrases considered offensive, even if used as the foundation for termination. Recently, a New York Times editor was fired for the use of the”n word” although it had been agreed that he had been using it in reaction to some query rather than as a intended slur. Experienced reporter Donald McNeil Jr., was dismissed after the newspaper bowed again to some cancelling campaign.  Does objective no matter, any utterance is potentially a one-strike offense. 
Likewise, we have discussed professors investigated for using the”n-word” in courses for purely pedagogical reasons. Recently, college have been targeted with the expression as a acronym or employing the censored version of the period. 
What is most distressing about the USD controversy is that the combination of a student-led anti-free speech campaign with a mostly silent or passive college.  Many professors are intimidated with these campaigns and do not wish to risk being tagged as insensitive or racist. This type of controversy could end any hope for books or new academic places. So most remain hushed as a colleague can be assaulted for certainly protected speech.  That silence is reinforced by mates such as Schapiro who display little support for either free speech or academic freedom.
I’ve very little doubt that Professor Smith will predominate in this particular controversy. If necessary, he could sue and prevail . However, free speech has lost with all the activities of Schapiro and silence of most of the college. These analyses and public statements produce an obvious (and intended) chilling effect on language. Few academics wish to hazard such general humiliation or focus. Even fewer will risk such situations when administrators show little inclination to defend academics that are targeted this manner.

Like this:Like Loading…