A BGSU faculty has been suspended for sending out an email criticizing BGSU hiring decisions.
Below is the text from the Academe Blog.
UT-AAUP Executive Board
_______________________________________________
The Crime of Email at Bowling Green State University
By JOHN K. WILSON
Christian Coons, an associate professor of philosophy at Bowling Green State University, has been suspended and faces a hearing on March 20 that could lead to his dismissal. His crime? Sending emails to his colleagues about his department’s alleged past misconduct in hiring decisions. A university is seriously considering the dismissal of a tenured professor for sending some emails to his colleagues that they didn’t like.
The controversy began in 2015, when the department hired a professor and Coons felt the candidate did not meet the qualifications for a history of philosophy position. Coons was told that “the application alone leaves out critical information that is very important,” and he soon found out what was so important about this professor. In 2019, that professor helped the department receive a $1.6 million grant from the libertarian Charles Koch Foundation. Coons has expressed his view that the Koch money corrupted the hiring process in the department and continues to occasionally raise these concerns in emails to colleagues. Coons is not crazy to think that Koch money could corrupt academic values. There is overwhelming evidence of how the Koch Foundation at the time used its funding to influence academia, including (as one Institute for Humane Studies proposal to Koch put it) using “trusted faculty” who “acted as our agents.”
There is no doubt that Coons’ colleagues and the administration are annoyed at him and would prefer he shut up about the past disputes. Unfortunately for them, both academic freedom and the First Amendment do not allow their preferences to be imposed on Coons.
Coons is accused of three crimes: sending emails to faculty who didn’t want to receive them, insubordination for violating an order not to send emails, and violating a provision in the union contract urging faculty to show “respect” toward others.
First, there is no right not to receive email. People are perfectly free to ignore Coons, but not to silence him. What Coons wrote does not meet a harassment standard.
Second, there is no subordination because there was never a direct no-contact order to Coons that sending emails would violate campus policies. (Indeed, in a Feb. 1, 2023, email that led to his suspension, Coons wrote, “I still need a rule for the emails I can’t send you. I’ve asked for guidance from everyone, and no one will share any rules.”) And there wasn’t a direct order because a ban on sending emails is not legal.
The third charge against Coons is more complex, but equally implausible. Coons is accused of violating a provision of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) stating that faculty “should be respectful toward all members of the university community and are prohibited from any oral, written, or physical actions that: (a) have the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s employment or professional performance; and/or (b) have the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, offensive, or abusive climate for an individual’s employment, academic pursuits, living environment, or participation in a University activity.” Obviously, saying that faculty “should” be “respectful” is not enforceable, but creating a hostile climate is prohibited. Still, it’s hard to imagine how unwanted emails from someone powerless to do anything can be deemed a hostile climate. (Coons’ critics and the administration, by seeking to have him punished for his emails, have much more clearly violated this rule by creating an intimidating climate for Coons.)
It’s important to point out that the rule in the CBA is actually illegal. As BGSU’s Freedom of Expression policy points out, Ohio state law compels universities to strictly follow specific required language for any harassment policy such as this. Any alleged harassment must not be protected by the First Amendment (Coons’ email opinions clearly are) and must be “so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively denies an individual equal access to the individual’s education program or activity.” It is hard to imagine how Coons’ emails deny anyone equal access to anything on campus.
Even if Bowling Green officials come to their senses and realize that whistleblowers cannot be fired simply because their charges annoy the people they accuse, enormous harm to academic freedom has still occurred. Coons was banned from teaching his classes in the middle of the semester (despite no allegations of any problems with his teaching), banished from stepping foot on campus, and prohibited from any contact via email or phone with people on campus (except specific administrators concerning his hearing). The letter banning him says it was because his emails have “prompted safety concerns.” However, none of the charges against him mention any safety issues. If there actually was a safety concern from his emails, he should have been charged with endangering someone’s safety. He was not.
A suspension and banishment are very serious penalties, and should not be used against anyone presumed innocent of charges unless there is actual evidence of a physical threat to the campus or immediate harm to the rights of others. By suspending and banning Coons, Bowling Green has violated his academic freedom to teach his classes, the freedom of students to hear his ideas, and the right of Coons to contact people on campus about his case. By suspending Coons on false pretenses, Bowling Green is causing a chilling effect to all campus critics who wish to dissent, since mere unsupported allegations can be used to justify severe penalties and a coerced public shunning.
Bowling Green needs to reject the idea that professors can be fired for critical emails, and fix procedures to ensure that investigations of protected speech (and preemptive suspensions) never happen again. If Bowling Green fires Coons for making allegations of corruption, they will prove he was right.