NWU Letter to President Copping

Dear President Copping:

According to our constitution, "the National Writers Union is committed to freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and freedom of expression in all media." We oppose all actions at colleges and universities, both private and public, that limit or punish the speech of students, faculty, or other employees. Thus we must express grave concerns about an ongoing incident occurring at the University of New Orleans involving Professor Edward M. Miller.

We write to you not as advocates for Dr. Miller, but rather as advocates for freedom of speech and intellectual and academic freedom. The most salient facts, as we understand them, are as follows. If any of these facts are in error, please inform us so that we may weigh any evidence to the contrary.

Recently, Dr. Miller (a Research Professor of Economics and Finance) wrote a letter to a New Orleans weekly, The Gambit, taking issue with what he considered factual errors in an early July Gambit column attacking David Duke. Dr. Miller's letter argues that evidence shows a positive correlation between head size and intelligence, that there are racial differences in brain weight, and that there are significant racial differences in IQ scores. Dr. Miller's letter was on personal stationery. Dr. Miller, in a cover letter, stated that his university position was "given for purposes of identification only," that "the author is expressing his own (expert) opinion," that "The University of New Orleans need not agree with opinions expressed above." Dr. Miller further states that "He was the winner of a Mensa Education and Research Award for Excellence for his research on intelligence, and is the author of several articles on intelligence and/or racial differences." He then included a bibliography of 11 papers he has published over the past five years. The Gambit published Dr. Miller's letter on July 23.

When Dr. Miller's letter was published a controversy ensued. (This, of course, is well and good. The search for truth demands controversy.) Those disagreeing with Dr. Miller, unfortunately, appeared more interested in silencing him than in refuting him. Shortly after publication of his letter, for example, Dr. Miller received a letter from the Provost stating that Miller had violated Administrative Procedure (AP) 47.5, which states:

The private use of official University insignia, stationery, envelopes, etc. by members of the UNO faculty or staff is prohibited for the following uses:

...2. The expression of personal opinion or endorsements in letters to the news media, elected officials, etc., except in areas of one's professional competence. In these matters the employee should be guided by standards of professional conduct appropriate to his/her field.

All individuals are entitled to express their views but not to use their association with the University to lend unwarranted weight to those views. (Driftwood, July 25, 1996.)

Moreover, In a letter to the Times-Picayune, University of New Orleans Chancellor Gregory O'Brien states, "the university will not tolerate anyone's use of the classroom as a forum to promote racial disharmony." (A most alarming statement and one that we shall return to presently.)

Dr. Miller informs us that he met with the Chancellor to discuss what he considered serious infringements of his academic freedom. Dr. Miller informs us that this meeting was not productive, and that the Chancellor was not receptive to Dr. Miller's complaint. We are eager to hear Chancellor O'Brien's account of this meeting and will reserve judgment until we do so. Nevertheless, we believe that Dr. Miller sought redress of grievance through established channels.

As of this writing, there is no prosecution of Dr. Miller ongoing under AP 47.5 Several of his publications, and several books (such as Christopher Brand's The g Factor), however, have been removed from the reserve shelves of the university library. (This response certainly smacks of book banning.)

Some of the published letters on the matter, especially that of Chancellor O'Brien, border on character assassination. Non-libelous character assassination, of course, is protected speech and Chancellor O'Brien has the right to express himself any way he wishes. But in his letter, the Chancellor explicitly states that he speaks for the University of New Orleans and his letter will certainly have a chilling effect on other faculty members who may wish to express controversial views. Dean Caldwell, who in her letter to the Driftwood had falsely stated that Dr. Miller had spoken on behalf of the University, goes on to say that "There is no way that a professor who holds such beliefs can teach African Americans. I hope that Black students are steered away from Miller's classes." Again, we defend the Dean's right to express herself as she wishes, but we suggest that a more temperate approach on the part of a University official might be more productive. Refutation is a far more effective tactic than an ad hominen attack.

Because of Dr. Miller's publishing history, it could reasonably be argued that Chancellor O'Brien is much more in violation of AP 47.5 than is Dr. Miller. Our major concern, however, is that AP 47.5 is unconstitutional and therefore patently illegal at a public university. A state school cannot demand of its faculty that they abandon their rights guaranteed them by the First Amendment. A public university cannot legally restrict a faculty member from expressing opinions outside the "areas of one's professional competence." A professor's title and employer are matters of public record. A public university has no right to demand that faculty members expressing views conceal this information in order not to "use their association with the University to lend unwarranted weight to those views". Universities must limit who may act as official spokespeople. But enforcing AP 47.5 requires making purely subjective and speculative judgments about a person's motives when revealing his or her job title.

AP 47.5 would never be upheld in court. In our experience, we have yet to encounter such a rule that was not selectively enforced. Had Dr. Miller written the Gambit contending that there are no racial differences in intelligence, no one would have threatened him under AP 47.5. We urge you, therefore, to begin work to ensure its removal. For if AP 47.5 is enforced, especially if it is enforced selectively, a legal challenge is inevitable. It would be a pointless waste of the taxpayers' money for the University to engage in an expensive and futile legal battle to preserve an unconstitutional rule that should be an embarrassment to any institution that cares about intellectual freedom.

Also, we ask that you discuss with Chancellor O'Brien his previously quoted statement, "the university will not tolerate anyone's use of the classroom as a forum to promote racial disharmony." We suspect that this statement was well intended, but that Chancellor O'Brien had not thought through its consequences.

For example, courses in Black Studies are offered at the University of New Orleans. In presenting the history of American racism, African-American students may become justifiably angry, and this anger could be said to promote "racial disharmony." Indeed, many Black Studies programs and teachers within Black Studies departments have already found themselves embroiled in public controversy, and disciplined or removed from their positions, precisely for promoting "racial disharmony." Those who expose students to the Afro-Centric position are probably the most vulnerable. But even teachers who were to show the excellent documentary, Eyes on the Prize, could find themselves dismissed by Chancellor O'Brien were he to follow his publicly stated policy consistently. (As a matter of fact, the showing of this documentary was recently suspended at a Boston-area public school on precisely these grounds.) Chancellor O'Brien, in short, has inadvertently put his foot in his mouth.

Few developments of the past decades have saddened us as much as the erosion of freedom of expression and academic and intellectual freedom at our institutions of higher learning. As campuses diversified, new tensions arose. Rather than meet these tensions head on and in a responsible manner, college administrators instead took the easy way out and relied upon that old tired tactic, censorship. Speech codes sprung up everywhere, and faculty were muzzled with absurd rules such as AP 47.5. Administrators tried to silence controversy because they believed that controversy was bad for business. In so doing, they forgot what the proper business of a college or university really is.

No reasonable person disputes that the promotion of social harmony, racial or otherwise, is a good and worthy goal. But it is not, and should not be, the primary goal of a university. More importantly, universities must instill respect for the free market of ideas. And all free intellectual markets are, by their very nature, not in the least bit harmonious. In the Chancellor's letter to the Picayune, the only (and distressingly weak) concession made to free speech is in his assertion that the University of New Orleans "will be a place...where ideas can be exchanged and debated and, most important, where equality and diversity are valued." (Our italics.) For the Chancellor of a public university to state explicitly that valuing equality and diversity at his university is more important than the free exchange of ideas is most troubling indeed!

All censorship is predicated on the assumption that some ideas are so dangerous that they must be suppressed. Some ideas are dangerous because they are true; others, because they are false. But the proper response to false ideas is refutation, not censorship. The protections guaranteed by the First Amendment are by no means limited to the expression of thought and ideas that promote racial harmony. Such speech needs no legal protection. The whole intent of the First Amendment is to protect the speech of people, such as Dr. Miller, whose ideas are controversial. Those who disagree with him should refute him, but not attempt to silence him.

We have no wish to interfere in the internal affairs of the University of New Orleans. But when universities assert the right to police speech (and, by implication, thought) it becomes a matter of vital concern to each and every member of the National Writers Union. Our union represent over 4,300 freelance writers nationwide. We are proud to be affiliated with the United Auto Workers as UAW Local 1981 AFL-CIO. We are journalists, book authors, poets, writers of short fiction, business and technical writers, academics, cartoonists, and workers in all genres. Our membership comprises some of the most distinguished names in American letters. Our livelihood depends upon the First Amendment's protection of freedom of expression.

We apologize for this letter's length. But the underlying issues are of urgent importance. We look forward to hearing your thoughts on these important matters.

Sincerely,

Robert B. Chatelle, Co-Chair, Political Issues Committee

cc: Judith Krug, American Library Association; Anne Green, People For the American Way; Ann Beeson, American Civil Liberties Union; Leanne Katz, National Coalition Against Censorship; David Mendoza, National Campaign for Freedom of Expression; Declan McCullagh; Justice on Campus; other members of the Free Expression Network; Professor Edward M. Miller; Chancellor Gregory O'Brien; Associate Dean Janet Caldwell; Laura A. Leach, Chair, LSU System Board of Supervisors; other officers of Louisiana State University; The Gambit; The Times-Picayune; Driftwood; Nat Hentoff, Village Voice and Washington Post; Harvey Silverglate, Boston Phoenix; The Wall Street Journal; other members of the press.