果冻传媒app官方

Table of Contents

Response to professor鈥檚 criticism of 1619 Project reveals misunderstanding of faculty鈥檚 right to speak on public issues

Davidson Hall on the campus of Central Connecticut State University in New Britain, Connecticut.

Central Connecticut State University professor Jay Bergman emailed public school superintendents urging them to exclude The New York Times' 1619 Project from the curricula. His message did not sit well with at least one of the superintendents who received it. (Cynthia Farmer / Shutterstock.com)

Like any member of the public, faculty at public universities have a First Amendment right to comment as citizens on matters of public concern. Nothing about this right requires faculty to keep their university affiliation a secret when they speak in a personal capacity. But that doesn鈥檛 stop others from suggesting otherwise, as demonstrated by the backlash against a professor who criticized The New York Times鈥 鈥.鈥

Earlier this year, Jay Bergman, a professor of history at Central Connecticut State University, the superintendents of the state鈥檚 K-12 public schools, urging them to exclude 鈥淭he 1619 Project鈥 from their history curricula. 鈥淭he 1619 Project鈥 is a initiative that 鈥渁ims to reframe the country鈥檚 history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of our national narrative.鈥 Bergman claimed the project is 鈥渆ntirely false, mostly false, or misleading.鈥 He cited various historians鈥 critiques of the project, called its creator Nikole Hannah-Jones an 鈥渁nti-white bigot,鈥 and challenged what he characterized as the project鈥檚 conclusion that 鈥淎merica today remains irredeemably racist in its institutions, its society, and its national culture.鈥

Bergman sent the emails from his university account, and his email signature mentioned that he is a professor of history at CCSU and a member of the Board of Directors of the National Association of Scholars.

Bergman鈥檚 message did not sit well with at least one of the superintendents who received it. Putnam Public School District Superintendent Daniel Sullivan a letter to the CCSU president and provost, expressing displeasure with Bergman鈥檚 views and the way in which he aired them. 

Despite acknowledging that Bergman 鈥渉as a right to his opinions and to voice his beliefs,鈥 Sullivan found 鈥渢he manner in which he did so extremely inappropriate and that he overstepped boundaries by attempting to dictate what we teach in our schools and questioning our abilities to provide our students with a history curriculum that balances multiple perspectives.鈥 Sullivan denounced Bergman鈥檚 email as 鈥渁 blatant attempt to force his ideology on public schools in Connecticut.鈥 The letter also noted that a 鈥渜uick Google search鈥 of Bergman revealed other 鈥減roblematic鈥 statements he had made in the past. Sullivan said he wanted to make the university aware of Bergman鈥檚 email because, as a university employee, Bergman 鈥渞epresents the state鈥檚 public higher education system.鈥 

The provost replied to Sullivan鈥檚 letter, calling many of Bergman鈥檚 statements 鈥渉ighly objectionable鈥 and stating that they do not reflect the views of the university. 

In May, after a local NBC affiliate reported on the exchanges between Bergman, Sullivan, and university officials, several other CCSU faculty members . Six of Bergman鈥檚 colleagues in the history department, including the interim department chair, wrote an open letter criticizing the views expressed in his message to the superintendents and asserting that his 鈥渙pinions about the schools鈥 curriculum, if he wanted to express them, should have been delivered as a citizen, not as a professor of history opining in an area where he lacks expertise.鈥 The professors all signed the letter with their names and faculty titles.

FIRE has seen this sort of tactic before. Colleges and universities have unduly restricted the speech of faculty and student-employees on matters of public concern under the guise of preventing them from speaking on behalf of the university.

A by the National Association of Scholars quoted various other CCSU faculty members鈥 criticisms of Bergman鈥檚 email. Professor Kristine Larson, for instance, complained that 鈥淒r. Bergman has been publicly spouting his offensive personal politics for years, always hiding behind the protective curtain of a private citizen鈥檚 rights under the First Amendment.鈥 She claimed that Bergman 鈥渃rossed the line鈥 by using his CCSU email account and noting that he is a history professor at CCSU. Larson said Bergman 鈥渄oes not speak for us 鈥 he should stop misleading others into believing that he does.鈥

The issue here lies not with the criticism of Bergman鈥檚 expression. As sure as Bergman鈥檚 message to the superintendents was protected by the First Amendment, so were his critics鈥 condemnations of that message. And Bergman, in turn, has every right to respond to his critics. This exchange of views is what the First Amendment contemplates. 

But the reactions to Bergman鈥檚 email are troubling in other ways.

First, note that Sullivan, the public school superintendent, didn鈥檛 raise his disagreements with Bergman鈥檚 views in a letter to Bergman. Instead, Sullivan wrote a letter to Bergman鈥檚 superiors claiming that his email was 鈥渆xtremely inappropriate鈥 and that he 鈥渙verstepped boundaries.鈥 What exactly did Sullivan want or expect university administrators to do with this information? It鈥檚 hard to escape the conclusion that he was nudging them to take action against Bergman merely for saying things that Sullivan found offensive.

What Sullivan calls Bergman鈥檚 鈥渂latant attempt to force his ideology on public schools鈥 is more reasonably described as a straightforward exercise of his freedom of speech and First Amendment right to petition the government. Bergman, a single individual who has no control over the curriculum of any K-12 public school in Connecticut, did not 鈥渄ictate鈥 or 鈥渇orce鈥 any school districts to do anything. He tried to persuade them with arguments, which Sullivan and the other superintendents were completely free to (and did) reject. Exhorting public officials to take or not take a specific action, or to shape public policy in a certain way, is a fundamental right essential to any representative democracy. And for a public official to respond to a citizen who raises concerns about government policy by reporting him to his employer is egregious.

Second, Sullivan wrongly suggested 鈥 and various faculty members plainly asserted 鈥 that Bergman was speaking not as a citizen but as a university or faculty representative. They are of course free to voice that opinion, but it is mistaken and discouraging to the extent it tries to give the university an 鈥渙ut鈥 to punish Bergman. While the university has a legitimate interest in preventing employees from speaking on its behalf without permission, nothing that Bergman said suggested he was speaking for anyone else. Bergman鈥檚 name was the only one that appeared at the bottom of the email, and no reasonable person would read his message as anything other than an expression of his personal views. 

The law is clear: Faculty members at public universities have a right to speak as citizens on matters of public concern, no matter how greatly their speech offends or annoys others.

Yes, Bergman used his university email account and identified himself as a professor, but it is hardly uncommon for faculty to use their school email accounts for personal business or to mention their academic affiliation when speaking publicly. You don鈥檛 have to look far for another example of this: In their open letter condemning Bergman, all six history professors identified themselves as CCSU faculty. Yet, nobody accused them of speaking on behalf of the university because, as with Bergman鈥檚 email, it鈥檚 obvious they were not purporting to represent others鈥 views. Another professor who was highly critical of the content of Bergman鈥檚 message rightly that Bergman鈥檚 鈥渃hosen method of outreach was not, in my opinion, inappropriate.鈥 

FIRE has seen this sort of tactic before. Colleges and universities have unduly restricted the speech of faculty and student-employees on matters of public concern under the guise of preventing them from speaking on behalf of the university.

To CCSU鈥檚 credit, indicate that Bergman is not facing discipline for his speech. But the university鈥檚 response to Sullivan disappointingly made no mention of its faculty members鈥 freedom of speech and academic freedom. Universities should vigorously defend and support the expressive rights of their faculty.

The law is clear: Faculty members at public universities have a right to speak as citizens on matters of public concern, no matter how greatly their speech offends or annoys others. Sometimes critics, apparently frustrated that they cannot use the coercive power of the state to silence people they disagree with, accuse a speaker of 鈥渉iding behind the First Amendment.鈥 Perhaps they also think that criminal suspects who demand legal representation are 鈥渉iding behind the Sixth Amendment.鈥 But there is nothing shameful about invoking your constitutional rights. And those who lament the constitutional protection of others鈥 speech should appreciate that the viewpoint-neutral application of First Amendment principles is to everyone鈥檚 benefit.

Recent Articles

FIRE鈥檚 award-winning Newsdesk covers the free speech news you need to stay informed.

Share