Deseret News | Professors fear erosion of the freedom of speech

Reader comments
Professors fear erosion of the freedom of speech

James from UVU | 6:17 p.m. Nov. 13, 2009

I was there for Michael Moore controversy. The real reason we were angry is because the student rules/constitution said we would only pay $40,000 for a speaker. But we ended up paying more, which amounted to breaking the rules. Watching Moore's movies you can easily and clearly see the bias and poor documentary-ship, but then he also brought up good points. THAT is the freedom that America was based upon. Freedom to speak and not fear prison or other forms of punishment. Our forefathers escaped/fled from Europe due to the suppression and control that choked out a Man's life.

Now we have become the country our Forefathers fought against.

Employee's rights. | 5:40 a.m. Nov. 14, 2009

Regardless of whether a person is a public employee or private citizen this right of speech applies to all. Even a public employee is obligated by their duties to america and public trust speak out if they see wrong doings. This freedom of speech is exemplified in the fraud, waste, and abuse laws to protect public and private employee's from persecution for reporting it. And I think a wrongful warrant qualifies as an abuse to be reported.

The difference in this case is it involves some highly placed individuals in government and judicial system (judge and prosecutor and police department). The freedom of speech applies in all workplaces, government and private, as well as the fraud, waste, and abuse reporting laws.

Matthew | 11:10 a.m. Nov. 14, 2009

This freedom of speech issue is enough to make me want to remain as a private citizen and never work for the government.

If more people go to work for the feds or the states, the government will have that much more control over the populace in general.

Two words about government social programs: unintended consequences.

Comments continue below

Selective Free Speech | 4:10 p.m. Nov. 14, 2009

These professors that are demanding freedom of speech are likely the same ones that will step on the freedom of others when others disagrees with them, whether student or administrator. There is a bit of that going around these days at Universities, thankfully not much in Utah.

No freedom of speech | 6:28 a.m. Nov. 16, 2009

Try your free speech against so-called man-made global warming and see how far you get with your peers, professor.

Roger S. | 6:29 a.m. Nov. 16, 2009

In worrying about what might happen, these professors are letting their imaginations get the best of them. Rather than be Chicken Littles, as long as their employer is a government entity they should either (1) come up with some concrete instance of their freedoms being impaired, or (2) get a job with a private institution.

Professor Abbott once worked for BYU, which he left because he was afraid his liberty to say and do what he wants was too limited. Now, at a state-run university, he is still at it. It's past time he got comfortable with the fact that no matter where he works, his freedom to do and say what he wants is going to be limited.

University Hate Speech | 7:05 a.m. Nov. 16, 2009

codes are a violation of the first amendment. Numerous "higher education" institutions seem to think its their responsiblity to make sure no one's feelings are hurt. This article mentions professors freedom of speech, but says nothing about students freedom of speech. Not a concern to them?

The Rock | 10:30 a.m. Nov. 16, 2009

University Professors have hidden behind academic freedom as they systematically work to destroy this nations and the freedoms contingent upon our constitution.

They are public employees. As a tax payer and a parent who pays tuition I am offended that my money is being used to finance the destruction of the nation I love.

Liberal professors only present one side of any public issue. Those who present a different point of view, even in a respectful manner, frequently get lower marks than those who agree with them.

Professors should be required to keep to the subject they are supposed to be teaching. They should be required to give equal time to opposing view points. Political indoctrination should be a firing offense.

The LDS church spends millions at BYU to further the goals of the church. This is their right. If a professor begins to oppose those very goals, is the university obligated to finance opposing voices? I think not. Those who work for BYU knew what they were getting into when they hired on.

Blaine | 10:50 a.m. Nov. 16, 2009

Free speech is one thing. Teaching is another. Indoctrination is yet another. When in the classroom, college professors must stick to the syllabus and the subject matter of the class. Outside the classroom and off the payroll, they they may express their political and religious opinions however they wish. At least one Utah Valley University English professor spends more time on political rants than she does on teaching writing skills. This is unacceptable!

Pagan | 10:52 a.m. Nov. 16, 2009

'Professors should be required to keep to the subject they are supposed to be teaching.'

But how can a professor keep to the topic if a student ask's questions about other things? Should a professor not have an opinion?

Rock, your logic confuses me as you say it's bad for professors to talk about anything but the subject but THEN say it's ok for BYU to do it. (As, 'they knew what they were getting into.')

I have often had the talk with teachers where they, by memory, read the legal disclaimer: 'I cannot talk about this subject further, as I could be fired.'

If the professor talks about it on they're time, I say it should be allowed. If it is something against the 'policies' of the institution, then don't speak out against them AT the location. However, it makes them no less a professor, no less passionate about the topic.

What kind of 'free' country are we when we deny the ability to ask questions or form opinions?

Everyone should be treated equally. Even the ones at BYU.

JM | 10:57 a.m. Nov. 16, 2009

I went to BYU, the U and others. There was much more freedom at BYU than the public schools. At the U I was given a lot of misinformation about Mormons, but wasn’t allowed to speak out in defense. Mormons were asked to raise their hands and were singled out for ridicule. I wrote a paper solving the problem of evil, and was given a bad grade because I quoted Joseph Smith, the instructor admitted anti “religious bias.” One philosophy professor spent the entire quarter failing at trying to prove that God doesn’t exist. I’m fine with that, but what is not ok is that if he were to try to prove God did exist the ACLU would be there with a gag and lawsuit. There is a lack of freedom and dictating of curriculum in public schools. Orwell’s pink piggies are alive and well.

How to destroy America | 11:51 a.m. Nov. 16, 2009

1. Get anti-American professors into chairmanships of Journalism, Law and Education, at Ivy League Universities (Done).
2. Grant tenure only to other anti-American professors. (Done)
3. Mark down patriots to prevent them from getting into graduate schools and therefore obtaining chairmanships and other positions of influence and leadership. Some conservatives might slip through but rule 3 (above) will take care of that.
4. Indoctrinate students to the leftist way of thinking. Create a hostile environment for conservatives so they will leave.

Only liberals will graduate with degrees in education or journalism and they will fill our schools and classrooms.

Abraham Lincoln said; "Those principles taught in the classroom in one generation become public policy in the next." You will not have to wait long before "Academic Freedom" destroys your nation.

You will not have long to wait before an entire nation thinks that the rich should give everything they have to the poor. (From each according to their ability...)
Some may even think they have a right to health care placing all medical professionals into involuntary servitude.

Oh, darn. It has already happened.

G | 12:00 p.m. Nov. 16, 2009

"If the professor talks about it on they're time, I say it should be allowed. If it is something against the 'policies' of the institution, then don't speak out against them AT the location. "

Out in the real world, if people associate you with a place of employment you are a representative 24/7/365, no such thing as off time.

That's why pictures on the internet of what certain people do on the weekends can and do result in firings.

Some government jobs are the same, for example if you want to work in the US Foreign Service (at embassies, ambassador staffs, etc) you are obligated to publicly support ALL current US policies and US officials and elected politicians at all times, in the office and at weekend social parties. People that can't are expected to resign.

You can think whatever you want, but some jobs involve you being a figurehead of something else, and with those jobs towing the line is part of your contract.

20/20 | 1:02 p.m. Nov. 16, 2009

Scott Abbott, UVU: "I could imagine a whole culture where people are afraid to say what they think."

Professor,your imagination has taken form, and it is the U.S. system of higher education. Dominated by liberal secular progressives, college classrooms of today resemble re-education camps far more than classic universities. Conformity to radical ideologies is a defacto requirement for passing most courses.
My daughter is afraid to speak up against the radical gay/lesbian agenda promoted in almost every class in her university major, for fear of grade retaliation by the faculty.
I hope you're proud of the "academic freedom" you and your peers have created, Mr. Abbott.

Matthew the 2nd | 3:48 p.m. Nov. 16, 2009

20/20 has it right. Though not currently a professor, I have been at two different universities. Academic freedom is a very good thing. The problem is that those that pound on their chests about it the most tend to be the ones that are really the most dogmatic about what is and isn't acceptable. US universities have become excessively moribund in the diversity and creativity of thought, research and expression that is "accepted." For many, science has become a religion yet they are blinded to that fact.
While Scott Abbott left BYU for supposed lack of academic freedom, the fact is that professors there are free to express numerous ideas in the classroom that would not be tolerated at many universities that are supposed to be shining examples of academic freedom. All universities need to be very mindful, and cautious, about all ways in which freedom of thought and expression are limited. The limits will allows be there, but ignore them at your peril.

Niel | 12:04 a.m. Nov. 17, 2009

So much for freedom of speech, where pornography is better protected than are children. C.S. Lewis said it well:

"The use of Fashions in thought is to distract the attention of men from their real dangers. We direct the fashionable outcry of each generation against those vices of which it is least in danger and fix its approval on the virtue nearest to that vice which we are trying to make endemic. The game is to have them running about with fire extinguishers whenever there is a flood, and all crowding to that side of the boat which is already nearly gunwale under. Thus we make it fashionable to expose the dangers of enthusiasm at the very moment when they are all really becoming worldly and lukewarm; a century later, when we are really making them all Byronic and drunk with emotion, the fashionable outcry is directed against the dangers of the mere "understanding". Cruel ages are put on their guard against Sentimentality, feckless and idle ones against Respectability, lecherous ones against Puritansm; and whenever all men are really hastening to be slaves or tyrants we make Liberalism the prime bogey."

Chris Foster | 11:08 a.m. Nov. 17, 2009

I've noticed that a lot of the comments confuse being criticized for expressing one's views (which falls under the speech rights of the criticizer) and being fired (or demoted, etc.) for expressing one's views. It's an important distinction.

No one in academia (that I am aware of) is opposed to people's right to criticize opposing viewpoints (e.g. global warming, religion, etc.); the issue concerned here is whether public institutions should be allowed to fire people for expressing certain views.

Part of the purpose of a university is to be a place where competing views (and criticisms thereof) can be freely expressed by scholars. I hope that clarifies things and some of the reasons why scholars like Scott Abbott choose to stick up for academic freedom.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.