Sent an email to University officials and the editor at the campus paper. Did I stutter? Addressees, email title, etc (interesting, the forum software deleted the email addresses to which I sent it):
------ Forwarded Message
From: Doug Mitchell <
[email protected]>
Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2009 13:44:42 -0800
To: <
[email protected]>
Cc: <
[email protected]>, <
[email protected]>, <
[email protected]>, <
[email protected]>, <
[email protected]>
Subject: Intentional misconduct by a faculty member reported in the Recorder
Dr. Miller: I was aghast when I read the article in the CCSU campus paper referenced by the link below (full link and TinyURL provided for ease of coming to the correct article).
http://therecorderonline.net/2...tudent-presentation/
http://tinyurl.com/b858xs
I have been involved in the criminal justice system as a student and practitioner for nearly 35 years, starting as a police explorer in my home town. I've been a police officer and prosecutor in two states, published articles and books for law enforcement practitioners, taught my fellow prosecutors on a variety of subjects, and spent a year as a college faculty member teaching criminal justice classes from introductory to highly advanced. As a prosecutor, I performed both criminal prosecution and civil advising duties, including functioning as a police legal advisor. While you may not like or agree with my opinion, there is not the slightest question I am completely qualified to have that option, and you are not likely to find anyone more qualified.
In addition, my wife is a (full) professor of Communication, with a phenomenal record of publications, and student evaluations, and both of her promotions were two years ahead of her technical eligibility. Among other classes, she teaches on First Amendment issues. As she says, one does not have the right not to be offended. She read this article too, and was not favorably impressed with the actions of the faculty member, her academic chain of command, or the University Police. She notes that among other flaws, this is a clear impingement of Mr. Wahlberg's academic freedom.
There was no basis for any part of the action of the faculty member or the University Police. None. Period. Advocating a change in the law which makes others uncomfortable is right in the core of American First Amendment philosophy. It is not merely the privilege, but the RIGHT and obligation of Mr. Wahlberg to espouse the position advocated. In fact, I used to take the same position when I was teaching CJ classes. To have a Communication faculty member deviate so far from clear classic First Amendment protection and violate this student's rights in this manner justifies not less than termination. When I taught the introductory level classes, I worked very hard to get my students to recall the history of the Revolutionary period and how that provides the foundation for a limited government. That is a critical framework for understanding the structure of the criminal justice system. This is JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL level knowledge; it does not require a Ph.D. or JD to teach this correctly. Certainly my students had a better grasp on this than your faculty and subordinates.
Putting aside that I am not aware of any qualified expert who would suggest that Mr. Wahlberg is not correct, if one wishes to disagree with his position, they have the absolute right to do so. The correct manner in which to address this disagreement is in class discussion. What a great example of the marketplace of ideas this could have been - open, aggressive intellectual conflict should be a hallmark of the classroom in the setting here; it is an ethical mandate, not a pathology. Instead, it appears that hoplophobic handwringing won out over academic integrity and excellence, civil rights and the rule of law.
As for the PD, why would they even bother with a non-criminal issue of this sort? It is very frustrating when I see calls on the screen which do not even arguably have a criminal law violation alleged, a public safety need, or any other basis for LE action. I may call the complainant and clarify, but without a lot more I try to avoid going to such a call. In this setting, the actions of the police were probably unlawful, and clearly a massive waste of time. In fact, any officer who does not agree with Mr. Wahlberg's position is presumptively unfit for their position.
I spent several years as a prosecutor in a county in a different part of the state which included a regional comprehensive university. If such an event had occurred there, it was clear that the provision of Washington criminal law which corresponds to a civil rights violation would come into play. One of the consequences of conviction, for both the faculty member and any co-conspirator, including the Dean, Provost, and police department employees, and arguably their legal advisors, is forfeiture of employment, and rightly so. (The prosecution provides all the due process required, and there is no discretion.)
Here, you appear to have had a complete failure of the supervisory chain on both the academic and non-academic side of the University. If the Dean and Provost are not aware of their duty to initiate disciplinary and criminal investigations of the faculty member, there is a critical need for remedial training. If they do not perceive that this faculty member is not even arguably qualified to teach as a result of her failure to understand simple core American values pertaining to the First Amendment, they need to be removed and replaced as soon as possible.
I am not advocating taking action without full investigations (both internal and criminal). Far from it. That is a critical aspect of the Due Process protections applicable to employees. However, this event is a disgrace, and you have an affirmative duty to address it, and to ensure that corrective action is taken. It was such silliness that made the academic world unpalatable to me; the students were a joy, and the only reason I did not walk out after the first quarter. The similar misconduct of the administration, including the Police Department (to which I publicly refer as the "Keystone Stasi", for good cause), showed me I must go back to prosecution, where integrity and intellectual excellence matter. If presented with a similar situation, there is little doubt in my mind that aggressive prosecution and incarceration would be my goal. There is a reason for the signature file I have used here.
Douglas R. Mitchell, JD, MPA
Attorney at Law
P. O. Box 547
Cheney WA 99004-0547
--
"He who does not punish evil commands it to be done." - Leonardo DaVinci
