Posted on 12/08/2004 10:53:18 AM PST by freespirited
NORMAN, Okla., December 7, 2004—The University of Oklahoma (OU) School of Geology and Geophysics has taken academic infighting to a new low in its efforts to silence Professor David Deming, a frequent critic of administrative policy and a politically outspoken faculty member. Professor Deming has filed a federal lawsuit after OU removed him from his department, stripped him of most of his classes, and moved his office to a converted basement lab, all while claiming to respect the principles of academic freedom. Public records requests have uncovered damning evidence that OU administrators schemed to marginalize and isolate him for his attempts at whistleblowing and for his political expression.
“OU’s conduct in this case has been shameful,” remarked David French, president of FIRE. “University e-mails and documents illustrate a conspiracy to silence a colleague whose outspoken views challenge the norm at OU. This is a naked attempt to subvert academic freedom,” he continued.
Professor Deming’s troubles began in February 2000, when OU threatened to punish him for a letter he wrote to the Oklahoma Daily newspaper protesting a column advocating gun control. Read more about this case here. After FIRE wrote in protest and Deming threatened a First Amendment lawsuit, the university dropped the charges in May 2000. Soon thereafter, Roger Slatt, Director of the School of Geology and Geophysics, began to unconstitutionally monitor Deming’s letters to the newspaper and include them in three professional evaluations, until directed to stop by OU President David L. Boren. In June 2003, Boren wrote to Deming, saying, “I fully agree with you that your political views should not be included as a factor in your post-tenure review.”
OU administrators did not confine their persecution of Professor Deming to his political views, however. Deming drew administrative ire when he accused School of Geology officials of a conflict of interest and possible ethical lapses in their decision to hire a new professor who had a close business relationship with Director Slatt and other professors in the department.
Documents obtained through a public records request paint a disturbing story of administrative scheming to eliminate Deming. Click here to read these original documents in PDF format. In a July 24, 2003, e-mail to William Clopine, chair of the Geology Alumni Advisory Council, Dean John Snow of the College of Geosciences wrote, “it is doubly frustrating that President Boren ... has shown such sympathy for Deming.... Somehow I have to convince Roger [Slatt] that he needs to basically ignore and then marginalize Deming.… As long as we keep our i’s dotted and our t’s crossed, all Deming can really do is make noise and cause a bit more paperwork.” He went on, “I firmly believe Deming will finally annoy the President with his whining – it may take a while but it will happen and I want to be here to watch.” He suggested that Clopine have supportive alumni call Slatt with their support, telling him that Slatt should know that “all [Deming] really is a bump on the road [sic].”
Officials at the University proceeded to instigate a campaign by alumni to remove Deming. On July 31, 2003, William Clopine e-mailed OU Geoscience Development Director John Ritz, saying that he had “several big name Alums calling me to ask about meetings with Boren, getting State Representatives involved, and other independent high-level meetings demanding immediate action to support Roger [Slatt],” the administrator most at odds with Deming.
One such “big name Alum” was apparently Bob Stephenson, an Oklahoma City oil executive and major donor to the university. On November 4, 2003, his lawyer wrote to OU Provost Nancy Mergler condemning Deming for “pursuing academic and personal interests outside of and not supportive of the school’s mission,” and supporting “Dr. Slatt and his leadership.” Stephenson, who had never even met Deming, threatened to end his donations to the school if his concerns were not addressed.
This letter from a major donor apparently inspired OU to do what, in a July 3, 2003 letter to Deming, Dean Snow said it could not do—transfer a professor against his will. On December 18, 2003, Snow transferred Deming out of the School of Geology and Geophysics and into a “dean direct” position in the College of Geosciences, making him the only geology professor in the College who was not part of the school. Deming was evicted from his office and forced to obtain permission to teach classes, yet was still responsible for the same teaching, research, service, and recruitment requirements. As these requirements would now be next to impossible to fill, Deming’s job was placed at risk, regardless of tenure.
“OU’s scheming to evade tenure protections and rid itself of a consistent critic of the administration’s policies and politics threatens any professor who relies on tenure as a guarantee of academic freedom,” remarked FIRE Director of Legal and Public Advocacy Greg Lukianoff. “It is distressing that President Boren—after initially protecting Professor Deming’s academic freedom—has allowed these reprisals to occur.”
On July 20, 2004, Professor Deming filed suit against Dean Snow, Director Slatt, and other OU personnel to restore his position in the School of Geology and Geosciences. OU has filed a motion to dismiss, and a ruling on the motion is expected at any time. Deming is represented by attorney Andrew Lester of Lester, Loving & Davies in Edmond, Oklahoma.
FIRE is a nonprofit educational foundation that unites civil rights and civil liberties leaders, scholars, journalists, and public intellectuals from across the political and ideological spectrum on behalf of individual rights, due process, freedom of expression, academic freedom, and rights of conscience at our nation’s colleges and universities. FIRE’s efforts to preserve liberty at the University of Oklahoma and on campuses across America can be viewed at thefire.org.
CONTACT:
Greg Lukianoff, Director of Legal and Public Advocacy, FIRE: 215-717-3473; greg@thefire.org
David French, President, FIRE: 215-717-3473; david.french@thefire.org
Andrew Lester, Lester, Loving & Davies, P.C.: 405-844-9900; alester@lldlaw.com
University of Oklahoma:
David L. Boren, President: 405-325-3916; dboren@ou.edu
Nancy Mergler, Provost: 405-325-3221; nmergler@ou.edu
Roger Slatt, Director, School of Geology and Geophysics: 405-325-4424; rslatt@ou.edu
John Snow, Dean, College of Geosciences: (405) 325-3101; jsnow@ou.edu
Press Release Contact David French, President, FIRE: 215-717-3473; david.french@thefire.org Greg Lukianoff, Director of Legal and Public Advocacy, FIRE: 215-717-3473; greg.lukianoff@thefire.org
All in a day's work for the modern Nazis of political correctness. How are they any different from the Saudi "morals police"?
Being a human target is a tough job, but somebody has to do it.
I'm a woman, and even I have to agree with David Dening's retort. Guns, I think, should be properly registered and controlled, but it doesn't follow suit that one is a killer because one owns a gun. My father never shot anybody with his. I think it's shameful that this esteemed professor has been relegated to a backroom position and location due to his views. It's not as though he's an elementary teacher, for God's sake---he's teaching adults (allegedly), and adults should be able to hear one another's points of view. No matter which side of the political side of the spectrum one is on, this treatment is unthinkable and should be protested. I'll write a letter, you can be sure. (I'm a proud Okie, by the way, and my nephew lives in Norman. I'll get him to write one too.)
How can you reconcile that belief with (I presume) your belief in our Constitution, the Second Amendment in particular.
The proper solution to tenured profs who don't teach well or who don't publish is NOT to remove tenure, but to regain control of the tenure process.
At my university we have had knockdown dragout battles over "acceptable" levels of teaching, with the result being, I think, that several lower-ranked faculty members in my department have improved their teaching, in one case, dramatically.
Maybe speech should be properly registered and controlled....too? Speech is as at least as deadly as guns....both are protected by the Constitution in the Bill of Rights.
No offense, but how is it that you seem to embrace the first and ignore the 2nd.
Exactly. The general anti-tenure stance would have allowed this guy to be fired for his non-academic activities.
Academia is a liberal-demokkkRAT swamp which needs draining, and soon.
Oklahoma is among the "reddest" of states, yet its most prominent university appears to be something of a PC planatation. It sounds as if it is time the Sooner State's legislature reins in OU, threatening its financial base. Additionally, OU alumni should make their voice heard.
there are two ways to reconcile this...
a) that the second amendment's right to bear arms relates specifically to the opening phrase about "a well-regulated militia", and means that the state guards can't be disarmed.
or
b) infringe means to encroach...which Webster defines as "To take another's possessions or rights gradually or stealthily". Gun control is no more taking away a right than banning yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, or prohibiting threatening the life of the president as being examples of "infringing" on freedom of speech.
I would grant that most on this forum would disagree with that...but right now, that is where the court stands. Actually, they are more inclined to permit gun control than example "b" above.
I am personally more inclined to gun control on handguns than on rifles...but only in the sense of waiting periods or registration requirements...not on total bans.
Constitutionally, that's how it can be reasoned...of course, many would disagree...and I will defend your first amendment rights to do so...
;)
Most people who oppose tenure only understand it from the point of view of public schools. It plays a different role in the University system and doesn't make sense at all in public schools. A dirty little secret is that it keeps salaries down. If schools didn't offer tenure, they'd have to offer something else -- money.
I wonder if he is related to Dr. Edwards Deming of post-WWII fame?
As an OU Law School grad, I vowed never to give the school a dime after they refused to allow the JAG corp to do on-campus interviews. I told the law school dean at the time of my intentions and he chuckled. That has not stopped the law school from calling me periodically asking that I help with their latest cause.
Does anyone know where we can find a list of schools that prohibit military recruiting or interviews on their campus? Most OU grads do not know that OU had such a policy.
The "well regulated militia" argument is defunct and not seriously offered by any respected constitutional scholar (hell, even arch-liberal Larry Tribe at Harvard doesn't push that canard anymore).
As for the tortured construction of "infringement," coupled with the cliche reference to "yelling fire in a theater," I must remind you that direct gun control is a prior restraint i.e. you are subject to a proscription to prevent you from doing a thing - while the sanction for the "fire in the theater" is a post offense event. One presumes that you are a criminal for exercising a constitutional right prior to any culpable act and the other is a sanction for a culpable act which involves a constitutional right (speech). A better analogy for gun control vis vis speech is a requirement that persons register and obtain a license for an Internet capable computer to control the illegal distribution of child porn. You logic on gun control follows that same line.
Personally, I think that you are a Serf waiting for his Master to step up and identify himself, but - what the hell do I know. And if it wasn't for the fact that your logic would drag me along with you into serfdom I would not care a wit.
Keith, you are completely misunderstanding the whole of the amendment. The Bill of Rights enumerates the "Rights" of the individual, NOT THE STATE. "Well Regulated" at that time meant "well trained." The "Militia" was the whole of the people of that state, NOT THE STATE'S GUARD.
Try this: "A well educated population being necessary for a free republic, the right of the individual to keep and read books shall not be infringed". Basically, the same logic.
infringe means to encroach...which Webster defines as "To take another's possessions or rights gradually or stealthily". Gun control is no more taking away a right than banning yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, or prohibiting threatening the life of the president as being examples of "infringing" on freedom of speech
Apples and oranges, nice try but no cigar. If only the government had access to television and radio, and the population at large was prohibited from using these tools, do they still have a right to free speech? Yes, but they have no means to express their "free speech", therefore, the right has been "infringed".
If I take away from you the tools needed to exercise your right to self defense, I have essentially taken away your right.
A better example than yelling fire in a crowded theater would be to submit to a local or state board every letter to the editor for approval.
Do you think criminals register their weapons?
julymoon said:
"Guns, I think, should be properly registered and controlled, but it doesn't follow suit that one is a killer because one owns a gun."
Now that is the silliest statemnt I've seen today.
So if you think it doesn't follow suit that one is a killer because one owns a gun, how cna you sit there and say Guns shoudl be "Properly registered and Controlled".
With attitudes like that, you may be happier somewhere else than here at FR.
I heard DU likes those types of positions, try there.
Or maybe you can point out precisely in the Constitution where it says Guns should be Either Registered or Controlled.
What part of "right to bear arms" do you not understand in context of the 2nd Amendment to The Constitution of The United States of America.
Read THIS:
"Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. "
What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED do you not understand.
For someone NEW here like yourself, I wonder what other positions you hold.
Regards,
Joe
Sorry, but the militia was considered to be any person between the age of 16 and 65. The militia is not a state body and the 2nd amendment does not pertain to arming of a militia but the the individuals right to keep and bear arms. IE: the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This is the key phrase and only a liberal would think other wise. As to your second statement that controlling guns is not infringing on a right, How the hell do you figure that? If you make me jump through hoops to buy a gun you are infringing on my rights. Also, the constitution forbids registration of weapons by the government. This has already been ruled on. Your arguments don't hold up.
Go to your home page, you'll see it. Give 'em a little look see.
You're right, I should have let it pass. Someone should re-post the article.
Here is the document by which they are allowed to do so.
In the basic law of 10 February 1995, the Liberal Left is declared to have "the duty to investigate and to combat in the entire country and as every Collage, all tendencies dangerous to the School." The decree issued for the execution of said law will give the Liberal Left the authority to make police investigations in treason, espionage, and sabotage cases, and in other cases of criminal and Right Wing attacks on the schools in the country."
In referring to the above law, the Liberal Left, comments as follows:
"Not the Schools in their outward organic appearance but the tasks of the leadership in the sense of the National-Socialist idea is the object of protection."
The duties of the Liberal Left are described as follows, in an order published by the Chancery of each school:
"To the Liberal Left of Academia has been entrusted the mission by the Leaders to watch over and to eliminate all enemies of the Party and the National Socialist State as well as all disintegrating forces of all kinds directed against both."
"Since the Liberal Academia revolution, all open struggle and all open opposition to the Schools and to the leadership of the said Schools is forbidden, and a Secret School Police as a preventive instrument in the struggle against all dangers threatening the Schools is indissolubly bound up with the National Socialist State."
The successful accomplishment of this mission to strike down the political and ideological opponents of the Left conspiracy was stated in the official magazine of Academia in the following words:
"The Secret School Police by carrying out these tasks, will contribute decisively to the fact that the National Socialist constructive work will be executed in the next ten years without any serious attempts of interference by the political enemies of the nation of Academia."
The methods used by the School Police will limited only by the results obtained.
"The duties of the political police and the necessary means for their performance are not chosen freely but are prescribed by the foe. Just like the operations of an army against the outward enemy and the means to fight this enemy cannot be prescribed, so the political police also must have a free hand in the choice of the means necessary at times to fight the attempts dangerous to the State of Academia."
The Secret School Police will not restricted to the limitations of written law.
"As long as the 'police' carries out the will of the leadership, it is acting legally."
The School Police will be given the express power to take action outside the law in the occupied schools and universities. The laws pertaining to the administration of said schools the will provide that the Faculty and Secret Police will take measures for the maintenance of security and order "even beyond the legal limitation otherwise laid down for this purpose."
The actions and orders of the Left Police will not be subject to judicial review. The decision of the Academia High Court of Administration will hold that the status of the Secret Left as a special police authority removed its orders from the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunals. The court will hold that the only redress available will be by appeal to the next higher authority within the Liberal Left itself.
No on should register any guns.
Throw them a few crumbs and they'll be happy thinking they got the ALL.
I'm so glad my post has stirred such a vigorous debate. I also am interested to see how many have chosen to divine a posture from it.
My "a" and "b" choices are statements of positions that some have taken on gun control. I agree that "a" is, in my opinion, faulty. However, on the question of the militia, one can argue that since GW nationalized the militia to put down the Whisky Rebellion, the militia has been considered to be the national guard. So far, and I do mean SO FAR, the USSC has seen fit to regard privately organized "militia" as permissible.
As for my point "b"...guns can be controlled by the state the same as speech. Anyone who doesn't think speech is controlled should see McCain-Feingold (I think it's unconstitutional, but then, I'm not on the USSC!), try to make a threat against GWB, or observe Howard Stern being fined by the FCC. My government students would be amused at the way my statement here was assaulted...they know I am conservative, and as such, am a strict constructionist. I oppose most gun control, except for restrictions such as registration and airplane flights. I was part of the successful campaign here in Missouri for CCW...so, let's lighten up a bit. I am used to throwing bombs into the discussion in class...perhaps I should have identified my post here as such.
Meanwhile...we should prepare ourselves for the day when the USSC sees the Second Amendment as a protection only for a "militia"....I certainly didn't think CFR would be sanctioned.
Kisses to all...
K
'Your neck of the woods' ping
"Laws prevent law abiding people from doing things. They have very little effect on violent criminals."
...so let's legalize drugs...and unlimited immigration...and prostitution...and drinking and driving...
To me, this is an intellectual discussion...most of the rulings on this are settled law..."they" are not coming to "grab our guns."
[steps back to watch the blood flow]
<----Gives advice to keith...
Begin each of your posts with INcoooommmiiinngggg.... :-)
Yeah, so that bad people like those red state hillbillies can't get them!
Don't you understand that that is the first step to confiscation and banning?
you are soooooo right...but I have been on this forum long enough to know that.
We register people...cars...homes...even phones...and we get all bitchy about registering guns...
After some of the examples in history, I understand the paranoia...I truly do. Fact is...the USSC has approved it. It's settled law. And unlike Scott v. Sanford, Plessy v. Ferguson, or Betts v. Brady, it's unlikely to be overturned.
Canadians fell for that. After government guarantees their guns would not be confiscated guess what....
In·fringe- To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate. To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing: an increased workload that infringed on his personal life.
http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a3984a384160b.htm
"...Shall Not Be Infringed." an ESSAY
Hehe. True. My thought was always that I would survive and prosper even without tenure, because my teaching evals are high to very high, and no one in the university can touch my publication record. But now I'm starting to think that with the changing political climate (UD is about 20 years behind the "mainstream" universities), my position would not be safe due to politics.
"...so let's legalize drugs...and unlimited immigration...and prostitution...and drinking and driving..."
All those things have some level of adverse effects, though the level of harm is debatable in some cases.
Gun ownership doesn't harm anyone, and guns are very often used for a possitive effect by law abiding citizens.
With drinking and driving you're showing a negligent disregard for the safety of others.
If you're drunk and negligently waving a gun around, that would equate to drunk driving, and should also be illegal.
Prostitution has issues with public health concerns and with breaking down social bonds that help maintain a strong society. It's definately debatable if it's the government's place to regulate it, but since it doesn't have the possitive effects that gun ownership has, it's not really a comparable issue.
Then there's the issue of drugs.
They can have possitive medicinal uses, but in general they tend to be very harmful long term, and addiction compounds the problem.
I think there is justification for regulating alcohol.
I think there is justification for prohibiting the use of extremely harmful and addictive drugs other than for controlled medicinal use.
The currently illegal drug that appears to fall outside that is pot. I think we should do more investigation into the long term effects of THC and it's medicinal benefits.
Once again, I'm not seeing how this issue really compares to gun ownership.
Academia is getting even more liberal, IMHO. First, immigration is driving salaries down. I wouldn't be an academic if I didn't have this disease that forces me to do mathematics. Second, baby boomer profs are enforcing litmus tests. Third, we have wussy programs like ethnic and womens' studies and even in established departments, the "hot topics" are of these highly political types. Fourth, the "hot topics" in the sciences include some politically motivated ones -- global warming -- and tend toward the softer sciences -- biology instead of physics.
Registration is the first step, control follows; confiscation is the final step. Like the Libs say about outlawing partial birth abortion being the first step to outlawing all abortion, one case in which I hope that they are right!
Ya, these people can't even stay on the topic. They are so weak minded and incapable of entering into a legitimate debate that they must switch the subject matter by playing the gender card.
"Gun ownership doesn't harm anyone, and guns are very often used for a possitive effect by law abiding citizens."
Car registration?
Out of curiousity...how often does a gun registration come into play in the prosectution of a gun death? Just curious...not even fishing for an expected answer...just curious...
I agree. In our history dept. when I came there were two "sensible liberals" who didn't do a lot of research but who were not activists, yet were good teachers. There were 2-3 other quiet liberals, who weren't particularly good teachers and did very little research, but neither were they activists; then there were two "political" types who were quite left, but not radical. However, their influence on search committees (one, ironically, that hired me and another that hired a conservative Christian Democrat from the south) resulted in a slow stacking of feminists and third-worlders. Once those people got on the search committees, it was all over.
I just got back after working all day, and saw the plethora of posts. Hot potato issue! Rather than boring you all with a lengthy defense, I'll just say this: Ditto Keith.
And Post #46 is why some people just shouldn't have guns! Better than registration, I think there should be enforced IQ testing: no guns and forced sterilization if you don't pass. Out of the gene pool!
Thank July...put on your flak vest...incoming...
Don't mention it. In the midst of all the gunfire (!), we forgot to remember that this was originally about the Professor's demerit. I still intend to write to the university about this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.