A recent incident has people talking about professorial free speech, namely the decision by the University of Illinois to revoke a job offer (to teach in its American Indian studies program) because of his astoundingly intemperate statements regarding Israel on twitter. The AAUP is upset, stating, “We stand by Professor Salaita and defend his right to engage in extramural utterances. The University of Illinois cannot cancel an appointment based upon Twitter statements that are protected speech in the United States of America.”
In this RealClearPolitics piece, Carl Cannon comments, “So there you have it. Keeping a college teaching job in this country is a constitutional right. Never mind whether it’s in the interests of the students or the university. Under this theory, tenured professorships are lifetime gigs with more job security than federal judgeships. But many people holding them don’t act like impartial judges — they act like unhinged advocates.” Cannon goes on to recount quite a few other recent cases that support his point.
The First Amendment says that Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech and the Supreme Court has long held that state governments and their institutions are bound by that limitation too. It does not say that state institutions cannot decline to employ someone on account of intemperate statements that call into question his fitness for a job.
This is a difficult area for making bright line rules. We don’t want academics to feel that their employment hangs by a thread that’s easily cut on the basis of a statement that someone in authority finds objectionable. But neither do we want colleges bound to employ or continue to employ academics who say vicious things in or out of the classroom. I can only say that it would probably be better for institutions to write contracts that spell out as clearly as possible what speech (and conduct) is grounds for sanctions or termination.