Angry in the Great White North

From the Washington Post:

When part-time college student Jihad Daniel received a campuswide e-mail invitation to see a movie about lesbians, he balked.

"These are perversions," he replied to the e-mail's sender, asking that he no longer be sent information about "Connie and Sally" or "Adam and Steve."

The next thing he knew, the 68-year-old student at William Paterson University in Wayne, N.J., was accused of violating the state school's anti-discrimination policy.

He received a letter of reprimand.

A letter of reprimand? To a student? That doesn't sound quite right.

In any case, Daniel took the issue to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, sort of an ACLU but focused on campus issues, and apparently far more consistent and even-handed than the ACLU.

I went to their website to see what the real story was.

Here's the original email:

Please do not hit reply.

Women's History Month
Film & Discussion: Ruthie and Connie: Every Room in the House, a lesbian relationship story
Date: March 9, 2005
Time: 7-9 pm
Place: Library Auditorium
Sponsor: Women's Studies Department

Contact person: ...

OK, so the Women's Studies Department sends out spam. There is nothing overtly political here, no declaration of the need for a particular piece of legislation, no demand that heterosexuals change their attitutudes or churches change their doctrine.

It's a movie announcement. How about movies announcements for a showing of "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" followed by a short talk by the History Department of the various stories that surround the Holy Grail?

It seems like Jihad Daniel was offended by someone mentioning that lesbians exist. Here's his complaint:

Do not send me any mail about “Connie and Sally” and “Adam and Steve”. These are perversions. The absence of God in higher education brings on confusion. That is why in these classes the Creator of the heavens and the earth is never mentioned.

Well, we don't know what the movie was going to say, if anything, about God. He voices his opinion about the role of religion in higher education, which you may or may not agree with. The target of the letter, Professor Arlene Scala, the contact person for the original email announcement, writes to the president:

I am writing to you in response to an email to the email message that was sent to me by a WPU employee. I don't know this person. This email was sent in response to an ANNOUNCEMENT email about a Women's Studies sponsored event...I indicated that the film is about a lesbian relationship.

Mr. Daniel's message to me sounds threatening and in violation of our University non-discrimination policy. I don't want to want to feel threatened at my place of work when I send out announcements about events that address lesbian issues. I think that Mr Daniel needs ot be informed that he has violated University policy.

This is a key email.

First point, and this is critical. Despite what the Washington Post believes, Jihad Daniel is identified as an employee, and not a student. As such, the issue of free speech is applied differently. The principle of free speech is, of course, a restriction on the government from restricting the speech of citizens. A private institution has much more leeway in regulating the speech of employees in the workplace.

FIRE recognizes Jihad Daniel's dual status:

Jihad Daniel is a professional services specialist who has worked for William Paterson for about fifteen years and is currently also a student pursuing a master’s degree in communications and media studies at the university.

The letter of reprimand is aimed at Jihad Daniel the employee, not Jihad Daniel the student:

Mr Jahad Daniel
Information Systems
William Paterson Univeristy

Dear Mr Danel...

The body of the letter is entirely written from the point of view of an employer disciplining an employee, not an educational institution disagreeing with the thoughts of a student. The letter of reprimand was going into Jihad Daniel's employee file, and there is no mention of Jihad Daniel's transcript being affected.

This is not an example of a student being told to toe the politically correct line along with the majority of the student body and faculty.

This is an example of an employee being told that he crossed the line in the way in which he communicates with fellow employees.

Bottom line, the Washington Post utterly misses this aspect the story. It's incredibly important, because the it raises questions about how an organization deals with someone who enjoys dual status as an employee and as a customer of that organization's services. When that organization is an institution of higher education, the complications are even worse.

Did Professor Scala know that Jihad Daniel was a student as well as an employee? Was the distribution list that carried the movie announcement go to students, to employees, or to both? How exactly did Professor Scala feel threatened, instead of merely offended? As a student, Daniel has the right to offend, but perhaps not as an employee.

Which takes precedence -- employee or student? Is it always the same? Daniel is a full-time employee and a part-time student. Is he taking advantage of employee breaks on tuition to take his courses? Does that mean that even as a student, he is still treated as an employee? What if he chose to pay the full cost of his education without taking advantage of employee breaks? As an employee, is he obligated to behave in a manner consistent with being an employee whenever he is on univeristy grounds, even if he is functioning as a student? Is he expected to set an example as an employee? Can the university expect that of employee-students? Does the university earn the right to make that demand when it gives employees a break on education costs?

This is a complex case that touches on a number of workplace issues.

I believe that both Daniel and Scala are guilty of massive overreaction. You might see Daniel's status of a student trumping his restrictions as a employee. Or vice versa. Or something in between. Questions like whether he received the film announcement on a student distribution list or an employee distribution list, or a combined list, still haven't been answered, or the best of my knowledge, even asked.

But you wouldn't know any of this if you depend on the Washington Post for your news and analysis. A case of dowdification? Definitely, for some reason to make William Paterson University look bad, or more likely, to make the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education look good.

What a crappy paper.