Happy Father's Day!

"That our democracy ultimately rests on public opinion is a platitude of speech but not a commonplace in action. Public opinion is the ultimate reliance of our society only if it be disciplined and responsible. It can be disciplined and responsible only if habits of open-mindedness and of critical inquiry are acquired in the formative years of our citizens. The process of education has naturally enough been the basis of hope for the perdurance of our democracy on the part of all our great leaders, from Thomas Jefferson onwards.

"To regard teachers—in our entire educational system, from the primary grades to the university—as the priests of our democracy is therefore not to indulge in hyperbole. It is the special task of teachers to foster those habits of open-mindedness and critical inquiry which alone make for responsible citizens, who, in turn, make possible an enlightened and effective public opinion. Teachers must fulfill their function by precept and practice, by the very atmosphere which they generate; they must be exemplars of open-mindedness and free inquiry”

Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 US 183, 197 (1952) (Frankfurter, J., concurring).

“The vigilant protection of constitutional freedoms is nowhere more vital than in the community of American schools."

Shelton v. Tucker, 354 U.S. 479, 487 (1960)

"the State may not, consistently with the spirit of the First Amendment, contract the spectrum of available knowledge. The right of freedom of speech and press includes not only the right to utter or to print, but the right to distribute, the right to receive, the right to read (Martin v. Struthers, 319 U.S. 141, 143) and freedom of inquiry, freedom of thought, and freedom to teach (see Wiemann v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183, 195) — indeed, the freedom of the entire university community. Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234, 249-250, 261-263; Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109, 112; Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U.S. 360, 369. Without those peripheral rights, the specific rights would be less secure.”

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 482 (1965)

"Our Nation is deeply committed to safeguarding academic freedom, which is of transcendent value to all of us and not merely to the teachers concerned. That freedom is therefore a special concern of the First Amendment, which does not tolerate laws that cast a pall of orthodoxy over the classroom. ‘The vigilant protection of constitutional freedoms is nowhere more vital than in the community of American schools.’ Shelton v. Tucker, supra, at 487. The classroom is peculiarly the ‘marketplace of ideas.’ The Nation’s future depends upon leaders trained through wide exposure to that robust exchange of ideas which discovers truth ‘out of a multitude of tongues, [rather] than through any kind of authoritative selection.' United States v. Associated Press, 52 F. Supp. 362, 372. In Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U. S. 234, 250, we said: "'The essentiality of freedom in the community of American universities is almost self-evident. No one should underestimate the vital role in a democracy that is played by those who guide and train our youth. To impose any strait jacket upon the intellectual leaders in our colleges and universities would imperil the future of our Nation. No field of education is so thoroughly comprehended by man that new discoveries cannot yet be made. Particularly is that true in the social sciences, where few, if any, principles are accepted as absolutes. Scholarship cannot flourish in an atmosphere of suspicion and distrust. Teachers and students must always remain free to inquire, to study and to evaluate, to gain new maturity and understanding; otherwise our civilization will stagnate and die.’”

Keyishian v. Board of Regents of Univ. of State of NY, 385 US 589, 603 (1967)

Somehow not even that last one above seems to be well-known at the State University of New York (or at the U.S. Department of Education, for that matter).

"Effective immediately, you are hereby notified that you are to cease and desist all contact with any office, department, unit or employee at the University other than me. As of this date, the University has designated me as your sole contact for all written and oral communication with the University, including, but not limited to, telephone calls and messages, emails, and mailed and faxed correspondence. I will determine when and if your communications will be addressed by the University. [...] This decision may only be reconsidered by me as the agent of the President of the University. If you continue to contact others at the University, the University may consider your actions to constitute harassment, and consult with local authorities about the University’s options to protect its interests. Thank you." - Clarence L. McNeill (and cc'd by him to George M. Philip, Vice President for Student Success Christine Bouchard, Senior Counsel John Reilly, Associate Counsel Janet Thayer, Clery Act Compliance Officer John M. Murphy, and Police "Chief" J. "Frank" Wiley)

SUNY Albany: where coercive prior restraint on freedom of speech, freedom of inquiry, freedom of association, etc. without due process meets with the tacit approval of the SUNY Office of General Counsel. Where a visiting assistant professor is free to abuse the police powers of the state by falsely reporting as a crime a student allegedly "challenging his teaching abilities and methods throughout the semester" (i.e. reporting his academic dishonesty, faculty ethics violations, sexual harassment, and retaliation - things the university encourages and even requires students to report), and the notoriously corrupt armed campus police are only too happy to back written threats made against students.

"The fact is that many SUNY security officers became such because they could not qualify for appointment as Police Officers in police agencies.

Our other concern pertains to the tendency of campus officials — and their security forces — to create their own standards for applying the State’s criminal laws on campus. [...] Campus police officers will inevitably be pressured by their campus administrations to ignore certain crimes"

Peter R. Kehoe, New York State Sheriffs' Association Institute Counsel and Executive Director, July 17, 1998.

“Our concern over this bill is increased by the fact that, under the bill, the SUNY police officers would be appointed by a member of the educational bureaucracy who is in no way accountable to the general citizenry. We have always argued that it is a very dangerous thing to give the state’s police powers to officers who are shielded from accountability to the public by multiple layers of appointed bureaucrats, none of whom are chosen by the electorate. The person who controls the police power must be directly accountable to the public or we run a great risk of losing our freedom” ["directly" was underlined in the original]

"NYS Sheriffs’ Association Memorandum in Opposition." New York State Archives. New York (State). Counsel to the Governor. Legislative bill and veto jackets, 1883-2008. 12590-99. 1998, Chapter 424, pages 1-33. http://iarchives.nysed.gov/dmsBlue/viewImageData.jsp?id=163150

"SUNY police chiefs serve at the pleasure of the campus president, thus are motivated to keep crime stats down by any means […] SUNY can no longer afford to staff, or overstaff, a body, or overstaff, a body which is subject to inefficiencies, manipulation, cronyism, ill motivation and mismanagement."

Peter Barry, VP & Legislative Director of NYS University Police Officers Union Local 1792 of the American Federation of State County & Municipal Employees AFSCME, Council 82 & AFL-CIO. (127-128). NYS Senate Public Forum on SUNY Operations before the NYS Senate Bipartisan Task Force on Government Efficiency." March 2010. http://www.nysenate.gov/files/SUNY%20Testimony%20pt.%203.PDF

The New York State Sheriffs' Association Institute definitely called that one right....

Costly inquiry stagnating and injuring civilization: to use a term of Chancellor Nancy Zimpher's, "systemness."