Posted by Eugene Volokh:
Student Freedom and Academic Honesty:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_11_12-2006_11_18.shtml#1163701631


   I hope to post a bit more about the [1]Missouri State University case,
   student freedom, and the compelled speech doctrine. But right now, I
   wanted to raise a separate question that I hadn't seen much covered in
   the news accounts of the story.

   The student alleged -- and it appears that the [2]university president
   called the allegations in the complaint "pretty much accurate" -- that
   a professor had tried to require that students sign a letter to the
   legislature promoting equal treatment for homosexuals in foster
   parenting and adoption. I think that's a violation of the student's
   academic freedom rights and First Amendment rights.

   But isn't it also dishonest? Letters to the legislature are generally
   understood to be the opinion of the signers (except in certain
   well-understood circumstances, such as if the letter is signed by an
   agent -- such as a lawyer or a lobbyist -- on behalf of the people or
   organizations that the agent represents). If I send a letter with
   twenty people's signatures on it, I'm saying that the letter
   represents the people's views. The whole point of having the twenty
   signatures would be to suggest to readers that this is a view that
   many people hold, and that legislatures should pay special attention
   to this view. (A letter may also be intended to persuade through the
   force of its reasoning rather than through the number of its
   signatories, but if that were the only purpose, there'd be no need for
   any signatures, much less for many.)

   Obviously, if I forged someone's name on the letter, I'd be lying to
   the legislature. Likewise, I'd be lying to the legislature (and not
   just to the signers) if I'd told the signers that they were signing
   one letter, but in reality they were signing something else -- I'd be
   misrepresenting to the legislature what the signers' beliefs actually
   were.

   But I think that I'd be acting dishonestly even if I simply required
   (as a condition of success in a class or success on the job) that
   people sign the letter: Their signatures would be there not
   necessarily because they believe in what the letter says, but because
   I coerced them into signing it. (The same would be true if I bribed
   them into signing the letter.) Of course, there wouldn't be any
   dishonesty if the letter expressly said "We were required to sign this
   letter as a class project," but I rather doubt that this happened,
   since that would have defeated the purpose of sending a letter to the
   legislature. (The complaint alleges not just that the students had to
   write the letter as an assignment, but that the class was to write the
   letter, each student would sign it, and the letter would then be sent
   to the legislature on MSU letterhead.)

   Now naturally there are borderline cases, for instance if I don't
   require people to sign the letter, but urge them to do so in ways that
   might make them feel that they ought to sign to get benefits (or avoid
   harms) from me in the future. But as I understand the allegations in
   the complaint, the instructor's instructions weren't on the
   borderline: The instructor allegedly made this part of a class
   assignment. If things had gone as the instructor had planned, the
   legislature would have gotten a letter purporting to express the
   signers' views -- without being told that the signers were required to
   state someone else's views, rather than genuinely stating their own.

   So it seems to me that, if indeed these allegations are "pretty much
   accurate," the instructor wasn't just planning to violate the
   student's academic freedom rights. The instructor was also planning to
   do something that violate his duty of honesty, in implicitly
   representing to the legislature that the letter's signers believed its
   contents, without revealing that the signers were in reality required
   to sign.

References

   1. http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_11_12-2006_11_18.shtml#1163699811
   2. http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_11_12-2006_11_18.shtml#1163699811

_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh

Reply via email to