The Prissiest Place On Earth
Universities are supposed to be centers for the free exchange of ideas, but lately, they're anything but. Via ifeminists, Fergus Hodgson writes at WND about a professor who was fired for a joke some students found offensive:
"A group of sociologists did a poll in Arizona about the new immigration law. Sixty percent said they were in favor, and 40 percent said, 'No hablo English.'"That joke in class has Robert Engler, a 12-year sociology professor at Roosevelt University, fighting for his career.
It elicited two written complaints in the spring of 2010 as ethnically offensive, and what followed was a protracted argument that eventually included the termination of his employment from the fall semester.
...Officially, Engler's termination was for noncooperation with the harassment investigation, since he repeatedly chose not to attend meetings that would address the allegation.
Engler said he was willing to cooperate but the department refused to put the allegation in writing. When he brought legal counsel to an appeal meeting, university administrators immediately canceled it.
It wasn't until the student newspaper wrote about the case months after his dismissal that he learned of the origin of the allegations, he said.
"I didn't want to come to a meeting and be charged and not even know what it was," he said.
He said "university representatives insisted in meeting over the summer when I could not gather a defense, while I was engaged in other projects and not in Chicago."
...One student that filed a complaint, Cristina Solis, has spoken out, describing the outcome as fair and saying that she does not regret her decision to complain.
...She believes the remarks were inappropriate for "a school like Roosevelt University, which is based on social justice."
FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) is investigating his case.
Christina has set herself for some tough times.
Now every professor who teachs her will treat her with kid gloves or try to pass her on.
Also other students I think will know see her as a buzz kill. To serious. Careful with that girl you might get in trouble. Do you want to be the guy to date her and find yourself before a college disciplinary court if you say the wrong thing.
Future employers will see her as too much legal trouble. Do you think business and other places will not do a google search. What if they do something to piss her off, she will take them to court. No she will be passed on.
She may have fought in her mind for justice and intolerance but she used a nuclear bomb to handle what could have been done with a tongue lashing.
John Paulson at January 18, 2011 7:32 AM
Solis is a racist and saw her opportunity to take a pound of flesh from a white man.
The open secret of university anti-harassment processes is that it's typically the petitioner who is racist. At my school, all of the complaints are lodged by the same handful of students, all of whom are openly racist against whites, indians, and asians. The harassment process gives them a way to intimidate people and get their way.
mel at January 18, 2011 7:51 AM
1. These bright bulbs are studying sociology. So what do you expect?
2. Even though she's a future-burger-flipper, Solis and the other complaining students should be sued. This nonsense won't stop until the "politics of personal destruction" cuts both ways.
Ben David at January 18, 2011 7:59 AM
Anyone using the term "social justice" non-ironically should have the taste slapped out of their mouth.
Anyone who is that blinkered by hate needs to be removed from polite society. I say we buy an island somewhere and exile all these progressives to it and see how long they last.
brian at January 18, 2011 8:17 AM
Social justice: Being able to sklonk people you don't like, as long as you have administrators craven enough to back you up.
I'd like to see inside the minds of administrators and colleagues who go forward with the kinds of actions that cost Professor Engler his job. Do they really think they're furthering justice and doing good? Are some of them insecure in their own situations, afraid if they spoke out someone would dredge up something unsavory about them? Some mixture of the above? It all sounds so petty, but there has to be reasons why pettiness like this exists and thrives in this setting.
Old RPM Daddy at January 18, 2011 8:59 AM
It is the most mild of jokes is what gets me. (A better punch line would have been "Que?")
Maybe it didn't occur to her that the professor was trying to provoke a response to create a discussion.
Eric at January 18, 2011 9:09 AM
Can you imagine this twits first job interview?
So, tell me something that you have done that you are very proud of.
I got a respected professor fired because he offended me by telling a joke in class.
I see. We'll be in touch.
one month later, lather rinse repeat.
no one is going to hire this woman.
Kat at January 18, 2011 9:17 AM
The real problem is that there is no due process here... if you set a foot wrong with the administration, things magically happen against you...
as for the chica, she'll prolly become a prof, and have no problem getting tenure because she knows how to say the right thing, even if it's entirely bogus.
SwissArmyD at January 18, 2011 9:22 AM
The idea that someone can be charged with an offense, but never be given the specifics or a chance to face his accusers ought to be horrifying to anyone concerned with real justice.
And the fact that a university would fire a 12-year professor on the say so of two students ought to frighten every professor in America. How does a professor control the classroom when the students have all the power? How does a professor give a student an "F" when the student can get him fired with only a complaint?
And the fact that Roosevelt University is "based on social justice" ought to cause every parent with a child matriculating there to pull that child out and demand a refund for tuition paid.
Conan the Grammarian at January 18, 2011 9:26 AM
Am I missing something here: The professor makes a racist joke, doesn't defend himself at all, and then complains about being fired?
Surely the students that complained were thin-skinned and should have addressed it with him. But the professor's not standing up to respond to their complaints was stupid.
Christopher at January 18, 2011 9:31 AM
Am I missing something here
Perhaps the professor decided that the process was inherently unfair, and to participate in it would lend it a legitimacy it doesn't deserve.
dee nile at January 18, 2011 9:43 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/01/18/the_prissiest_p.html#comment-1824793">comment from ChristopherBut the professor's not standing up to respond to their complaints was stupid.
Did you miss the part about how he went with his lawyer?
Amy Alkon at January 18, 2011 9:47 AM
He did attempt to defend himself, but they wouldnt tell him what the complaint was, and wouldn't allow the presence of legal counsel. Basically they didn't want to allow him the opportunity to mount a defense. His response was appropriate, and may have been counseled by an attorney, because it's providing him grounds to litigate the outcome.
Jj at January 18, 2011 9:49 AM
Perhaps the professor decided that the process was inherently unfair, and to participate in it would lend it a legitimacy it doesn't deserve.
Perhaps, but since the the WND piece presents the professor's perspective without apparently consulting the school at all (now that's journalism!), it's hard to know. All we know is that he failed to respond to the process, and was dismissed because of it.
Christopher at January 18, 2011 9:50 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/01/18/the_prissiest_p.html#comment-1824801">comment from ChristopherAs I noted below the blog item, FIRE, a fantastic organization I support, is looking into it. (They defend free speech rights on campuses.)
Amy Alkon at January 18, 2011 9:53 AM
Christopher is being deliberately obtuse
Molokka at January 18, 2011 9:53 AM
I'm not being obtuse. I'm questioning whether the WND piece is accurate because it unquestioningly presents the professor's perspective as fact and lacks any statements at all that would indicate the writer spoke to someone at the university. It's bad journalism, and shouldn't be trusted.
Christopher at January 18, 2011 9:58 AM
Here's the piece in the student newspaper.
http://www.roosevelttorch.com/sections/news/student-comes-forward-about-fired-professor-1.2406369
It also says the university refused to disclose the complaint to the professor.
Conan the Grammarian at January 18, 2011 10:08 AM
It also doesn't include any university officials discussing the process.
Christopher at January 18, 2011 10:25 AM
To be clear, her complaint isn't based on racial harassment, but ancestry and emotional distress. The designation of 'Spanish speaking' doesn't constitute a race.
Jj at January 18, 2011 10:26 AM
It also doesn't include any university officials discussing the process.
Yes Christopher, that's apparently been the problem all along.
I can appreciate that you don't want to put too much faith in WND, but if his union is willing to take up his defense, and FIRE sees sufficient grounds for further investigation, then it's likely that his rendition of events has some merit. These sorts of star chambers are common at universities - no ability to review evidence, or face your accuser, or even to know the charges against you.
Molokka at January 18, 2011 10:51 AM
I wonder if the young student realizes that, having gotten her professor in bad trouble, she leaves herself open to exactly the same sort of treatment sometime later in life. Sauce for the goose, and all that.
Or does it work that way?
Old RPM Daddy at January 18, 2011 10:56 AM
>> Or does it work that way?
Something tells me that she'll pursue a career in a field where her beliefs are promoted and rewarded. There are all sorts of positions for professional victims nowadays.
nick at January 18, 2011 10:57 AM
Once again, Christopher being a complete Progressive tool. Being a progressive, he knows that he'd lie about the situation to make himself look better, so therefore everyone else must also be lying in this sort of situation.
Christopher, it's called "projection", and it's not a river in Egypt. Get help. Progressivism CAN be cured.
brian at January 18, 2011 11:00 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/01/18/the_prissiest_p.html#comment-1824836">comment from Old RPM DaddyIn all this protecting students' feelings at all cost biz, beyond the first amendment, it provides a poor education for real life. If somebody offends you, you should stand up to them and tell them why they're wrong to say what they did, not seek out Big Daddy to have him shut down their ability to speak.
Amy Alkon at January 18, 2011 11:01 AM
These sorts of star chambers are common at universities - no ability to review evidence, or face your accuser, or even to know the charges against you.
I was employed as a part-time lecturer at a university several years ago. There were clearly established processes for handling student complaints, and they certainly entailed know what one was accused of.
I'm not saying the professor is lying, but what he describes is so Kafkaesque that it's hard to believe. It makes me think we're not getting the whole story. Which is why I find it bad journalism that no one writing about the case has taken the time to find out what they university's official process is for handling student complaints, and whether that process was followed.
Being a progressive, he knows that he'd lie about the situation to make himself look better, so therefore everyone else must also be lying in this sort of situation.
Excellent sleuthing, my good man. You've found me out.
Christopher at January 18, 2011 11:29 AM
Am I missing something here: The professor makes a racist joke, doesn't defend himself at all, and then complains about being fired?
Yes, you are missing something: It's not a racist joke.
kishke at January 18, 2011 12:27 PM
NBC Chicago also had a report on the story. The university was queried by them and refused to comment.
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local-beat/roosevelt-university-professor-engler-immigration-joke-105389653.html
Conan the Grammarian at January 18, 2011 12:33 PM
Yes, you are missing something: It's not a racist joke.
Of course it's racist. The whole point of the joke is that either you agree with Arizona illegals bill or are Latino. It's not extremely racist, but it's racist.
Christopher at January 18, 2011 2:16 PM
Yesterday my little boy and I encountered some Nazis and Klan members demonstrating against Martin Luther King's holiday. That was racist. It's important not to lump the two together.
Eric at January 18, 2011 2:30 PM
If that school is based on "social justice", well, then this is a good warning to everyone thinking of attending it - and of evaluation a graduate's transcript.
If the basis of the school is neither knowledge nor truth nor even humdrum but useful training, rather nebulous "social justice", it and its products can simply be rejected out of hand as worthless.
She's done us all a service pointing that out.
Mel: Evidence for her racism is...?
Ben: Sued... for what? Complaining that they didn't like a joke (and calling it the very anodyne "inappropriate") is pretty thin grounds for a lawsuit.
Christopher: So the point can't have been "almost all the opposition is from illegals"?
Because, you see, a whole lot of legal resident and indeed US Citizen latinos in Arizona ... who happen to speak English.
Natively, in fact.
It's almost entirely illegals who functionally speak no English at all, is it not?
Might it be racism on your part to assume that "latino" means "unable to speak English", when speaking of people in America?
I reckon odds are, in fact, quite strongly in favor of legal resident, let alone citizen, latinos being able to speak English - and that the proportion of "latinos who can't speak English" who are illegals must be very, very high.
I don't suppose you'd have a factual basis to dispute that?
Sigivald at January 18, 2011 2:49 PM
Of course it's racist. The whole point of the joke is that either you agree with Arizona illegals bill or are Latino. It's not extremely racist, but it's racist.
Not at all. It's a funny of way of saying the bill is on the money, b/c everyone supports it but those it affects; i.e. Mexicans. If anything, the joke is anti-Mexican illegals. It's not anti-Latino at all.
kishke at January 18, 2011 2:50 PM
I reckon odds are, in fact, quite strongly in favor of legal resident, let alone citizen, latinos being able to speak English
According to Cato, about 35% of first generation latino immigrants speak English well. This is consistent with what I've seen; the second generation is typically fluent in English, but their parents are not.
It's a funny of way of saying the bill is on the money, b/c everyone supports it but those it affects; i.e. Mexicans. If anything, the joke is anti-Mexican illegals. It's not anti-Latino at all
Latinos as a group strongly oppose the immigration bill, because they worry it will lead to them being harassed by police whether or not they are illegal. Remember the protests? Those weren't all illegals.
My point is not that the joke wasn't amusing or that it was totally off the mark, but it's certainly not crazy to think it's a bit racist.
Christopher at January 18, 2011 4:19 PM
Not only is it not racist, it's not funny.
However, the LEGAL latino community has another reason for supporting tougher immigration enforcement - they've adopted the American distaste for line jumpers.
I say round up all the illegals and send them back to where they came from, and if they want to come back here, they go to the end of the line.
We have rules for a reason. And if we're going to say to a bunch of people "That's ok, our rules are racist", then all the people who played by those rules are made to be chumps.
brian at January 18, 2011 4:42 PM
Re the "racism" thing, start by defining your term:
rac·ism (rāˈsĭzˌəm)
noun
1.The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2.Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
I can see where the joke is an ethnic joke. I suppose it arguably falls under item 2 of the definition above. Arguably, it may not, although I am inclined towards the former.
As for the proferssor, aren't we told by all those defenders of tenure that free-thinkers and radicals need protection from just this sort of thing?
spartee at January 18, 2011 4:48 PM
This is the sort of thing that's going to motivate cash-strapped state governments to start viewing universities as prime targets for budget cuts. And it will be hard to argue that they don't deserve it.
Cousin Dave at January 18, 2011 5:29 PM
brian: Anyone who is that blinkered by hate needs to be removed from polite society.
But where would you live instead, Brian?
Patrick at January 18, 2011 5:55 PM
Here is the ironic part. Let's say he flipped the joke around. Instead of being against Spanish speakers it was against Whites, Christians, or Conservatives. And some student made a complaint do you think the professor would have been fired.
I have heard of stories of professors who have railed not joked against certain people or ideas but as long as it was not one of the protected people it was accepted.
John Paulson at January 18, 2011 5:57 PM
"I'm not saying the professor is lying, but what he describes is so Kafkaesque that it's hard to believe."
Not if you've been paying attention to University politics in the last 10-15 years it isn't.
Sio at January 18, 2011 5:58 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/01/18/the_prissiest_p.html#comment-1825112">comment from SioSio is right. Just talked to a prof friend about it last night.
Amy Alkon at January 18, 2011 6:05 PM
Given the choice, I'd rather graduate from the University of Free Intellectual Inquiry than the University of Social Justice. Not that students actually have that choice.
Tyler at January 18, 2011 7:56 PM
Latinos as a group strongly oppose the immigration bill, because they worry it will lead to them being harassed by police whether or not they are illegal.
That may or may not be true. Either way, it doesn't make the joke about Latinos, because it's not.
kishke at January 18, 2011 8:00 PM
If her older sister is Graciela and if she looks anything like her..."she needs to work on her personality"...barnyard animal appearance...Poor Cristina, never properly socialized. Btw, if you read the article in the Torch, she's convinced that she did the absolutely right thing and no mercy. What a cunt (bitch can be "taken back" and not be hurtful...the C-word cannot).
Red at January 18, 2011 11:02 PM
"The open secret of university anti-harassment processes is that it's typically the petitioner who is racist."
Our understanding of this behavior becomes clearer when we realize it is Cristina Solis who is the one guilty of harassment of Engler. Claims of "social justice" and abuse of an unjust distorted-power system are the tools used to carry out the harassment.
Lobster at January 19, 2011 5:39 AM
As a member of a university research ethics review board, I have to read the proposals for all research involving human subjects...the most intellectually bankrupt projects come from social justice in education students and professors...I would run far away from any such program...and cracking almost any joke about anything offends the humourless academics around here.
Catherine at January 19, 2011 6:43 AM
What the hell is "social justice"?
Jay at January 19, 2011 8:30 AM
Anything that fucks things up for straight white males.
brian at January 19, 2011 9:30 AM
What the hell is "social justice"?
Basically it's whatever the promoters of 'social justice' want it to be at the moment. In practice, it's a way to dress up Progressive policy goals as rights and due process. There is no stable definition of the term.
For instance, Social Justice used to mean prohibiting blacks from competing with whites for labor, and sterilizing invalids. But now it means affirmative action policies and preferences for those who are disabled.
The danger of Social Justice is that it's promoted as a replacement for civil rights and adjudicative due process. But it provides no alternative to these principles. There is no model of adjudication underlying SJ 'theory, it's process model is outcomes based. An example of this was evident when president Obama defined his criteria for judicial appointments as 'empathy' - that judges should do what they feel is right.
moe at January 19, 2011 9:53 AM
Social Justice means that car manufacturers are Human Rights violators if they don't conceded to the demands of the UAW.
http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2011/01/anti-union-automakers-are-violating-human-rights-says-uaw-boss.html
leon at January 19, 2011 10:04 AM
I am in graduate school, and my professor made an inappropriate joke. Said that human behavior is driven by a number of basic animal needs, like thirst drive, food drive, sex drive. My professor said that he speaks from personal experience on the latter two.
It was funny, got a lot of laughs from a usually tough crowd. No one (I hope) was offended enough to make a stink.
Sounds like this girl takes herself too seriously.
Katie at January 19, 2011 2:13 PM
latino...what an oxymoron that is, what country has latin roots ? italy perhaps , surely nowhere in the western hemisphere of earth...when some gal calls herself latino, i see an uneducated broad
allan allen at January 19, 2011 6:56 PM
Katie: I'm not getting what's so offensive about that joke. Why should anyone have taken offense?
kishke at January 19, 2011 8:54 PM
The student paper of record confirms that the charge was not placed in writing, and as such I suspect it wasn't defensible under "reasonable person" and I s'spect they violated a number of agreements with their union since they were willing to stand up to them. It certainly would have violated ours. But we are a state school with strict procedures for following complaints that still favor the plaintiff (they can go back for seconds if they are not satisfied) but require lots of documentation, written notification and such and are therefore backed up with justifiable whistleblower protection. However, Roosevelt is private, I suspect they feel they can roll over whomever they want.
Bill at January 21, 2011 6:57 AM
The way I'm reading this is that because he felt he was entitled to have the charges presented "in writing" ahead of time, the professor simply refused to attend a number of scheduled meetings to discuss what happened.
While it is very understandable that he /wanted/ that, unless it was it was guaranteed to him under school policy, it doesn't justify his insubordination. That is to say, it was still his job to go.
/Subsequently/ he was fired and THEN showed up to an appeals meeting with his lawyer. It sounds like the achool's response at this point was indeed very sketchy, but it almost doesn't matter because he had done exactly what he was being fired for--he ignored a directive from his employers.
I don't think the joke was bad, but I think his refusal to attend the initial meetings was enough cause to terminate him. He doesn't get to define the policy. He was the good guy but made himself into the bad guy.
Insufficient Poison at January 21, 2011 7:41 AM
I need some clarity here .... did he get fired because of the joke or because he didn’t attend the meeting that the university asked him on several occasions to attend to explain this matter....Seeing that everyone on this post is well educated I’d hope to get a clear response
Maria Gonzalez at February 5, 2011 12:41 PM
Insufficient Poison ... Just fully ready your post very well put !!! Now lets sit back and analyze a thing or two Cristina ( a student ) spoke out on a comment that her 12 year experienced sociology professor had made and now everyone is bashing her.... GOD knows I'l be the first to speak out when I don’t like something and if he was not enough of a professional to respect the policy of the institution that was writing out his check then yes he deserves to be fired I wouldn’t want to pay my kids tuition of 18+k and know she was getting an education from a professor who cant follow the simple instruction of going to a meeting. Don’t bash the student everyone here would of done the same if the Institution has a policy then everyone should follow it .....
Maria Gonzalez at February 5, 2011 12:55 PM
Anybody else feeling weird about all the chaos in the Middle East? Sure feels like a good time to repent and look to Jesus Christ for forgiveness and hope don't you agree? God have mercy on us.
Blogging Queen at March 1, 2011 11:40 AM
Leave a comment