|
|
Noose incident leaves questions |
|
Thursday, 10 April 2008 |
|
"I realize that my free speech may come with a price and I am willing to pay it."
-Cinthia W. Pratt
Department of sociology
Appalachian State University
|
Dear Editor,
I wish to begin my letter by stating that I am not a disgruntled faculty member. As a matter of fact, I love Appalachian, I love teaching and I love my students. It is that love for my students that compels me to write. I have wrestled with my own personal integrity and with my position as a role model and a leader for the young people at Appalachian and find that I can no longer keep silent. Please understand that I have no malice nor is it my intention to attack the university or to speak on behalf of the university or anyone else. I simply want to use my voice to tell my story.
I was pleased to read in Brandon Brown’s article in The Appalachian, the university’s student
newspaper, that according to Vice Chancellor Cindy Wallace, no one with the university had ever
instructed faculty not to talk to the press regarding the noose incident on campus and that the
university had no right to restrict faculty in such manner. I have in my possession e-mails sent to
faculty members within my department on two separate occasions that I interpreted otherwise. Each of
these e-mails arrived prior to Vice Chancellor Wallace’s statement and each originated from the chair of
my department. Additionally, each e-mail was copied to Dr. Lorin Baumhover along with other members
of the university administration. I also have in my possession over eight double sided pages of
quotations, rulings and case precedents collected from various legal sources which narrowly define the
issues of free speech and private expression, academic freedom, responsibility for classroom content,
and the purpose and parameters for faculty use of office space. My departmental chair delivered these
"Aren’t all symbols subject to symbolic interpretation and symbolic exchange?"
-Cinthia W. Pratt
Department of sociology
Appalachian State University |
case findings to all faculty members within my department in what he described as an attempt to clarify and to address our recent questions after several of us have been to him in an attempt to gain understanding of the events and of our responsibility in it. While I appreciate his effort, I must confess
that I am even more confused and that I have interpreted these pages as anything but comforting or supportive for those wishing to speak out. I am less confident of what actions may possibly occur due to my exercise of free speech, but I feel that I can no longer compromise my integrity by remaining silent. I cannot stand up in front of a classroom as a sociologist and encourage my students to fight oppression, to speak out against what they believe to be questionable actions on the part of leadership, to seek for equity, and to push for social reform if I am not willing to do the same. It is my opinion that to be silent would be the height of hypocrisy for a person in my position. I cannot ask students to abide by an academic policy that requires honesty and integrity on their part if I feel that the institution making such requirement may have failed in those areas.
I realize that my free speech may come with a price and I am willing to pay it. I would like to speak out
regarding the rumors and speculation circulating on the university and within the community about the
noose that was found in the building in which I work and as documented in several press releases
within the office of a faculty member in my department. I believe that pertinent facts related to this
case have been omitted from the press releases and articles, and that if the university community and
community at large had these facts then perhaps together they would see the larger principles and
issues at stake. I recognize that only those persons who were actually involved in the event: the police
who responded to criminal allegations, the university administration making decisions for university’s
actions, the faculty member, and the District Attorney can speak directly to the facts of the event.
Anything that I might share in this article regarding the factual circumstances of the event will be at
best hearsay and second hand. I confess to not having first hand knowledge of the events that took
place. I only have the report of events given to me directly from the faculty member who is the owner
of the noose in question and who is at the heart of the controversy. I have no reason to suspect my
friend and colleague of many years for lying to me and have no local reasoning for any gain he/she
might acquire for being deceptive.
My friend, the owner of the noose, obtained that noose as a gift after completing dissertation work on
capital punishment with a specific focus on the history of lynching in the south. It was displayed in a
quiet corner of their locked office space and had been there for several years prior to this recent flurry
of activity surrounding the noose’s presence on campus. I must confess, I have been in my
colleague’s office on many occasions over the past seven years and never even noticed the noose in
question. I can certainly understand why a noose would be offensive to someone. I am not even going
to try to argue that point, but what bearing does content, context and intent have when considering
whether or not a symbol or object is offensive and therefore must be removed or restricted? Are there
not other symbols that could cause just as strong a response in someone depending upon their
perspective and their ideologies? Aren’t all symbols subject to symbolic interpretation and symbolic
exchange? Couldn’t a whole host of things be construed as offensive when displayed in one context
and then as having socially redeeming value when displayed in another manner? When our society
determines whether or not a photograph or a piece of art is pornographic we examine context and
intent. If that were not the case, then would not all depictions of nudes be deemed offensive? Are we
now to remove all the erotic art pieces or nude statues from our museums because of one person’s
sensitivies? At what point do sensitivities take precedent over freedom of expression? My colleague
"Is using deception to enter a locked office space now allowable behavior for students on our
campus?"
-Cinthia W. Pratt
Department of sociology
Appalachian State University
|
tells me that the noose was on display in their private, locked office space as a reminder of the atrocities that they are fighting daily when teaching. Do faculty members have no right to display symbols which bear deep personal meaning in their office areas? Do we all now need to sanitize our book shelves and walls of any and all symbols, videos and texts that might contain something offensive to one or another student who might pass by? Can I order all possibly offensive bumper stickers, political slogans and cartoons removed from the parking lots, newspapers and office doors of the campus immediately? If not, then on an open campus with a diverse population who determines which symbols will be allowed to remain and which will be removed? I can think of a particularly offensive poster that was for sale on our campus. It dehumanized and objectified women. Students and faculty were free to buy it and to display it on campus. Shouldn’t one think that a headless photograph of a woman’s breasts supported by a bright pink push-up bra with the caption: “Goals. Focus on the Goals, just don’t get caught focusing” would be offensive to women on campus; particularly to the one in four who are rape survivors?
If the noose in question was displayed in a locked faculty member’s office, as my friend reports, then
how were the pictures of it obtained and presented to the police to support the allegations of criminal
action? The university press release does not share that information.
Again, I wish to stress that I have no first hand knowledge of how the pictures were obtained. I only
have the word of my colleague and friend. I do know that police reports
and the district attorney’s notes on the case would normally provide
information related to the names of the persons making allegations
of criminal action, and on the manner in which the evidence was collected and presented. My
colleague, the faculty member who owns the noose, told me that a student who had taken courses
taught by them prior to this event became upset over failing marks for a class they were presently
taking. This student, according to my friend, used coercion and deception to entice a member of the
housekeeping staff to unlock the faculty member’s office door where they then used a hidden camera
to take pictures of the noose and other historical artifacts on display in that office. The student came
back into Chapel Wilson building after the departmental office was closed and after the classes for the
day were complete. This student never approached the owner of the noose to declare their offense or
to allow for an explanation for the noose’s presence. Is it not possible, that because the student had
taken courses from the professor prior to this event, that they knew the noose was present in the office
long before bringing forth their allegations? Are the contents of a locked faculty member’s office “fair
game” for students? What rights to privacy can any faculty member now expect regarding materials
housed in their office? If a student doesn’t like something displayed within my office can they gain
access after hours by use of deception and then charge me for offending them? What is the official
procedure for doing so? Do they have to talk to me first or can they take pictures and then charge me
without notifying me that they are offended? Do they need to at least offer me a chance to explain my
purpose for having the offensive materials in my possession? Or, does my purpose or interpretation of
the symbols in my possession matter?
A greater question for me is why, if a student broke into a locked office after hours, that student was
not charged under the student code of conduct. If my colleague is correct in their recounting of the
events, then certainly this student should be held responsible for their actions. Wouldn’t such action be
a violation of the university code of conduct at the very least? I can recall when students performing a
“flashpoint” exercise by shaping their fingers as guns and saying, “bang-bang” in the student union were
brought up before a judicial review. Their names were all listed in the school newspaper. I had a deviant
student one year who wore an orange jumpsuit in blowing rock park with “property of Watauga County”
written across the back for an ethno methodological experiment. That student broke no laws and yet
got 200 hours of community service pulling out staples from telephone poles for their behavior. Is using
deception to enter a locked office space now allowable behavior for students on our campus? Is such
behavior allowable at any time or only when the student deems there is an offensive symbol inside? I
have not found this student’s name listed in print as is the common procedure for judicial reviews and
police actions. I must therefore conclude that no punitive action has been taken on behalf of the
university or law enforcement. My colleague told me that they were “strongly advised” by university
administrators not to pursue criminal charges against this student and not to mention the break in of
their office space.
Some readers might be wondering why my colleague and friend is not coming forward themselves to
tell this story. I must confess I sometimes wonder too. Perhaps it is the fact that they are out on
medical leave that prohibits them from coming forward. My friend was already out on medical leave
when the noose was discovered and when allegations were brought against them. If a student did make
those charges then the student knew my colleague’s physical condition and knew that they would not
be on campus to meet their accusations. Perhaps it is the fear of losing their job and only source of
income that keeps them silent. I have spent a great deal of time comforting my friend and assuring
them that their position with the university is not at stake. The fear and turmoil that they have
experienced was causing loss of sleep and loss of appetite. I also wonder if this same fear of
retaliation keeps those within the sociology department who are fully aware of the events related to this
case from speaking out along with me. Fear of losing a position and of being labeled a trouble maker or
whistle blower can be a strong deterrent. I know that my fear of legal retaliation on the part of the
university was increased after speaking with my chair and after receiving the e-mails and copies of
court proceedings from his desk. I also believe from private conversations with colleagues and friends
that I am not alone in my interpretation of those correspondences.
The mission statement of the university states that the university takes pride in the tradition of faculty
commitment to students both inside and outside the classroom and that it seeks to promote the
intellectual, cultural and personal development of its students. If these words still hold true, then I am
fulfilling the goals of the mission statement with my writing as I am seeking answers for the student
body to which I am committed. I question what contribution the university has made to the cultural
development of its students, the community at large and its faculty members in their handling of this
whole noose event.
I admit that I do not know the whole story. I have asked for explanation and have received none.
Perhaps what someone older and wiser than me with a few more years experience on the campus
explained to me is true. They tried to dissuade me from coming forward. They suggested that my
coming forward to tell my story would accomplish nothing. They reminded me that the university is the
same institution it has always been and that the rules have not changed. They suggested that perhaps
I have merely had a wake up call and now have a clearer understanding of the parameters and
guidelines under which I teach. I find that their comments do not ring true because in light of these
recent events I am greatly confused over the position of the university and in their purpose for
handling things as they did.
Cinthia W. Pratt
Department of sociology
Appalachian State University
Trackback(0)
 |
|
|
Opinion 
TrackBack URI for this entry
Show/Hide comments
