Wed 29 Sep 2004
Could the editorial, “Only Words,” in the Eagle on the Nigaleian controversy possible be more obtuse? In full, it says:
The flap at Williams College over, as The Eagle story gingerly puts it, “an art professor who may be the victim of a racist comment from a colleague,” is straight out of Philip Roth’s novel “The Human Stain.” Professor Aida Laleian faces the ruin of her career for a thoughtless remark in a heated faculty meeting. Though she did not actually call Professor Laylah Ali by the N-word, what she said, misconstrued or not, violated the college code and Ms. Ali is pursuing the matter even though the college has imposed sanctions on Ms. Laleian. She could face a star chamber proceeding with no right to counsel or transcript. To be a university professor one must give up not only the right to free speech, but to due process as well, all in service to an institution dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge and truth.
1) “Faces the ruin of her career?” Give me a break. Laleian has tenure. Barring stupidity of inhuman proportions, her job is safe. She will be able to keep teaching photography, in the same department as her husband, at a very nice salary for decades to come. While her chances of moving to another College are now slim to none, it isn’t clear that they would have been any better prior to this incident.
2) “Ms. Ali is pursuing the matter even though the college has imposed sanctions on Ms. Laleian.” I think that the technical term for thinking in this way is “blaming the victim.”
3) Most delusional is the claim that “To be a university professor must give up not only the right to free speech, but to due process as well.” Your “right to free speech” does not include the right to say anything in a professional setting and expect your employer to put up with it. If Laleian had pulled that stunt in almost any other workplace in Berkshire County outside of Williams College, she would already be out on the street. You have a right to free speech — meaning the government should leave you alone — on the corner of Spring Street. You do not have a right to free speech — meaning that your employer needs to keep sending you a paycheck no matter how offensive/idiotic you are — in the workplace. Is that distinction really so hard for the Eagle to understand?
September 29th, 2004 at 10:45 am
Dave, we are in complete agreement on this one. You’d think folks at The Eagle would have a more nuanced grasp of 1st Amendment issues. Laleian has the right to yell whatever she wants at passing cars, but there are laws governing what she can say to colleagues in the workplace.
September 29th, 2004 at 12:15 pm
One thing to remember about speech is that while an employer may fire an employee for objectionable speech, it may not sully that person’s reputation without fear of a defamation suit. In such a suit, the defendant bears the burden of proving the truth of their harmful statments. That’s why most employers refuse to discuss an ex-employee’s work at their firm, except position and dates of employment.
This is why you Bill Lenhart’s letter very carefully mentions only facts which others witnessed, and that the intent of the statement was harmful- neither of which are very hard for him to prove. Nonetheless, although you may discount it, in a suit Laleian would certainly claim that her reputation was damaged by the implication that she is a racist, and that as a result her earnings over her career will be lessened, AND most importantly, a jury will decide this issue- and if Berkshire County jurors think like the Eagle, they will find for Laleian.
However, the above quandry helps explain why the College’s proceedings are kept so secret. By doing so, and swearing members to secrecy and prohibiting record-keeping- the College prevents its proceedings from spawning defamation suits AND prevents attempts to go to a Court with the record of the proceedings and claim they were unfair. And, I would note that these proceedings were agreed to by the professors and the College when they were hired, because they were in the Faculty Handbook.
Nonetheless, this kind of agreement is not one truly entered into freely by professors, who must agree to similar agreements no matter what College they work for- and this would provide the basis for a challenge, which the College’s secrecy might help prevent.
The College’s delicate treatment of this case, and its secrecy, result from a desire to prevent Laleian from having a good case against them. If she did, and threatened them with a lawsuit- they would almost certainly be forced to settle to avoid the embarassment and possible disruption of their disciplinary procedures.
I think the Eagle has it sort of right. After all, I am sure that this dispute has less to do with the n-word and more to do with a long running dispute between two faculty members. If it had not been for this emnity, Ali could have simply asked for an apology, which would have been given to her by Laleian. Instead of solving this problem like adults, the two let their emotions take control of them and involved the College in their own personal dispute.
The College, so fixated on the use of the n-word, may have involved itself in an embarrassing debacle not its own. Now its procedures are under public scrutiny.
-Dan Mevorach
September 29th, 2004 at 4:50 pm
This was not a “personal dispute.” It took place in a departmental meeting among professional colleagues conducting duties for which they are paid by the College. Ali and Laleian were in their workplace — not in a bar, not in someone’s kitchen, not on the street. Laleian’s use of the word “nigger” must been seen in this context.