Anita Allen (Penn) is a distinguished legal scholar and philosopher, whom I greatly respect, which makes her remarks here all the more shocking. She is clear that she is expressing only her "own opinion," but given that she was a highly-regarded Vice Provost at Penn for many years, one can only worry about the future of academic freedom at Penn if the university and its Faculty Senate embrace her views.
Although Professor Allen notes that Penn is committed to the AAUP academic freedom principles, what she proposes is a clear violation of those principles, in particular, the principle that "[w]hen [faculty] speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline." By contrast, Professor Allen proposes that faculty can be sanctioned (perhaps even terminated) for speech that:
(1) "poses a significant hazard to the interests of [the academic] community or its express academici and moral values" (around 13 minutes);
(2) poses "a significant hazard to the community or its core values, such as equity, inclusion, and diversity" (around 19:30)
(3) "ha[s] a negative impact on recruitment and retention of diverse faculty, students and staff" (around 21:30)
(4) "repeatedly requires onerous extra, highly stressful work by administrators due to students', parents', colleagues', staff's, alums' and others concerns and complaints" (around 21:30).
She also states that while "dissent" is "rarely sufficient grounds for termination" (rarely?), dissenting views that are "highly offensive and hurtful to students, colleagues or staff," as well as racist, sexist, homophobic, and discriminatory speech may be sufficient (around 26 minutes).
Recent Comments