After filing a grievance against the University for violating her right to academic free speech, former film professor Terri Ginsberg had her case dismissed by Chancellor James Oblinger Wednesday in an act that Jim Martin, chair of the Faculty Senate called “very disturbing and an unwise practice for the University.”
Ginsberg, who taught a film class focusing on media treatment of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the spring, filed the grievance for a “number of administrative decisions” which took place last semester.
The grievance centered around her alleged violations of academic freedom by the University, and around her treatment by Marsha Orgeron, director of the film studies program, and Akram Khater, director of the Middle East studies program.
Ginsberg alleged the two program directors excluded her from the primary extra-curricular activity for which she was hired, helping curate a Middle Eastern film series, that Orgeron refused to purchase many of the requested materials – particularly pro-Palestinian materials – for Ginsberg’s class, and that Orgeron submitted Ginsberg’s teaching evaluation prematurely according to University rules.
All of the allegations, Ginsberg said, contributed to her not receiving an interview to remain at the University.
Oblinger dismissed Ginsberg’s grievance based on a late filing, which had been cleared by Martin, and because Ginsberg is no longer employed by the University.
Oblinger, Orgeron and Khater all refused to comment, based on personnel matters, and on the issue of ensuring academic freedom in general, they said.
Martin, who had already met with the University’s Legal Counsel, met with Oblinger on Monday regarding the timing issue.
Since there was no clear date of a triggering moment that Ginsberg would grieve, the timing of the filing should not be a reason to reject the grievance, Martin said.
“His dismissal was based on technicality arguments,” Martin said. “The timing on the case was a common problem we’ve had with all the grievances that I have seen – what is a decision versus what is an action?”
Ginsberg asked the American Association of University Professors to file an appeal, but on Monday, the AAUP rejected the request, noting the group is not in a position to challenge Oblinger’s ruling. Now, professors from around the country have started sending letters to the AAUP, protesting the rejection, and concerned individuals have started a petition that they will send to Oblinger, urging him to reverse his decision and allow for a grievance trial.
For both Ginsberg and Martin, the ruling is an issue larger than the grievance procedure.
“This certainly is part of a larger pattern across the United States and the Western World that has escalated since 9/11,” Ginsberg said. “It’s a policing of speech, including academic speech, concerning U.S. and Israeli policy in the Middle East.”
Free speech in the classroom setting
Along with Middle Eastern film studies class, Ginsberg introduced the Palestinian film “Ticket to Jerusalem” at a Middle Eastern film series.
As she outlined in her grievance, Ginsberg received a variety of complaints from Orgeron and Khater, after her introduction.
The two professors deemed her introduction as an expression of “bias” intended to “politicize” the campus and was “alienating”to students, according to Ginsberg’s grievance.
The class, like the subject matter, was controversial too, students said. And while many enjoyed the discussion, such as Sara Haddad, a junior in biochemistry, others, such as Ben Mazur, felt uncomfortable in it. Mazur, a senior in religious studies and former president of the Jewish organization Hillel, said he stopped attending the class in the last two weeks of the semester after leaving class each night upset.
“It was very clear that she did not like the things I said in class,” Mazur said. “I felt disrespected and got to the point where it was better if I just didn’t go. Students should be left to come to their own conclusions after what was presented in the class, and that’s not what was happening.”
But Haddad, a sophomore in biochemistry and president of the Muslim Student Association, disagreed with this statement. She acknowledges that there should be some disagreement in a class such as this, as it dealt with a highly politicized topic.
“I did disagree with her on some things, but I had that respect for her background and the evidence for what she believed,” Haddad said.
Ginsberg, who is Jewish herself, had done deep research in the area, Haddad continued, and Ginsberg’s experience with the subject led her to her own conclusions.
“She never forced her opinion on to people, but she did challenge them,” Haddad said.
Ginsberg notes that from her own Jewish background, there is a variety of Jewish perspectives and that she challenges her students to look at those as well.
“We work to make arguments that are based on scholarly work,” Ginsberg said.
Grievance procedure problems
While Martin cannot get into the details of Ginsberg’s specific case, to him the grievance issue represents another in a long line of procedural problems.
When Ginsberg and Martin were first deciding how to handle the situation, they consulted the Office of Equal Opportunity. After discussions with the OEO, the two learned that they would have to begin a grievance procedure, because the OEO cannot handle freedom of speech allegations.
“The only process we have on campus to address freedom of speech allegations is the faculty grievance process,” Martin said.
And according to Martin, because Ginsberg is a non-tenure track faculty member, serving the past year as a visiting professor, she cannot be reappointed to serve in the future. She has to be given a new appointment.
“Where this becomes a crazy technicality is that if you cannot be reappointed, then you cannot grieve a non-reappointment,” Martin said. “So what has happened, in the creation of nontenured track positions, whether it’s teaching, research, clinical, etc, we’ve created a sub-class of faculty that does not have the rights of other faculty.”
The lack of rights of these specific faculty members has created a whole other issue that needs to be dealt with, Martin and Ginsberg said.
And though tenure protects the academic speech of faculty, Martin points to a grievance process with too many loopholes and problems to adequately protect faculty and give them a fair trial.
“The grievance needed to be able to go forward, have a grievance committee evaluate the case, evaluate the evidence and make a determination of fact, and that is not being allowed to happen,” Martin said.
And Ginsberg notes that the grievance problems have made her case even more important and far-reaching.
“My case has sort of lifted out from the details of the first amendment violations that I experienced,” she said. “It’s a case now about labor rights and this decision could be very important and have ramifications all over the country. So there’s a lot of pressure on Oblinger right now.”
