Editor,
I know we're all getting tired of the Berthold affair, but I think it is important for as many faculty members as possible to go on record in support, not of Professor Berthold, but of the principle that what professors say in their classrooms is protected by the First Amendment. That includes the principle of academic freedom - especially since the Faculty Senate failed to do so unequivocally last Tuesday, though they came close.
That means that there should be no determination as to what is "appropriate" or "inappropriate" to say to students. In particular, to prohibit the expression of ideas that are "offensive" or "hurt students' feelings" would, if taken as a strict criterion, result in the suppression of many scientific ideas, including the theory of evolution.
The only reason I can think of for "disciplining" or bringing a professor into line for what he or she says in the classroom would be if it has no plausible educational function, for example, the professor routinely wastes entire class periods talking about football scores in a history course. Although I do not know very much about how Professor Berthold conducts his classes, nor will I probably ever have access to that information, it seems clear from what some of his students have told me and from the various letters written by students to the Daily Lobo, even the irate ones, that that is not the case. That means his off-the-cuff remarks in class do have a plausible educational purpose, namely, to provoke thought.
Free speech means free speech - basically, anything goes. Some have maintained in this debate that with rights come responsibilities. But the very idea of free speech is that the speaker or writer has absolutely no responsibility to say what is acceptable, proper, or true, in neglect of which he or she may be disciplined or silenced.
As soon as speech is disallowed according to some standard of truth or propriety, it ceases to be free. The responsibility, rather, lies with the reader or listener, to tolerate whatever is said, no matter how false, outrageous or offensive, then of course to refute or censure it if necessary, but not to suppress it.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
John Taber
Associate philosophy professor
