“The first human who hurled an insult instead of a stone was the founder of civilization.”
—Sigmund Freud
In the Dave Huber article I shared in a recent blog post (The Snitchy Dolls Return), there is reference made to University of Wisconsin-Green Bay’s social media policy. What counts as use of social media associated with the university, are “blogs, wikis, forums, videos and social networks that are hosted or sponsored by UW-Green Bay; personally-managed [but university-hosted], but includes content about UW-Green Bay’s programs, constituent groups (e.g. students, employees, alumni, donors, etc.), customers, partners or competitors; externally-hosted or sponsored, but includes content about UW-Green Bay’s programs, constituent groups, customers, partners or competitors.”
Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (formerly Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, or FIRE), currently flags UW-Green Bay for its questionable policies with respect to the protection of free thought and expression. I cannot tell if the yellow flag designation applies specifically to that institution’s social media policy, but it should—and maybe more than this. Perhaps red would be a better color.
My blog is externally-hosted and I do not speak for the university on my blog in any official capacity. I can’t think of any reason why I would do so. My views on Freedom and Reason are my own. While from time-to-time my blog includes content about happenings at the university, it does so obviously from the standpoint of an American citizen with all the rights and immunities that accrue to that privilege—rights and immunities that cannot be abrogated by policies and rules of a public institution. UW-Green Bay social media policy, however construed, cannot substitute the institution’s authority for the authority of the Constitution of the United States, which is the supreme law of the land.
In light of the incorporation doctrine established by the Supreme Court in the wake of the Civil War, federally recognized rights applied to the states include those enumerated in the First Amendment: liberty in religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition explicitly, and implicitly association. Suggestions that I may not comment on any given matter, or may comment on any matter except those that are publicly known occurring at my place of employment, are on their face a violation of my First Amendment rights to express and share opinions on social media or in any other media. I moreover have a right to defend myself against accusations and smears.
As for whether I can identify as an employee of that institution, that I am an employee at this institution is a matter of public record. If somebody asks me where I work, I am entirely within my rights to speak the same facts that others can concerning the matter. Moreover, if I identify my affiliation on my blog, I am well within my rights to do so. Professors across the United States identify their affiliations on social media. Indeed, the chair of my unit states his affiliation on his X (Twitter) feed and shares political opinions which, hailing from the standpoint of union politics, some no doubt find objectionable. It is only when somebody objects that this will become a problem? But it is no problem at all. Like me, my chair is a public figure and a US citizen with an inalienable right to state facts.
I did remove my university affiliation from my Twitter profile a while ago (not because of the current controversy), not because I was asked to do so, but because, frankly, it’s a liability. People assume—with good reason—that you’re a woke ideologue if you’re a humanities or social science professor (I am a sociologist, a discipline that blends social science with humanistic concern). I even went with only one of my two designated areas of specialization—criminology—because that one at least conveys nonpartisan intellectual heft.
Consider articles and essays I have published in academic journals. There are those who disagree with my conclusions concerning child sexual abuse, environmental matters, race relations, and many other things. My university affiliation is identified in those publications. Books, journals, and other academic presses are, like social media blogs, wikis, forums, and videos, protected by the Constitution’s recognition of my right to press my opinions. As a public institution, my employer cannot discipline or terminate me for those opinions because my affiliation with that institution is explicitly identified.
When I was hired and tenured at a public institution, I did not relinquish my civil, political, and human rights to make arguments and express opinions, nor could such a demand be made upon me, as these are inalienable rights. I direct you not only to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (1791), but to Articles 18 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), as well as articles of the same number and content in the International Convenient on Civil and Political Liberties (1966).
I will conclude with this. Sometimes the obvious isn’t so obvious. My blog Freedom and Reason was established in 2006, first on Blogger and now on WordPress, both externally-hosted sites. Except for brief downtimes for maintenance, and a lengthy hiatus (explained in my welcome message), it has always been public. The administration and faculty of my institution have known about my blog and its contents for nearly two decades. I announce my blog essays on my social media accounts, which many administrators and faculty follow.
I have never been told that my writings are inappropriate or objectionable or violate any policy or rule of the institution. Not that I need my institution’s permission to have and express opinions, but if I did, the public should know that I have enjoyed my institution’s tacit permission to do so since I have been employed by that institution going all the way back to 2000. If students have complaints that resonate with the illiberal tendency in our academic institutions, it’s not my problem; I have never acceded to the rules and values of DEI (DEI Has Got to Go). It is only a problem for those authorities and offices that have.
There is a correction that can be taken, however, the same action the administration and faculty took when rightwing forces tried to cancel me back in 2003-2004: publicly announcing that the university stands for free thought and expression and defends the principles of academic freedom. Viewpoint diversity is essential for the full realization of a liberal education. In an era when left authoritarian tendencies threaten the foundations of human freedom, it is more important today than it was two decades ago to reassert the values of the university in a free society.
For more of my writings about free thought and expression, see The State of Cognitive Liberty at Today’s Universities; Science Politics at the University of Wisconsin—Deliberate Ignorance About the State of Cognitive Liberty and Viewpoint Diversity on College Campuses; Cognitive Autonomy and Our Freedom from Institutionalized Reflex; Death of the Traditional Intellectual: The Progressive Corruption of US Colleges and Universities; Losing Control over the Narrative: The Rise of Social Media and the New Radical. For some of my writings on the left authoritarian threat to the institutions of a free society, see Woke Progressivism and the Party of God; The Peril of Left-Wing Identitarianism; Frantz Fanon and the Regressive Ethics of the Wretched: Rationalizing Envy and Resentment—and Violent Praxis.
freedom and reason 