M. Suzanne Terry

I have posted these sentiments before (some of them, a direct copy and paste). Unfortunately, here is one more occasion where it’s necessary to say it again. The tl;dr of the article – UNT’s assistant general counsel, as part of a presentation entitled “When Hate Comes to Campus,” used her platform as a representative of the university speaking on freedom of speech to drop the n-word in her statements.

*sigh*

First, this is an excellent example of how we talk (and talk and talk and omg the talking) about how we are such an inclusive campus, but then things like this happen. How many of our students, staff, and faculty are actually surprised by it? And will there be consequences for this behavior? And if not, will anyone find that surprising?

I hope that there are consequences (specifically, I hope she at least has the good sense to resign or, if she refuses to do so, the university fires her). I know she can self-censor, because she seemed to have no problem doing so in other parts of her presentation. Contrary to what Sewell states, it is indeed possible to talk about the First Amendment without saying horrible things and using hateful language.

Observe:

The First Amendment, truncated for our purposes (but you can read the whole thing here if you want) states, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.”

That is the entirety of what the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights guarantees you as a citizen regarding freedom of speech.  With very few exceptions, you can say what you want to say, and it is not against the law.

It protects you from being arrested for speaking your mind.  That would be a violation of your rights.

It protects you from being imprisoned for what you say.  That would be a violation of your rights.

It protects you from legal ramifications.  I suppose, of course, that a person or company could sue you, but, provided that what you said cannot be proven to be libel or slander (examples of those exceptions I mentioned), they would not win unless you have a stunningly incompetent lawyer, because for them to win such a case would be a violation of your rights.

Now let’s discuss some things from which it does not protect you.

It does not protect you from people disagreeing with you and saying so.  That’s just other people exercising their freedom of speech. When preachers show up on the streets lining our campus and people gather and respond in protest of the hateful things they say, that is freedom of speech in action.

It does not protect you from criticism.  Again, that’s just other people having the same rights as you do. See above.

It does not protect you from a professor dismissing you from class when you say something disrespectful or otherwise inappropriate, and the professor gets to decide what is appropriate and what is not, because professors are the ones who are responsible for what happens in their classrooms.

It should not be used to protect a professor or staff member – at any level, to be sure, but particularly those who hold positions of power and thus are inherently tasked with the ethical responsibility of setting the best example – who allows or fosters speech that dehumanizes students or coworkers, because they should be held responsible for what happens on their watch, particularly the things that come out of their own personal mouths.

The Constitution of the United States does not protect you from being reprimanded, suspended, or even fired when you say something that opposes the values of your employer, especially if you are dumb enough to say it at work, in a highly public forum (for example, from behind a podium during a university-sanctioned event), or while being recorded and/or reported.  That you have “never said it in public before” (I…just…omg…so when do you say it, Sewell? What are they teaching in law school, because clearly it’s not how to avoid shoving your foot completely down your throat, which I would think would be a pretty big part of any legal career) is not a defense (also…maybe don’t defend the terrible things you say. At all. Not even a little bit. Maybe just concede that you made a mistake. That’s step one.).

At any rate, having the organization denounce your behavior (at minimum) or fire you when you say things that are in direct opposition to the values the organization claims to hold is not a violation of your rights.  That is your employer being true to the values to which they have committed, regardless of what it might cost them. That is your employer exhibiting integrity, and their response to your behavior is called a consequence, not a violation of your rights.

That is what I want to see from UNT.

Edited to add the university’s official statement made this afternoon:

As many of you are likely aware, UNT System Assistant General Counsel Caitlin Sewell used a racial epithet on Nov. 7 during the “When Hate Comes to Campus” panel discussion on the UNT Campus in Denton. As leaders of the University of North Texas System and the University of North Texas, we are very aware of the impact Ms. Sewell’s comments have had on our community, and we approach the situation with regret and determination.

We strongly believe in a culture that embraces, and vehemently defends, inclusion. While Ms. Sewell was trying to make a point about First Amendment speech, the references used are never condoned in our community, which prides itself on our diversity and caring nature.  

This morning, Ms. Sewell submitted her resignation effective immediately.

In the coming days and weeks, it is our intention to engage in a dialogue with student and campus leaders regarding ways we can continue to foster a culture of diversity that is UNT. In the meantime, UNT counseling resources are available for all students, faculty, and staff.

Lesa Roe
UNT System Chancellor       

Neal Smatresk
UNT President