Marathon Pundit has been all over the ongoing case of Thomas Klocek, an adjunct professor at DePaul University who was suspended earlier this school year after taking issue with the rhetoric of members of the campus group, Students for Justice in Palestine. The instructor objected to members of the group comparing present-day Israel with Hitler's Germany, and engaged them in a heated conversation about their inflammatory charge at their on-campus promotional table. For this, the school suspended him. The school administration holds that Klocek's suspension "is not a case of academic freedom, but a situation of inappropriate behavior outside the classroom by a university employee." But since the "inappropriate behavior" starts and ends with the political speech of a fourteen-year school employee, why wouldn't this be a violation of academic freedom?

Oh but Ward Churchill goes on teaching....What a great country we live in. Our founding fathers would roll over in their graves.

I think Depaul got this one exactly right. Kloceck was threatening students and is being punished for that behavior--not for the views he holds. I quote from a letter written by Rev. Dennis H. Holtschneider, the president of Depaul University:

"...academic freedom is not the issue here. The incident involving Klocek is about inappropriate and threatening behavior directed at our students. The university has a responsibility to protect students, and we cannot maintain an academically free environment when students feel threatened or disrespected.

Last September, Klocek acted in a belligerent and menacing manner toward students who were passing out literature at a table in the cafeteria. He raised his voice, threw pamphlets at students, pointed his finger near their faces and displayed a gesture interpreted as obscene. This continued for some time before other students in the crowded cafeteria summoned staff help to intervene.

The issue is Klocek's conduct, not the content of his speech.

DePaul took action to protect our students and maintain a professional standard of conduct at the university. Following this incident, Klocek agreed to withdraw from his single-course teaching assignment, with pay and health benefits, while he attended to personal health issues that we discovered were affecting his effectiveness in the classroom.

DePaul offered to give Klocek a spring quarter class assignment if he met with the students to apologize for his behavior and if the program director could drop by his class to ensure that the health issues that affected his teaching were resolved. He refused.

As an adjunct instructor who is hired on an as-needed basis each term, Klocek does not receive the same privileges as full-time tenured professors.

However, the university and its Faculty Council have encouraged him to file a grievance and receive the hearing he claims he was denied. In the six months since that suggestion was made, Klocek has not done so. Instead, his lawyer threatened DePaul with litigation and demanded a large sum of money. Then he hired a publicist in an attempt to exert pressure to secure the financial settlement.

DePaul University continues to honor its commitment to academic freedom, open expression and due process, but DePaul also insists on the highest professional standards of behavior from our faculty and staff.

Our students deserve nothing less."

(the rest of the letter is available here: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/opinion/article/0,1299,DRMN_38_3686476,00.html)

Kudos to DePaul University for sticking to its guns and not giving this crybaby a dime. Professors who assault students, make crude gestures at students and verbally intimidate students in order to silence the students' views should be summarily fired.

The President of DePaul, Father Holtschneider, who wrote that letter, has distorted the truth in the Klocek case. Or attempted to distort it.

For starters, he's smearing Professor Klocek, portraying him as a "gold digger" in filing this suit against DePaul. Another cheap shot is the "health issue." I've talked to Professor Klocek, and he says simply, that his health is fine and the allegations by Holtschneider of Klocek's "personal health issues that we discovered were affecting his effectiveness in the classroom" are incorrect.

Klocek taught at DePaul for 15 years, and received overwhelming praise from his students in evalutations.

Next, the publicist: A law firm agreed to--on a contigency basis--to represent Professor Klocek. That firm is working with a publicist, who in turn is working on the Klocek case--FOR THE LAW FIRM.

Quoting from Father Holtschneider's letter:

"Then he hired a publicist in an attempt to exert pressure to secure the financial settlement."

The implied meaning here, of course, is that Thomas Klocek has reached into his personal funds as an investment of sorts to make a financial-killing against DePaul via a lawsuit. Again, Father Holtschneider is distorting the story here. Besides, Professor Klocek has limited funds at his disposal.

Oh, I've talked to the publicist, he has not receieved a dime from Klocek.

Voices were raised in the cafeteria-confrontation. No doubt.

Still, Klocek not only has not received a hearing, nor has he had the opportunity to confront his accusers. The literature being handed out that day by the Palestinian groups was quite inflammatory, something else left out of that letter from the DePaul president.

"Reader" I suggest you do a web search with the words "Thomas Klocek, DePaul" and see what you find.

Or just click here:

DeNial at DePaul

http://www.thejewishpress.com/news_article.asp?article=4902

DePaul’s Jihad against academic freedom

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4428

First, the evidence suggests that Kloceck IS gold-digging. He hired a publicist and he retained a law firm to represent him in this matter. Based on these two hirings, it seems that Kloceck is trying to portray himself as a victim in order to bilk an educational institution of its funds, which is shameful.

Second, DePaul University is not a public actor. As such, it can hire and fire its employees at will. It doesn't have to provide Mr. Kloceck with any due process. But, out of its own decency, it has offered him the opportunity to file a grievance and have that grievance heard--two things Kloceck has refused in favor of instead hiring a law firm and a publicist.

Third, I don't care how inflammatory Kloceck thought the materials were. He has no right to get in the face of students and intimidate them verbally or physically or to make obscene gestures at them. Professors are there to teach students--not to bully them. If Kloceck objected to these materials, he should have written a letter to the school paper and voiced his criticisms in a civilized manner. He has no right to threaten students he does not agree with and try to silence student opinions he does not like.

Fourth, the fact that Kloceck does not have much money is irrelevant. Lots of people who don't have much money work with attorneys on a contingency fee basis. Slip-and-fall plaintiffs are one example.

Fifth, those sources you sent me contain rants and raves--not facts. Jewishpress.com is a particularly ridiculous source. It devotes half of its articles to defending senseless attacks against Palestinians. It does not surprise me that this "news source" is also defending Kloceck's attack on a Palestinian group.

Finally, I will defer to you with regards to Kloceck's health. I don't know the man, and for all I know he is hale and hearty.

Listen, I don't see the point of getting into a back-and-forth with someone over this, since you don't seem to be the listening type. You have a right to your opininon, but it is MY opinion that time and the further development of this story will prove you wrong.

I am the listening type. However, I don't believe that a university should be forced to retain a professor that (1) makes obscene gestures at students; (2) raises his voice at students; and (3) points his fingers in the face of students--all in an attempt to silence the students' opinions.

If Kloceck wishes to conduct himself in this manner, he should take up professional wrestling and give up teaching. I hear that the WWE is hiring...

Reader: I'm glad to see that you believe there's such a thing as obscenity. Seeing the gesture described, and explained, it didn't strike me as obscene. He didn't grab his crotch or raise his middle finger. Maybe I'm missing something, what was obscene about his gesture? I interpreted it as a "get lost," but again, I could be missing something. I don't contest points two or three, but didn't civil discussion go out the window when the idiot students compared present-day Israel to Nazi Germany. My own policy would be to laugh at them and walk away (Why waste time trying to reason with unreasonable people?), but by inflaming discourse by their ridiculous juxtaposition they should have expected, and probably wanted, a heated response of the type the professor gave them. Had the professor hit the students or threatened violence upon them, your belief that his removal from the classroom would be justified. But since he didn't do any of these things, I'll view your take on this story for what it is: justification of firing a professor because of mere words.

Hi Dan:

Based on everything I've read, Kloceck put the back side of his hand underneath his chin and then rapidly moved his hand forward in the direction of the students. I've always interpreted this gesture as meaning "f#^@ off." And that is precisely how the gesture would have been interpreted if it were a student making the gesture at a professor.

I'm not about to call the students idiots. I don't know them, and for all I know they are all much smarter than I am. The view ONE OF THEM advanced while talking to the professor is actually a pretty widely-held view in many countries. See page 48 of the May 7th-13th, 2005, issue of the Economist for more on that. I don't agree with the view myself, but I don't see any reason why the view should be out of the realm of debate.

Kloceck is not being fired for "mere words." Besides words he also: (1) chose to confront a student group when he didn't have to; (2) refused to leave a student group's table when told to do so; (3) pointed his fingers at students; and (4) made students feel physically threatened.

His actions meet the legal definition of an assault. In my view, and, I would presume, the view of most people, a university is justified in firing a professor who assaults students. It amazes me that you and John Ruberry actually believe otherwise.

DePaul should be commended for trying to work this out with Kloceck. I suspect this may have to do with his previous service to the university and a desire to hear his side of it. Certaintly, encouraging him to file a formal grievance would seem to indicate that....

I've taught at three different universities (one public, two private); at none of them would this behavior on the part of a faculty member been tolerated or gone without consequences. Given his purported behavior, he could have been fired outright for just cause. Academic freedom isn't the issue here, it's Kloceck grossly inappropriate behavior toward students espousing a point of view he doesn't like.

Traditionally, academic freedom is understood to give scholars the freedom to investigate, write, and speak about controversial and unpopular points of view without fear of reprisal of sanction. Academic freedom is not a privilege that extends to giving professors, tenured or not, the right to treat others with disrespect or threaten them. If this is what Kloceck did, then he might consider himself lucky that he wasn't fired over this incident--he most certainly could have been.

Horrors! He pointed his fingers at students? Oh, the humanity! I hope that with years of counseling the students will be able to face the world again. Let's just make it a rule that nobody can debate subjects that make other people feel uncomfortable.

It's not the students who are whining about this incident. By all accounts, the students have taken this pretty well. It's Mr. Kloceck who is whining. He is the one who has hired a law firm and a publicist in an a blatant attempt to portray himself as a victim and to try to extort money from his former employer.

Further, it is he, not the students, who attempted to stifle debate. He blocked students from getting to the Palestinian group's table, and he yelled at members of the student group in an attempt to drown out their voices and prevent their views from being aired. Mr. Kloceck is the opponent of civil debate, not the students.