ISU English Department is trying to censor this video. Join this group to show your support for students freedom of speech. The videos are available at the bottom.

The clip does not mention the school by name, does not mention any faculty, and does not defame the name of the school or the faculty or the graded curriculum. Yet members of the staff have used intimidation and threatened unfounded legal action on the creators.

Copy of e-mail sent to the English department.

Dear Members of the English Department:

I am sending the following chain of e-mails, not because I think many of you will care or that any of you will protest the wrong that has been committed in all our names as members of the English Department, but simply for the public record.

The e-mails represent an exchange between Charlie Kostelnick and me over a period of about 24 hours. The topic is free speech, and the issue is Charlie's view that graduate students have free speech only when he says they do.

Mostly in private, and in collusion with his administrative staff--Dave Roberts, Connie Post, and Barb Blakely--Charlie has forced one of our graduate students to remove a posting from YouTube. He has accomplished this by meeting individually with various graduate students and, through an apparent process of intimidation, bullying them into surrendering one of their basic rights.

He justifies his actions by claiming the YouTube video contained objectionable material and subjected the department and the university to legal action. He also appeals to the need for fewer rights (just like Homeland Security and George W. Bush, only instead of saying in our "post-9/11 world" Charlie alludes to the "post Virginia Tech World of campus violence").

To judge the merits of the case, you should first view the YouTube videos in question. The links are http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xHvlb2aEl4 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7MYAqL87W8. If you agree that freedom of speech was a small price to pay for surrendering this little bit of satire, then be sure to thank Charlie Kostelnick.

For correct chronology, please begin reading from the end of the e-mail chain.

In defense of free speech,

Neal Bowers
Distinguished Professor of Liberal Arts & Sciences
Professor of English
Iowa State University



Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 13:09:35 -0500
To: chkostel@iastate.edu
From: Neal Bowers
Subject: Re: Your Censorship of a Graduate Student
Cc: droberts@iastate.edu, cjpost@iastate.edu, blakely@iastate.edu
Bcc: nbowers@iastate.edu, andrew Judge

Charlie,

Ah, so now you're making it personal--with insinuations that I'm ill-informed because I didn't attend a meeting designed to protect the university from liability should some act of violence occur on campus.

I think I'm as well informed as anyone else on issues of workplace violence. I'm also reasonably well informed in matters of free speech and due process. While the federal government (i.e., George W. Bush) has done its best to deprive citizens of their basic rights (habeas corpus, due process, and the right to privacy, in particular), we still live in a country governed by fundamental civil liberties.

Your interpretation of the video as something that denigrates and threatens violence against students is ridiculous. The video expresses the T.A. predicament in a satirical fashion. In your rush to deprive T.A.s (and, amazingly, hospital workers and used car salesmen) of their right to free speech, you've somehow overlooked the satire.

Your claim that the video is filled with "actionable" things is absurd. If satire were illegal, the courts would have time for nothing but anti-satire cases. You have a chance to listen to what these young members of our profession are truly saying about our university and its treatment of them as employees (under your charge, yes, but not under your unlimited control). Pay attention to what's really being said through the satire and you may actually be moved to make things better. What you're doing now is making things much, much worse.

It seems to me that you are methodically singling out those involved in the video and subjecting them to as much intimidation as you can. You should be ashamed of yourself. I'm certainly ashamed of you and of your administrative staff for silently supporting your actions.

If anyone is vulnerable to litigation in this business, it's you, Charlie. If you persist in your illegal efforts to muzzle free speech by our T.A.s, someone may hire an attorney to bring charges against you and to represent those T.A.s who have been injured by you. I would happily contribute to the retainer.


In defense of civil liberties,

Neal


At 11:53 AM 4/23/2008, you wrote:
Neal,

I respect your point of view, but we have different roles.

This is a workplace issue, and TAs are employees under my charge. The content of this video is not only inappropriate, it's actionable in a variety of ways. If they the TAs were employees of a school district, a hospital, or even a used car sales lot, they would likely be dismissed on the spot for denigrating students/patients/customers and threatening them with violence. We had a staff meeting this spring entirely devoted to the post-Virginia Tech world of campus violence; had you attended that forum, perhaps you would think differently about the matter.

You also need to know that at least one of the TA participants did not give permission for this video to be made public and is justifiably concerned that his professional reputation is on the line. I assume that you and Andrew will be hearing from this TA shortly.

Charlie





Dear Charlie,

I just viewed the YouTube videos another time and, as before, found them to offer up an effective satire--not so much of freshman composition students as of the T.A. program. The focus is on the unreasonable workload, the oversized classes, and (by implication) the absence of any meaningful pedagogical and personal support system for T.A.'s.

I'm sure you don't need it, but I think the following definition of Juvenalian satire from the online Encyclopedia Britanica is relevant: any bitter and ironic criticism of contemporary persons and institutions that is filled with personal invective, angry moral indignation, and pessimism.

The function of such satire is to be critical and corrective. One of its typical outcomes is to raise the ire of the very people and institutions who are most in need of correction; so it's not surprising that the administrative branch of our department tried to suppress something that displeased it.

Your fear of lawsuits does not trump an individual's right to free speech. Nor does it allow you to deny an individual due process by obliging him to attend an administrative meeting at which a decree is issued. The university and its administrators do not control the content of postings on YouTube. If administrators feel that a posting contains libelous or defamatory material, they have the right to bring formal charges against those concerned.

My request to be listed as a "consultant" for the videos has been honored by Andy Judge. This means that my name now appears on the YouTube site and is associated with the videos (which are up and active once more). I've done this because I fear that your next step may be to punish the T.A.'s involved in the video, either by taking away their appointments or threatening them with legal action. If you are truly in a firing mood, then I suggest you begin with me.

In defense of free speech,

Neal


At 12:59 AM 4/23/2008, you wrote:
Confidential

Neal,

You're right. I requested that Andrew Judge remove the video from YouTube
late yesterday afternoon, and he did so.

Here's are some of the reasons I made that request.

The video denegrated the students that TAs are entrusted to teach, contained
explicit suggestions of violence against students who did not comply with
their instructors, including a statement that the instructor's evaluation was
intended to drive a student to suicide. It also suggested that the standards
by which students are evaluated are arbitrary, including sexual criteria.
These attempts at satire are not funny or instructive. They are offensive,
expose our department to legal and other liability, and undermine the
credibility of the institution. And to what end?

I have no objections to satire. I love satire, and I routinely teach it; I
have a particular fondness for the 18th C variety, including Voltaire and
Swift.

However, when the brunt of the satire is the students over whom our TAs have
power (including repeated suggestions of violence against noncompliant
students) and the "satire" is displayed in a public forum like YouTube, I am
obligated to intervene.

Let me give you one example of liability: if an English 250 student attempts
or commits suicide, do you think a parent wouldn't use this video as evidence
of university negligence (i.e., that we continued to employ an instructor who
professed to drive a student to suicide with his harsh evaluations)?

I hope you will consult with me before you do anything more to encourage
Andrew Judge to restore this video.

If you'd like me to attend your class or an open forum to discuss this
incident, I would be glad to do so.

Your humble and obedient servant,

Charlie


/> Dear Charlie, Dave, Connie, & Barb:
/>
/>
/> I've just finished teaching my graduate literature seminar and am
/> terribly dismayed by what became the main focus of conversation in
/> the last half-hour of the session.
/>
/> As I understand it, you four called Andy Judge to a meeting yesterday
/> afternoon and demanded that he remove a video from YouTube. As it
/> happens, I saw this video a week ago and found it to be an amusing
/> bit of satire.
/>
/> Because I began this graduate course with a conversation about
/> freedom of speech and its importance to poets and other writers in
/> this country (specifically by considering the notorious attempts to
/> quash Ginsberg's long poem "Howl"), I feel it is my duty to protest
/> your act of censorship. Further, I have advised Andy to put his
/> video back on YouTube.
/>
/> If you truly feel you are on sound legal footing, then you should ask
/> to meet with Andy again and make sure he has a legal advisor present
/> for the session. Should you pursue this course, I think Andy's
/> little satire will become very widely known. Ginsberg launched a
/> bestseller and a 50-year career from the notoriety he received.
/>
/> Disappointed in you all,
/>
/>
/> Neal Bowers
/>
/> Neal Bowers
/> Distinguished Professor of Liberal Arts & Sciences
/> Professor of English
/> Iowa State University
/>
(read less)

ISU English Department is trying to censor this video. Join this group to show your support for students freedom of speech. The videos are available at the bottom.

The clip does not mention the school by name, does not mention any faculty, and does not defame the name of the school or the faculty or the graded curriculum. Yet members of the staff have used intimidation and threatened unfounded legal action on the creators.

Copy of e-mail sent to the English department.

Dear Members of the... (read more)