Newsletter

January 2014

Fireable tweets

Scott Jaschik

In
September, the University of Kansas suspended David W. Guth, a tenured
journalism professor, after he responded to the shootings at the Washington Navy
Yard with this comment on Twitter: "#NavyYardShooting The blood is onthe hands
of the#NRA. Next time, let it be YOUR sons and daughters. Shame on you. May God
damn you."

Many pro-gun politicians called for Guth to be fired, but he kept his job and
the suspension has since been lifted. Officials also learned that the state’s
public universities didn’t have a policy that explicitly permitted the dismissal
of faculty members and other employees over their use of social media.

On
Wednesday, the Kansas Board of Regents changed that, and adopted rules under
which faculty members and other employees can be fired for "improper use of
social media" — and some parts of the policy are already drawing harsh
criticism from faculty leaders.

The
policy outlines a number of reasons why any employee could be dismissed over
social media postings. Some reasons — such as inciting violence or revealing
confidential student information — aren’t causing alarm. But others, faculty
advocates say, could severely limit faculty free speech.

For
example, one definition of improper use is communication that "when made
pursuant to (i.e. in furtherance of) the employee’s official duties, is contrary
to the best interest of the university." Another is communication that "impairs
discipline by superiors or harmony among co-workers, has a detrimental impact on
close working relationships for which personal loyalty and confidence are
necessary, impedes the performance of the speaker’s official duties, interferes
with the regular operation of the university, or otherwise adversely affects the
university’s ability to efficiently provide services."

Further, the policy says that, in evaluating social media use that may be
improper, the university chief executive should "balance the interest of the
university in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs
through its employees against the employee’s right as a citizen to speak on
matters of public concern, and may consider the employee’s position within the
university and whether the employee used or publicized the university name,
brands, website, official title or school/department/college or otherwise
created the appearance of the communication being endorsed, approved or
connected to the university in a manner that discredits the university. The
chief executive officer may also consider whether the communication was made
during the employee’s working hours or the communication was transmitted
utilizing university systems or equipment."

The
board voted to adopt the policy despite being asked by faculty leaders in the
state, according to local news media accounts, to delay a vote to permit more
discussion with professors about the ramifications of the rules. A statement
released by the board explained the need for a policy this way: "Because of the
proliferation of social media use for communication purposes, and its particular
susceptibility to misuse and damage to our universities, the board believes that
a provision outlining improper uses of social media will be beneficial to all
parties and uphold the universities’ need to operate in an efficient and
effective manner."

The
Kansas rules were adopted the same month that the American Association of
University Professors issued a draft report on academic freedom in the digital
era — a report calling for as full protection of faculty speech online as in
person.

Henry Reichman, professor emeritus of history at California State University
East Bay and chair of the AAUP’s Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure,
said via email that the Kansas policy "raises significant questions about
academic freedom" — and that it contradicts the principles of the recent AAUP
report.

The
Kansas policy has "all sorts of red flags," Reichman said. For instance, he
asked who would define what is "contrary to the best interests of the
university"? Asked Reichman: "If a faculty member disagrees with an
administration policy and as part of their official duties serving on a
university committee speaks out about it, this could under this policy lead to
termination."

Reichman also called much of the policy "severely overbroad." For example, the
policy would appear to cover any social media use that sets off controversy by
classifying as improper actions on social media that hurt "harmony among
co-workers."

The
Kansas policy defines social media as "including but not limited to blogs,
wikis, and social networking sites such as Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Flickr
and YouTube."

Philip Nel, a professor of English at Kansas State University, blogged Wednesday
night that "as faculty grade their last student papers and exams before leaving
town for the Christmas holidays, the Kansas Board of Regents quietly — and
unanimously — voted to revoke their academic freedom and basic right to freedom
of speech."

Nel
added that the definitions in the policy were so broad that "[i]n essence,
anything can be grounds for firing…. So, for example, if the university
decides that this blog post is ‘improper use of social media,’ it can fire me.
Posting a link to this blog post via Twitter and Facebook (which I will do as
soon as I finish writing it) could, if deemed ‘improper use of social media,’
also be grounds for firing me."

Inside Higher Ed, December 19, 2013.