8BINGHAMTON REVIEW
JANUARY 2010
e Systematic Attack on Free Expression in BinghamtonUniversity’s Masters o Social Work Program
by Adam Shamah
FREE SPEECH
O
ne year ater graduate student Andre Massena’s ree-speechbattle with the University madenational headlines, the Masters o Social Work (MSW) department is again atthe center o a ree-speech controversy that orces us to reassess the University’scommitment to ree expression. At the end o the all semester, MSW student Michael Gutsell was expelledrom the Graduate School ater a series o incidents that Gutsell and the Foundationor Individual Rights in Education(FIRE) maintain are protected by theFirst Amendment o the United StatesConstitution.Two separate incidents were theocus o a December 4th meeting o thedepartment’s Advancement Committee, which addresses concerns related toMSW students’ academic or proessionalbehavior. e department's reaction toboth highlights its agrant disregard or itsstudents' rights.e rst occurred on October 27th,during a class with Proessor Kevin Murphy. According to statements by Gutsell,Proessor Murphy told the class that they were to reach a unanimous decision as tothe content and ormat o their midtermexam. Once the class reached a consensus,they were inormed that the exerciseitsel was their exam. Having tricked hisstudents, Proessor Murphy joked aboutthem coming ater him ater class, to whichGutsell responded jokingly, “well just becareul when you start your car.”e second matter presented to the Advancement Committee was a story that Gutsell told during a November17th meeting o Murphy’s class. etopic being discussed was, according toGutsell, “the docking o employee pay or inraction.” Gutsell mentioned that inOntario, where he once worked, it is illegalto dock an employee’s pay unless thatemployee violated the law. He proceededto tell a related story about an incident
9
www.binghamtonreview.com
that occurred years earlier. “I said that anemployer had tried to dock my pay ortaking a pick-axe to a chair. It was my pick-axe but they couldn’t prove it wasme so they were unable to dock my pay,”Gutsell wrote in a statement to the Ofceo Student Conduct (OSC).Gutsell’s statements to the OSC and Advancement Committee explain that thepick-axe was his, but that he was not theone who used it to destroy a chair; that wasdone by a ellow employee. But he admitsthat he may not have made that clear inclass, and explains that although he hadnoticed some negative reactions by hisclassmates, he did not clariy the ull story because he did not want to disrupt hisclassmates ater the discussion had movedon to other topics.Nonetheless, several studentsapproached Proessor Murphy ater classto articulate concerns over Gutsell’s story and to claim that his presence in classmade them uncomortable. “‘I he’s talkedabout destroying property, what suggestshe wouldn’t do that in this setting,’”summarizes their thoughts as relayed by Proessor Murphy during the Advancementmeeting.ese two incidents—whichaccording to FIRE represent “at worsta series o misunderstandings based onsubjective overreactions to innocent,relevant classroom speech”—were used by the Advancement Committee as the basisor Gutsell’s expulsion.On November 20th, Gutsell wascontacted by University Police to addressthe two incidents. It was then that he was inormed that the joke he made aterthe midterm assignment was now beingconsidered a “threat.” Ater an interview with Proessor Murphy—through whichUPD learned that the proessor did noteven remember the so called “threat” andthat the “pick-axe story” was relevantto class discussion—UPD concludedthat they had “no basis or criminalcharges” and dismissed the investigation. A similar investigation by the Ofce o Student Conduct was also dropped. Allthe same, Gutsell was dismissed rom thesocial work program on December 7th, when the department chair accepted therecommendation o the AdvancementCommittee. As should be obvious, “[n]one o theutterances [made by Gutsell] constitutes anoense worthy o expulsion or exclusionrom classes, none o them is even anoense,” according to FIRE in a letter toPresident DeFleur supporting Gutsell.en why did the department choose toexpel him? And why haven’t his rights beenprotected? According to the AdvancementCommittee’s ruling, the “signicantdiscrepancy…between the purportedintention o [Michael’s] verbal behavior andthe ways in which [his] communicationsare perceived by others…” is the reason thecommittee called or his expulsion. Duringthe advancement hearing, CassandraBransord told Gutsell that the matter hasto do with “what you say and the tone in which you say it.”ese unreasonably strict standardsseem to be regularly accepted as departmentpolicy. Earlier in the semester, Gutsell hadbeen orced to sign a contract, or “writtenplan,” as a condition or his advancementin the program. Among several academicand proessional requirements was oneprovision which required Gutsell to “buildand maintain rapport with peers [and]instructors…” FIRE explains that this “setan unacceptably high burden, as thoughsomehow all people in the departmentare supposed to get along all the time without misunderstandings or complaints.” With regard to another provision o thecontract which stipulated “no reportsrom instructors or students that they areuncomortable with you” as a condition orGutsell’s advancement, FIRE points outthat “no exception was made or untrue,unsupported, or unreasonable reports.”Gutsell signed the contract inSeptember ater returning rom medicalleave last spring. Proessors’ concerns,including one subjective report about “rudecomments” Gutsell made in class, wereconsidered cause or the written plan anda subsequent “trial period” this all, during which Gutsell’s perormance would beevaluated by his proessors and departmentchair Laura Bronstein beore he wouldbe allowed to advance in the program.One particular incident, says Gutsell, inparticularly caused a peculiar overreactionby the department. Ater registeringor classes last Spring, he emailed thedepartment secretary thanking her or herhelp with the registration process: “is isexcellent. ank you again or all your hardon helping me with this. It is very muchappreciated.” e email was obviously missing the word “work” ater the word“hard,” but nonetheless caused considerableconcern amongst the department’s aculty.Gutsell’s trial period ended ateran October 27th meeting o the Advancement Committee, during whichthey recommended advancement, only toreverse course several weeks later with theexpulsion. As
Review
readers may be aware, thisis not the rst time FIRE has intervenedon behal o a student whose rights were
“
“They don’t like a lot of disagreement. They don’t like diverse views [and are]very much about conformity.”
-Michael Gutsell on the MSW Department
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Recommended
More From This User
Notes
Load more
