Professor Lawrence Bobo, Dean of the Department of Social Sciences at Harvard University and WEB Du Bois Professor, published the following article: harvard crimson On the appropriate limits of a professorial speech that must be read to be believed.
He writes:
Is it beyond the scope of acceptable professional conduct for a faculty member to criticize university leadership, faculty, staff, or students with the intent of inviting outside interference in university affairs? And would publishing such views broadly constitute a sanctionable violation of professional conduct?
Yes that's right. That's right.
Lively debate is expected and encouraged at any university interested in promoting freedom of expression. But here's the problem. As events of the past year evidence, sharply critical speeches by faculty, especially prominent faculty, can attract outside attention that directly interferes with the functioning of the university.
A faculty member's right to free speech does not constitute a blank check for engaging in conduct that clearly incites external actors, whether media, alumni, donors, federal agencies, or the government, to interfere in Harvard's affairs. With the protection of freedom of expression and tenure comes the responsibility to exercise good professional judgment and to refrain from conscious actions that could seriously undermine the independence of the University and its institutions.
Supporting this position, he even points out that “you cannot avoid sanctions if you shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”
Conor Friedersdorf has an appropriate response to Dean Bobo's claims. Twitter: “Harvard Dean Lawrence D. Bobo's comments incited me, an outside actor, to publicly mourn Harvard leaders who neither understand nor support free speech. By his logic, he should be sanctioned. It's the same.”
https://x.com/conor64/status/1802280647563661516
One suggestion in the article worth considering is that sanctions should be imposed on faculty who encourage students to engage in civil disobedience that violates university policies and puts students at risk for sanctions. I agree that it is cowardly for faculty to encourage students to risk punishment while standing by, but I do agree that encouraging others to engage in civil disobedience is itself civil disobedience that can or should be sanctioned. Do not.
Unfortunately, this is not the first time I have heard university administrators suggest that speech by faculty or other members of the university community should be curtailed if it could be controversial, provoke a reaction, or have a negative impact on the university. (I can tell you, from personal experience, that if my university had adopted that position, I would have been in the crosshairs, too.) The point is that there are those who do not, not only distinguished professors like Dean Bobo, but also university administrators. We recognize the profound threat that such a position poses to academic freedom and the sobering and depressing truth-seeking function of universities.