The president Meets Dick the Butcher

Most of you probably know that Butler's president has a Ph.D. in English. It's fair, therefore, to suspect that he's familiar with Henry VI, Part 2 by William Shakespeare. Given some of the statements the president has been making lately, he seems to have taken to heart the line offered by Shakespeare's Dick the Butcher, "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."

This latest turn of events is somewhat surprising since Butler has long been enamored with their lawyers. Remember that Butler brought in their lawyer to meet with my father last December. At that time he was told that they had proof I was “Soodo Nym” and they threatened to sue me if The True BU was not shut down because the president was so angry about the negative publicity he thought The True BU was generating.

Although their power tactic worked and they intimidated me into closing The True BU, I never believed that they would actually sue me for expressing my opinions in a blog – especially when those opinions were the same as those voiced by many faculty members in the School of Music, and especially when I (thought I) was living in a world in which universities simply don’t sue students. But the president was angry enough that he set his lawyer to work, and his lawyer found two colleagues in his firm who also wanted to generate some billable hours, and a lawsuit was crafted. That lawsuit was filed four days AFTER The True BU was removed from the web and it was filed over the signatures of three attorneys.

As I’ve said before, I heard nothing about this lawsuit for six months – not until my father complained to the university about disparaging and absolutely untrue comments made in public by the provost about him. Then the lawyers were trotted out again to threaten me with this same lawsuit. And they threatened and they threatened. They threatened me throughout the months of June, July and August. They threatened me for the first 26 days in September. And then, at 10:05 p.m. on Sunday, September 27^th, in an email, they stopped threatening and made a promise – they promised to substitute my name for that of “John Doe” in the lawsuit within the week. (“…we will proceed to substitute Jess Zimmerman for John Doe in the pending lawsuit. I anticipate that these actions will occur by the end of the week. Please let me know whether you will accept service for Jess Zimmerman.”)

Throughout the summer months of threatening, the university’s main lawyer repeatedly said that he had to check with the president before committing himself to any specific course of action. And that’s how it should be when a lawyer is working for a client.

Which brings me back to the president. How often has he said that he never intended to sue a student? How often has he said that he only filed the original lawsuit to find out who “Soodo Nym” was, something he said he already knew before the suit was filed? Why the threats to sue me if he never intended to sue me?

One implication to be drawn from these statements is that the lawyer was running the show – apparently against the wishes of the president and in such a way that the president was completely ignorant of his actions. I’ll leave the alternative implication for you to discern and simply say that it certainly isn’t flattering to the president.

And then, on October 27^th, exactly a month after I received the promise from the university’s attorney that my name would be added to the lawsuit, I learned from a Collegian reporter that the president explicitly stated that he had nothing to do with the promise. In the face of the national outcry over the outrageous lawsuit, the president decided to cut his losses and, metaphorically at least, kill his attorney. Shakespeare would be proud.

The attorney, however, like the president, doesn’t seem to want to take credit for the promise to put my name on the lawsuit. Take a look at what the attorney wrote to a Butler faculty member: “You accused me in our phone conversation of threatening a student with his/her substitution for John Doe in the lawsuit. I immediately reacted to this by telling you that was untrue….” This amazing disclaimer was preceded by a threat: “I repeat our caution to you that your concerns be voiced responsibly, especially before making such serious accusations against Butler and its attorneys.”

So, according to Butler’s president and to Butler’s primary attorney, no one is responsible for the email promising to substitute my name for “John Doe’s” and even mentioning such a thing makes one susceptible to Butler’s wrath.

These are the people running the show – and these are the people complaining about my blog, a blog since October 14^th I’ve taken credit for writing.

When are these people going to take responsibility for their actions?

A "Measly" Student Blog

Since I’ve been gone, a few more newspapers from around the country have picked up this troubling story. I’ve linked to them on the right. Two of these new pieces comes from Minnesota State’s Reporter, which ran both a news story about this situation and an editorial criticizing the Butler administration’s actions with respect to The True BU. In their news story, the Reporter quotes a professor who teaches Mass Communications Law. Here’s that part of the story.

“Ellen Mrja, an associate professor in the mass communications department at Minnesota State, does not agree with Butler's actions in the matter.

"’This was over-reaction on the part of the administrators that makes them look weak, not strong,’ Mrja said. Mrja teaches a class in Mass Communications Law. ‘You can not stop someone from speaking their truth.’"

Unfortunately, I feel that I must disagree with Professor Mrja just a drop. In fact, Butler did stop me “from speaking the truth,” at least for a while. After being threatened and intimidated by Butler’s attorneys I closed The True BU and removed it from the internet. But, from the bigger perspective, the professor is absolutely correct. Because of Butler’s heavy handed administrative actions, many, many more people have now read The True BU than had ever before and people all over the world are now upset about how Butler deals with free speech.

As Barry Lynn, Executive Director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State and host of the nationally syndicated talk show Culture Shocks, said on the air with me, “how many people outside of the Butler community even saw this blog? But for Butler University’s filing of a lawsuit, this would have been a footnote to history, the history of a university many people know nothing about.”

Let me go back to the editorial at Minnesota State University since it does such a good job of explaining why Butler’s actions are important – and dangerous. Here are parts of the long editorial:

“The lawsuit against Jess Zimmerman of Butler University could happen anywhere. Clearly an attempt to censor online speech, it could have also impact students' rights to speak freely everywhere.”

“The blog barely got any hits initially; it wasn't until Butler administrators spoke against it that more people were popping on the site to check out the controversy. So the school actually drew more attention to the criticism by attacking it.”

“They are trying to silence this blogger's voice and the message it sends seriously threatens free speech. Zimmerman could face major repercussions on-campus for speaking his mind, a problematic blow to the freedoms U.S. citizens have been granted.”

“The student was simply being critical of the ethics and morality of a situation. His opinion didn't defame the university; it called out university officials on alleged wrongdoing, a shining example of the importance and need for the First Amendment.”

“Butler's efforts to chill free speech online - the communication hub of the world - are the real problems facing their university.”

“It seems that while Butler attempted to contain its opposition using Zimmerman as an example, it tampered its image on a national level, much more damage than a measly student blog could create.”

Even though they characterize The True BU as “a measly student blog,” I couldn’t agree more.

I find it fascinating that students and faculty members from around the country have consistently come to a conclusion so much at odds with the extreme position the Butler administration has taken. You’d think that that should give Butler’s administration something to think about.

A Chorus, Part One

The number of editorials and columns appearing in college and university newspapers around the country supporting the rights of students to speak their minds, even if when doing so displeases administrators, continues to grow. I’m gratified that all of those who have written agree with what I’ve said from the outset: the issue Butler has made of my writing has implications that extend far beyond the Butler campus and far beyond what they are doing to me as an individual, as unsettling as the latter might be.

Because the list of such pieces, on the right, has gotten so large, to help people get a full sense of what is being said, I’m going to print excerpts from some of them as my main posts today and tomorrow. I hope you’ll feel as I do: the outcry is both large and growing – and the Butler administration is being increasingly isolated as acting in an extreme manner, out of the norm for colleges and universities around the country. The position that Butler has staked out for itself is certainly a unique one, and I don’t understand why its administrators want to continue in this fashion.

Here, then, is a sampling of opinions from around the country:

From The Daily Iowan at the University of Iowa (11/13/09): In an editorial entitled “Administrators’ stifling of student free speech rights troubling,” the paper wrote, part:

A blatantly censorial lawsuit filed against a Butler University junior is a threat to students’ freedom of speech everywhere.

As students-journalists who relish freedom of speech, we have an obligation to stand up for Zimmerman and push back against unconstitutional restrictions on college students.

Since 1964’s New York Times v. Sullivan Supreme Court case, libel charges from public officials require journalists’ knowledge that the information they reported was false and that the reporter had a “reckless disregard” for the truth. Zimmerman’s claims were simply statements of his opinion and, while damning, were completely legal.

Whether they like it, public administrators are subject to intense — and sometimes unsavory — scrutiny. That was certainly true in the Butler University case. But Zimmerman’s critiques did not cross the line from strident evisceration to libelous material. And attempting to limit his speech because of dissenting comments is unconstitutional.

The efforts of the Butler administration set a frightening precedent for college students. In an errant, unconstitutional effort to uphold their own reputations, the administrators concomitantly stymied Zimmerman’s First Amendment rights.

But it’s cases such as these which show just how fragile students’ freedom of expression rights can be — and underscore the need to tirelessly defend them.

The editorial in the Daily Iowan was run with the following cartoon:

From the News-Letter at Johns Hopkins University (11/12/09): The newspaper’s editor-in-chief called Butler’s actions into question in an opinion piece entitled “What’s in a Pseudonym?”:

The counts of "libel" and "defamation" that Butler University cites in its suit against "John Doe" are nothing more than harmless student opinion. Higher education, built for the expansion of young people's mind and boundaries, was meant for young adults to question and consider counts of authority.

Mark Twain, a.k.a. Samuel Clemens, made his satires of society under his world-famous pseudonym, the Bronte sisters published under male pseudonyms and the American constitutional debates used pseudonyms (Alexander Hamilton, John Madison and John Jay wrote under the famous "Publius"). Heck, numerous authors wrote under pseudonyms when calling colonial British operations into question before the Revolutionary War. Pen names have enabled some of the most important American events to transpire, and the hindrance of such a voice by Butler University threatens the freedom of speech in the future of college journalism.

What is in a pseudonym? What dictates the freedom of speech? Obviously, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.'s decision to shout fire in a crowded theater (Schenck v. United States) does not fall under the freedom of speech. However, Zimmerman's decision to criticize what he viewed as unjust University action is completely within his rights. Apparently he hurt administrative members' feelings and protests against their actions occurred. His singular voice of dissent could not single-handedly cause all the opinions and protests that occurred against the University administration. Butler University's decision to sue John Doe only propagates the statements made by Soodo Nym in his True BU blog. Zimmerman called the actions of Peter Alexander, dean of Butler University's College of Fine Arts, "abuses of power." Although Butler administrators claim these statements "libelous" the actions the University has taken to stifle student voice and silence public question is nothing less than that.

The future of free speech is unclear in today's day and age. Although America's past is rooted in free speech dictated under pseudonyms, clearly as opinions, they have not been libelous. Defamation could be viewed as causing ill opinion. However, Zimmerman's statements were only representative of his views as he called Butler policies into question.

Butler should invest more time into making a difference in its students' lives instead of covering up self-created messes that call its own integrity into question. This reputation band-aid and lawsuit only screams Nixonian ethics - after all, think of all the money that was spent on preserving the reputation of the President of the United States.

Butler University's course of action against Jess Zimmerman is misguided, unnecessary and poses a very terrifying problem for students and journalists everywhere: Will universities nationwide attempt to dictate free speech and muddy the growth of free thinking, following Butler University's course of action? It is up to us, as students and emerging individuals, to defend our right to write, protest and call into question what we view as wrong.

No court or university should keep us from doing just that.

From The Blue Banner at the University of North Carolina Ashville (11/11/09): An editorial entitled “Butler University foolishly stifles freedom of speech” comes out strongly in favor of freedom of speech and equally strongly opposed to the actions of the Butler administration. The editorial said, in part:

Blackballing or cracking down on critics creates a tension that never goes away and exacerbates an already bad situation.

Take UNC Asheville for instance. Here at The Blue Banner, we are sometimes critical of administrators, not because we have a personal vendetta to fulfill, but because we think they are not living up the expectations of this unique, diverse campus.

UNCA’s administration, to their credit, has not interfered in any way and continues to support an unfettered student press, unlike Butler.

Some administrators undoubtedly would say criticism of university leadership, whether at Butler or UNCA, harms the university. It is similar to the argument the Bush administration used to silence critics following 9/11. What those who raise such complaints fail to see is that it is possible to love an institution but disagree with its leadership.

If students like Zimmerman cannot challenge authority when they see something wrong on campus, then how can anything improve?

Butler administrators attempted to kill the messenger rather than solve the problems he pointed out, and it backfired on them.

Even though Butler dropped the lawsuit, the university is still pursuing other disciplinary action, according to an e-mail from Zimmerman.

The Blue Banner stands with Zimmerman and is proud he is actively taking on Butler.

Wishing for things to work out instead of working them out is irresponsible, and Zimmerman demonstrated courage by speaking out on what, undoubtedly, countless other Butler students and employees already knew.

Zimmerman’s case highlights the sad fact that, at universities across the country, the student press is often alone in publicly highlighting failures of school leadership.

As we have shown this semester, too many cases exist on this campus of faculty anonymously complaining about serious problems rather than publicly airing them so that creative and productive solutions can be found.

Sadly, some of the same faculty who encourage student expression and political involvement are themselves silent. But for those who truly cannot speak out for fear of losing their jobs, we will be your voice.

I’ll present some additional material tomorrow. In the meantime, let all of us know what you think of the support being offered around the country.