Davenport University (Grand Rapids, MI)—Free Speech in Peril!

At the time of the "summit" meeting, in October 2007, positive psychology had a lot to celebrate. It was gaining ground at all levels in academia, with more than two hundred colleges and graduate schools offering courses in positive psychology, sometimes dubbed "Happiness 101," in which students reflected on their happier moments and engaged in exercises like writing "gratitude letters" to people in their lives.

       —Barbara Ehrenreich, Bright-Sided Bright-sided:  How the Relentless Promotion of Positive Thinking Has Undermined America

The editor was employed at Davenport University as an online adjunct instructor for nearly two years, then suddenly was given no further courses to teach... because of several student-client complaints.  The editor had failed to provide sufficient positive, ego-boosting feedback to student clients whose writing skills were, to say the least, horrendous.  Read about the problems confronting the University of Phoenix, another online institution.  The following two "post-mortem" lectures were sent to the administrators and students.  Send any comments to todslone@yahoo.com. 


Post-Mortem Lecture for ENGL 211 (Professional Writing): 
Democracy and the First Amendment at Davenport University
Many of you wrote positive comments in your evaluations regarding my teaching and I thank you for that.  A few of you wrote damning comments, which was certainly your right.  In any case, I write this “post-mortem lecture” to inform you what occurred due to the damning student complaints and lack of Free Speech and Expression at Davenport University.  In fact, much more important than taking a course in Professional Writing, DU students (and administrators) ought to be required to take a course in Democracy and the First Amendment.  In such a course you’d learn a little bit more than “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make thee mad” (Aldous Huxley).  Indeed, amongst other things, you’d learn

"The Constitution may impose limits only on the government, but the First Amendment is premised on the idea that there should be a free marketplace of ideas.  Private universities, for example, are not constrained by the Constitution, but most choose to follow it anyway, because they recognize that the exchange of ideas—no matter how wrongheaded or obnoxious—is good for education." (Alan Dershowitz, Harvard law professor)

“…The function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute.  It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger." (Supreme Court, Terminiello v. Chicago)

The Academic Dean, Sherry Roslund, wrote the following “professional” email:

"DUO wants to thank you for teaching for us; however, this message is to inform you that we will be unable to assign courses to you in the future as our needs have changed.  We want to wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors." 

Unfortunately, “professional” seems to have come to mean anything but the truth, as long as polite and civil.  How sad for America.  Why not simply write that due to student complaints and one of your lectures (“Writing Well”), we do not want you teaching with us any more despite your loyal one and a half years with us.  And what kind of inanity is “We want to wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors”?  Sounds a bit like Enron “professionals” probably wrote to the thousands of employees that got shafted by their corruption.  It is a hypocritical statement, if one considers that the Academic Dean will not write me a letter of recommendation.   “Professional” is more than suit and tie and vacuous civility.  More than anything else, it is truth.  The SS Nazi gang was very “professional,” but hardly truthful.  In fact, the Angel of Death Mengele was known to be quite civil.  The Enron-gang wore suits and ties and were vacuously civil, but they failed when it came to truth also. 
 
For some students, as well as the Academic Coordinator and Academic Dean, that “Writing Well” lecture was entirely incomprehensible, akin to the Communist Manifesto for Senator Joseph McCarthy. For them, the discourse on criticism and Emersonian “rude truth” must have been like Nuclear Physics or the Republican discourse for Democrats… or vice versa.  Equally incomprehensible must have been my statement on not including positive comments on my teaching in that lecture because that would be self-serving.

It is astonishing to me that “Writing Well” lecture could actually anger students and DU administrators.  Astonishing, that is, if one omits to consider higher education today, where praise has become its purpose, as opposed to truth seeking, as it once was supposed to be.  It is sad that some students and even administrators lack the ability to read a text without drawing unfounded conclusions.  That “Writing Well” lecture never stipulated that I only speak “ugly truth” (yet how can truth be ugly?).  I have always praised students in my classes.  It has never been my policy to be nasty to students, but rather frank.  The following is what the Academic Coordinator Sabina Mulvaney wrote:

"I have gotten numerous student concerns about your ENGL211 course this session.  Most of them have the same comments as to your style of instructing:  'rude', 'condescending', 'arrogant', 'inappropriate' etc.  While we both know that some students write abysmally, we are in the business of instructing budding writers and not just critiquing.  I did read your 'Writing Well' lecture (although that was not brought to my attention, surprisingly enough) and I would agree that false praise to raise one's esteem is not called for and not effective in producing good writers.  Neither, though, is the 'ugly truth' in many cases. There are many ways to point out mistakes and redirect writing, and frankly your style is turning off a number of students to the writing process as a whole and Davenport in particular. I am not sure what to do to reconcile our two 'styles' at this point of the session, but I would hope that you would put yourself in the role of the learner and contemplate what you would want to be brought to your attention in a public forum and what tone you would like that constructive criticism to take." 

As I’m certain you know by now, I am an avid defender of American democracy above all else, including my pocketbook and American higher education.  Sadly and most oddly, both democracy and higher education seem to be increasingly in conflict today (e.g., censoring or firing instructors who present undesirable viewpoints).  Numerous instances of that conflict have been recorded (see for example www.thefire.org).  In fact, many institutions of higher education like DU establish and encourage an Enron-like culture of rampant self-censorship, back slapping, and weeding out of anyone apt to question and challenge, or otherwise make waves.  In reality, these are not universities, open forums for the free flow of ideas at all.  They are training schools.  To call them universities is intellectually fraudulent.  DU, if honest, should call itself Davenport Professional Training School.  The following was my response a month ago to the Academic Coordinator’s email.

Well, I’ve waited a few days before responding to your email in order to contemplate the serious issue you’ve evoked.  As I’m sure you’d agree, this is a delicate matter for you and me to discuss.  My viewpoint on the issue is probably irrelevant given my status as adjunct instructor and even moreso given the very state of higher education today, where students have become clients and clients necessary for profitability.  But I shall express them anyhow. 

Needless to say, I am appalled at the level of English composition of a number of my DU students and have asked myself how they managed to enroll in a university and more importantly how this is going to affect democracy in America… down the road.  (Of course, other DU students write quite well and receive compliments from me for it.)  I do receive assignments—not most, but a handful—that have essentially no merit and that entirely ignore the suggestions provided on previous assignments.  I have found it difficult, where I suppose most other instructors have not, to include positive and encouraging remarks regarding those assignments and students. 

It would perhaps be interesting for you to ask students who have complained to provide the remarks I’ve made on their papers that provoked the complaints.  Just the same, given the state of higher education and our country as a whole today, I fully comprehend that a “good” instructor is one who satisfies his or her students… and evidently that has not been my case.  Clearly, dissatisfied students might be tempted to bring their business elsewhere and that, sadly, has become the bottom line in higher education today and will inevitably continue to help erode democracy in America. 

By the way, I was not aware that so many of my students were dissatisfied [this semester].  Sadly, it seems that adult students are somehow being encouraged to be fearful, rather than courageous, and bring their concerns directly to an instructor’s superior prior to giving the instructor a full opportunity to resolve them.  How is this type of encouraged behavior going to be positive in the business world for these business students?    

Here is an interesting comment from student Towanda McCallum:  “Hi Tod, I am sorry.  I thought I read the agenda thoroughly.  Thank you for sharing with me the explanation for the results of my assignment. Other online instructors post grades with no explanation.” 

If you prefer, I’d gladly do as those “other online instructors.”  It would certainly be less time consuming and, evidently, no comments probably lead to fewer complaints.  On the Discussion Board, I often express what I really think and encourage students to do the same.  Perhaps I should not do this because some students do not like my opinions and complain about them.  Yet wouldn’t that run entirely contrary to a university’s obligation to permit, if not encourage, freedom of expression? 

Here is an interesting comment regarding the Writing Well lecture from student Jarod Reif, one that DU administrators perhaps might wish to contemplate:  “I enjoyed the lecture, I thought it really spelled out what was expected of the students in this class.  I have felt during my time at Davenport that a lot of students were getting away with a lot.  In all of my classes online, students were allowed to get away with atrocious spelling and grammar mistakes in assignments and on the discussion boards.  The same goes for on campus classes, but that's a slightly different ball of wax.  I am glad to finally see an instructor who doesn't sugar coat things and forces the students to watch spelling and grammar.  I cannot fault an instructor for being rude, if they are correcting me and trying to make my work better.  The only thing I saw wrong with the lecture is, I think someone else said it as well, it is a little on the long side.  It was nice to see other students comments though.”

Does DU not run the risk of gaining a reputation of being an “easy,” as opposed to rigorous and demanding, institution?  Such a reputation would doubtfully be positive in the eyes of would-be employers who want to hire graduates who can write a sentence without committing numerous errors and who are able to take hard critique without getting overly upset. 

Student S. Rainey wrote regarding the Writing Well lecture, which by the way I did spend a lot of time composing for DU:  “I have even passed along some of your "tips" to my fellow students in my other class in which we are writing a group project and I am the proof-reader—isn't that ironic?” 

Student Alissa Bolema stated regarding the lecture:  “Your views on honesty are refreshing.  Although the truth is often referred to as brutal, it is only brutal if the recipient is not ready to admit a mistake or fault.  I will try to remember this the next time I feel guilty about being honest.” 

These things said, I have thoroughly enjoyed teaching for DU and would certainly be willing to follow directives with regards my exchanges with DU students, though I suspect my honesty in this email and with students will prove fatal to my future employment with you.  If you like, I’d certainly be willing to eliminate the Writing Well lecture or just the discourse on Emerson’s “rude truth,” since most people cannot seem to comprehend it.  I could also make it a point to place a sentence of praise in each and every assignment, merited or not, if you would like me to do so.    

Below I include the student evaluation comments made by 13 of you, something you probably never get to see.  They are anonymous.  I do not know who made which comments and do not care.  However, it is sad that a student writing “G. Tod is a horrible teacher and a horrible human being” was not held to provide precise instances to back such a damning assertion.  Does that student even know what the definition of “horrible” is?  I cannot fathom what I might have possibly written to that student for him or her to make such a nefarious declaration.  It is mind-boggling.  Clearly, DU must have an open-enrollment policy, admitting essentially anybody… with the appropriate cash.  The harshest thing I wrote on papers (unless a student had been exceptionally rude to me—and that does not interest administrators) was “Please read the agendas carefully and please do not continue ignoring my Writing Well lecture.  You’ve made numerous errors examined in it.”  True, I also wrote on one or several papers that the work ought to have been outright rejected because of the 20-30 spelling errors.  Well, if I were “smarter” like other DU instructors, I would have simply given the students in question a B-grade and without comment. 

In general, the evaluations were not that bad at all, but the student who wrote “FIRE him and hire no other instructors like him” evidently got his or her wish. Too bad I’ll never know what I wrote to get that student so hateful.  Well, today I am “fired” and without health insurance, though DU does not offer health insurance to its many instructors because it simply does not care about those instructors.  In fact, it willingly partakes in the cheap-labor scheme of hiring adjuncts to avoid having to bother with health insurance.  Yes, you ought to have examined that in your group projects on the health-insurance crisis.  In any case, how does one possibly please everyone?  Yet apparently there are instructors who manage to do this at DU.  Well, that is certainly not my goal, nor will it ever be.  That is the goal of our politicians and sadly, it seems, our academicians too.  My goal is to express myself and the truth as I see it, as well as encourage free and open debate.  Those students who were unhappy chose not to debate with me, but rather to complain to my superior like children.  Because I tend to speak openly does not necessarily mean I am not civil.  On the contrary, I am polite.  George Orwell also spoke openly and he too was known to be polite. 

By the way, I am founding editor of The American Dissident, a literary journal of critical thinking.  Last year, one DU student complained about the journal’s website (www.theamericandissident.org).  DU administrators therefore requested I remove mention of it from my DU biography, which I did.  Some lesson in democracy and the First Amendment for that student!  In any case, good luck in the future.  Despite what this letter might seem to argue, I really do enjoy teaching and did enjoy your class.  Please reserve a little place in your minds, hearts, and “professional” behavior for democracy, the free expression of all ideas, debate, and intellectual criticism.  If we do not stand up for these things today, the whole of America will become monopolized by democracy-indifferent institutions like Davenport University.  Indeed, we will become a fascist nation proudly boasting how great our democracy is… in an Orwellian-twist.  If you would like further discussion on the issues underscored here, feel free to email me and consult my DU-banned website (www.theamericandissident.org). 

Thank you for your attention. 
Sincerely, Ex-Instructor G. Tod Slone, PhD

1. How would you improve this class?

A new instructor. I'm sure this class would be great it it were taught by a professional instructor. G. Tod was ALWAYS rude, unprofessional, inpatient and condecending. I learned absolutey nothing in this class except to dislike something I used to enjoy. He clearly was reprimanded during the last few weeks of class and this made him even more mad. He was more rude, and condecending, totally inappropriate. G. Tod is a horrible teacher and a horrible human being.

The instructors so called constructive critisim was at times unprofessional. Though he preached professionalism the second he was informed of complaints from students he began changing assigned disscussion questions to reflect his apparent anger and resentment at the complaints. This is very childish for a professor who seems to have the abilty to "dish out" the critisim, yet can not apparently take it. I expected more from a Davenport instructor. Very disappointing.

The only thing I would like to see improved, but probably won't happen is students to take criticism as helpful and not taken personal. Its not the class that needs to be changed it would be the students taking it.

There isn't much I would do to improve. THe instructor was great, I really enjoyed it. I would make the Portfolio Artifact a personal assignment instead of a group project. I hate working with people who have NO IDEA on how to write papers.

I thought the class was well formulated in regards to business writing. I had a mixture of research and personal type documents.

I would improve this course by not writing such a long lecture about how rude previous students felt the instructor could be. I think this only sets up the current student to expect this from the instructor instead of forming their own opinions. I would only inform the students I was going to be honest about their writing.

2. How was this class directly related to your career?

I have gain the knowledge to better prepare a memo, resume, coverletter, and a follow up letter. This will help me not only gain a career but also know what to detect when resumes are submitted to me.

Not at all, I learned nothing

It was supposed to teach me how to communicate in a business enviroment.

This class helped to prepare me for things such as resume writting and professional memos. The content was very helpful.

This class, I would consider, to be directly related to every career. Writing is something that is done in every job and everyone should have this as a requirement for any career path.

It improved my skills in looking at my writing.

Professional writing relates to everything.

This course helped improve my writing skills and learn to better communicate using facts

As a accountant it is important to be able write in a professional manner, therefore this class has directed in the right direction.

This course did teach me how to be a more professional writer. I originally thought the course would be geared toward writing for business, but I learned from the class all the same.

This class will help to improve my written communication skills for memos, letters, and reports.

3. Was this class consistent with the quality that you expect from Davenport University? Please explain:

I was surprised by T. Slone was an outstanding instructor. I will always remember him because he has allowed us as student to explore the world of writing, my favorite subject

By no means. All of my experiences at Davenport were positive before this point. G. Tod has certainly tainted my impression of this institution. I think it would be wise to have more people monitoring the online classes so that the university is more aware of how teachers treat students. I know several people dropped this class right near the end, presumably because of the instructor, I'm sure other sessions have felt the same way. FIRE him and hire no other instructors like him. Being rude and condecending is by no means contructive criticism.

Not at all. The instructor was very unprofessional and very rude and arrogant. His instructions were very unclear and in one instance he waited until two days before a portion of the group assingment was due to tell the class who was in our group and we then had to rush to get the assingment done. I would not recommend Mr. Slone as a instructor to anyone. His attiude towards his students is very rude and unprofessional. His teacing skills leave something to be desired.

The content of this class was consistent with my expectations, the instructor was NOT!!

This class was above and beyond my expectations. The criticism I recieved was very straight forward and understood. I feel this instructor was not like any other. I am not saying that other instructors were not good, just that this instructor has been my favorite.

I have come to not expect much at Davenport. Every class I have been in has changed direction to teach to the least common denominator. I never walk away learning much.

Very good learning experiance!

Yes, expectations were high and I appreciate that I have to present hard work and dedication in order to succeed.

It was beyond my expectations. G. Tod Slone has been the best instructor I've had at DU so far. He's received a lot of grief this term and I don't feel it is warranted. His approach is direct and honest, by no means rude. DU could stand to have a few more of him around to weed out the slackers, which there seem to be plenty of.

Yes it was. The instructor expected a high quality of work from his students as he should. I felt the course was challenging and represented Davenport well.

Post-Mortem Lecture #2 for ENGL 211 (Professional Writing): 
Democracy and the First Amendment at Davenport University
“[…] the vitality of your college or university depends in great part on the freedom of your teachers to speak freely, including to speak freely with you [the student].
            —French, Lukianoff and Silverglate, constitutional lawyers and authors of FIRE’s Guide to Free Speech on Campus

Half of my former class will not receive this second lecture because the reaction of the Academic Dean, Sherry Roslund, to the first lecture was not to engage in healthy debate but rather to immediately curtail my access to DU.  Your email addresses I have because when you wrote I saved them. 

What really angers me, as an American citizen, is that the Dean, and other university administrators like her, are teaching atudents to remain ignorant of the very importance of free speech at a university, public or private.  They are also teaching professors to be self-censors. 

“In a free society, speech is permitted to demean, upset, and offend (indeed, much honest criticism and polemic aims to do precisely that), and such speech is protected under the First Amendment,” note  French, Lukianoff and Silverglate.  

The Academic Coordinator, Sabrina Mulvaney, ought to heed those words.  She, along with a couple of students, found my Writing Well lecture to be somewhat reprehensible (“ugly truth”).  The best thing she could do for those complaining students would be to have them read this very lecture, as well as FIRE’s Guide to Free Speech on Campus.  The best thing she could do for herself would be to contemplate the following:  “Sheltering students from speech is patronizing and paternalistic” (French, Lukianoff and Silverglate).  Here is what a full professor at a state college in Massachusetts wrote the other day regarding the first letter I sent and the Writing Well lecture:   

“Took time to read your letter which was excellent.  I have already told you how outstanding the writing well lecture is.  In fact, if you could download and print out, I would be eternally grateful for a copy.  It is the highest professional ethics for writing as well as creative thought.  You are to be praised rather than chastised.  Also, it represented a hell of a lot of work on your part.  What is wrong with these people who need always to be praised for shit?  That is right.  Praised for shit?  That is what it is coming to.

‘Forget the learning process….don’t even bother to mark my papers….just tell me what my grade is/was.’   There, I’ve hit it on the head.  Give me the grade.”

The following is another quote from French, Lukianoff and Silverglate.  Evidently, all administrators at Davenport University ought to examine it carefully.  Will they?  Of course not. 

“Is the administration simply interested in ‘quiet on its watch’ rather than real education and honest human interaction?  Remind administrators that pain and offense—the inevitable by-product of having ones fundamental beliefs challenged—is a vital part of the educational process, and that if students graduate without ever having to evaluate their positions on fundamental principles, then the university has failed them.  Finally, for those who are not interested in principled arguments, remind them that history shows us that the censors of one generation are the censored of the next. […] You are part of the community; do not let the administration that it must censor speech to please the community.  The idea that there is a conflict between free speech and the academic community fundamentally misunderstands both the goals of higher education and the nature and role of free speech.”

Finally, one must wonder why administrators like Roslund, Mulvaney, and Faculty Development Coordinator Linda Crosby (because of one student complaint, the latter requested I remove mention of The American Dissident in my DU biography, as if it where a shameful publication) are so fearful of ideas and open discussion. Why do they seem to detest democracy and the First Amendment?  Why do they encourage students who detest the latter to have a “chilling effect” (i.e., stifling) on a professor’s right to express himself?  Do they really believe that my voice is so powerful as to threaten them?  Do they believe that by killing my voice, they somehow protect students or is it rather themselves and the general façade of DU?  How did their education fail them?  What went wrong?  Do they not even realize the damage they do to democracy and this country?  Yes, they will teach you how to become “professional” appearing, sounding, and thinking, but they will certainly not teach you how to become responsible citizens. 

When adults like DU administrators become obsessed with censoring anyone and anything that might be OFFENSIVE to someone, deeming him or it as UNPROFESSIONAL, they inevitably OFFEND the very Constitution of the United States of America.  Since there has been no response to the previous lecture with the exception of the Academic Dean’s indirect response, this will be my last lecture.  After all, what point is there in talking to a vast brick wall?