Growing up in nearby Saratoga, N.Y., Matt Werenczak always rooted for Syracuse University sports. Now, even his grandparents have stopped cheering for the university.

After a comment Werenczak made on his Facebook page led to his removal from the fall semester student teaching program, the School of Education graduate student became the latest example in the debate concerning how much control the university should exercise over student speech.

SU has — at least twice in the last year and a half — been publicly scrutinized for violating students’ ability to speak freely, sparking criticism against the university by some. Werenczak said now his own opinion of the school has soured, and strangers have told him they will no longer donate to SU after he was treated so poorly.

Others, faculty members included, are wary of the scrutiny and believe the line between freedom of speech and harassment can often blur in issues that involve highly sensitive topics. They believe that when a seemingly damaging or offensive action occurs, the university has an obligation to intervene.

Among the most vocal freedom of speech critics against the university is Adam Kissel, vice president of programs for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. FIRE, an organization devoted to policing individual freedoms in higher education, named SU the worst school for free speech in January 2011, after a fall-out from the satirical SUCOLitis blog created by a then-SU law student who has since transferred from the university.

‘Syracuse was first on the list because of its severe and ongoing pattern of violating its free speech promises,’ Kissel said in an email, adding that SU is on pace to appear near the top of the list once more.

It was FIRE that brought attention to Werenczak’s case in January. During his time as a student teacher, Werenczak said he overheard a black member of the Concerned Citizens Action Program state that the middle school he worked at should employ more teachers from historically black colleges. Werenczak, who is white, posted a response on Facebook that read: ‘Just making sure we’re okay with racism. It’s not enough I’m … tutoring in the worst school in the city, I suppose I oughta be black or stay in my own side of town.’

The principal of the middle school read the comment and reported to the dean of SU’s School of Education. Werenczak said he was eventually pulled from the fall semester student teaching program and advised to undergo diversity training to be reconsidered for the program. He complied, but was bothered by what he viewed as the university’s slow-moving, prolonged response in delivering a decision about his ability to return to the program.

Though he did not comment specifically on Werenczak’s case, Douglas Biklen, dean of the School of Education, said in an email it is not uncommon for the college to delay placement of student teachers if additional requirements, such as retaking courses or meeting accreditation requirements, is needed. Biklen said delayed replacement ‘is not tantamount to expulsion.’

On Jan. 6, about five months after Werenczak was told he could not participate in the student teaching program in the fall, he enlisted help from FIRE. After receiving publicity from FIRE, Werenczak was reinstated in the program by Jan. 18.

Werenczak said he is apologetic about the comment and admits the words did not portray him in the most flattering light, but he believes the punishment was severe and could have jeopardized his professional future.

‘Even if I said something stupid or uninformed, that should be allowed,’ he said.

Werenczak said he feels the university strongly emphasizes tolerance on campus, which, at times, can conflict with freedom of speech rights.

‘(By) trying not to offend anyone, they come down as violating free speech,’ he said.

Biklen said students who participate in professional preparation programs are expected to carry themselves with professionalism, adding that he values speech strongly and doesn’t believe students’ ability to speak freely was ever in question.

**

A second instance in which FIRE criticized SU for restricting speech involved Len Audaer, a former SU law student.

Audaer was investigated by the College of Law after receiving criticism for authoring entries published to SUCOLitis, a blog satirizing life at the college. The investigation lasted months and ended in February 2011, but Audaer, now a student at Northwestern University’s Law School, maintains he was wronged by SU.

Audaer described the blog as ‘pretty much entirely harmless fun.’

Names used on the satirical blog were chosen at random, and posts were not written to intentionally offend anyone, Audaer said. He indirectly received word that one student felt offended and later offered the student an apology, he said.

‘The vast majority of what we were writing was completely benign. … It was very clear it was comedy,’ Audaer said.

Gregory Germain, faculty prosecutor, however, strongly disagreed and said some of the entries constituted harassment.

Germain pointed to examples indicated by Vice Chancellor and Provost Eric Spina in a letter published on The Huffington Post’s website Jan. 28, 2011, including an entry that accused ‘by name a first-year female student ‘mess[ing] around with a couple of guys during orientation,’ ‘ and another ‘stating that a former Student Life staff member was dead, and that she had won the ‘person I’d most like to hate f#c*’ award.’

The College of Law’s Academic Integrity Expectation states ‘a law student shall not engage in conduct involving moral turpitude or other conduct which would unreasonably interfere with the operation of the College of Law.’ This includes violence and threats of violence or harassment directed at another person, according to College of Law guidelines Germain highlighted.

Audaer described the College of Law’s policy as broad and vague with no general standard or definition of harassment, he said, also adding that it is important to differentiate between freedom of speech and harassment.

He said he believes the university is willing to bend freedom of speech rules to police language or actions it finds offensive, asserting the behavior is not unique to the College of Law and faulting upper-level administration.

‘I think this anti-free speech policy isn’t just an accident,’ Audaer said. ‘It’s very deliberate.’

Audaer called upon examples such as the HillTV incident in 2005 in which a campus television station was shut down without discussion. The station broadcast a television show some viewed as offensive, according to an Oct. 25, 2005, article published in The Daily Orange.

Regarding the SUCOLitis case, Audaer said he feels the strong push against the blog was directed by administrators beyond the College of Law, implicating Chancellor Nancy Cantor. He said he believes faculty in the College of Law conferred with the chancellor for advice on how to best handle the situation.

‘I feel, looking back, Chancellor Cantor was very much behind the investigation. … I’m 100 percent sure it came from the top,’ Audaer said.

David Rubin, dean emeritus and professor at the S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications, offered a counterpoint and said he believes the pressure from administrators against the blog came from students who were, themselves, ‘overly sensitive to a parody.’ Vice Chancellor and Provost Spina also said students within the College of Law filed complaints about the blog.

Kissel, vice president of programs for FIRE, on the other hand, said he felt Cantor could have become more involved in each of the situations to ensure students’ freedom of speech was maintained.

‘She could have intervened in either case, but instead appears to have let the injustices continue in each case,’ he said.

After more than two decades at SU, Rubin said neither instance involving Werenczak or Audaer indicates a trend of speech being threatened at SU.

‘I don’t think a couple of incidents in all the years proves anything other than there aren’t many incidents,’ he said.

Rubin said the only instance in recent memory where a threat was posed to students’ freedom of speech took place when JERK magazine was banned from a campus dining hall. In that occasion, Rubin said students vocalized their dissatisfaction and the ban was lifted.

‘People are almost always going to object to speech that is critical,’ he said, advising that the best method to address controversy is to ‘answer speech with speech.’

**

Spina said the investigation in the College of Law and the situation in the School of Education derived from the codes of conduct of the individual schools.

Each professional school sets its own standards, Spina said, and in the situation last year and more recently, there was reason to believe the students involved violated those standards.

Spina said he believes in both situations FIRE involved itself, the organization did not possess all the facts. He added that he believes it is to FIRE’s benefit to offer criticism of the university.

‘FIRE has, like many organizations, an agenda,’ Spina said. ‘They, I think, benefit from tete-a-tetes with different organizations and institutions.

‘Some students might identify certain circumstances that a student is being silenced or their right to free speech or free expression is being denied, when in fact, there’s been a determination by a program … that there is a situation that needs to be addressed.’

[email protected] 

Published on February 8, 2012 at 12:00 pm

Contact Debbie: [email protected] | @debbietruong