I’M HERE TO CHALLENGE STUDENTS

I have been employed for 25 years at San Diego State University, where I am a tenured professor of philosophy. It has been my privilege and my passion to teach students of all racial, ethnic, religious and economic backgrounds.

Although I am no provocateur, I have always intended my lessons and class discussions to be intellectually provocative. Until recently, I believed that this is what my colleagues, the university administration and, most importantly, my students wanted. I take seriously the SDSU Senate Policy that states that “Freedom of expression … defends the expression we abhor as well as the expression we support.” However, that belief has been shaken in recent weeks.

On the evening of March 1, an SDSU dean summarily removed me from two courses that I have taught for years — Philosophy, Racism and Justice, and Critical Thinking and Composition. The reasons she gave for the removal were “numerous student complaints” and her unfounded belief that I am “no longer effective in the course.”

Soon thereafter, I learned that the “complaints” concerned my lesson earlier that day of the “use-mention” distinction in philosophy, which is a foundational concept in determining what language counts as racism — distinguishing between racist language (the “use” of a racial slur, including racist intent) and racial language (the mere “mentioning” of a racial slur, without racist intent). During the lecture and class discussion, I mentioned the “N-word” as an example.

Within days, online rumors abounded that I said the word more than 60 times during class, which of course is absurd. Individuals who knew nothing about me or the courses started a change.org petition to have me fired. Clearly they didn’t bother to research my work, my commitment to the wellbeing of Black people, or my writings in favor of reparations and racial justice.

The language was clearly relevant to the subject matter of the lesson. At no time has the dean, the complaining students or anyone else disputed that. I have been teaching this material essen

Corlett, PH.D., is a professor of philosophy and ethics at San Diego State University, and lives in San Diego.

tially the same way for over two decades while receiving stellar student and department reviews. Despite the dean’s contention that my teaching is not “effective,” I have received 11 teaching awards from SDSU in the past 12 years (several specifically recognizing my mentorship of students of color).

I have given much of my life to the university, yet SDSU did not provide me with any prior notice of these so-called complaints, did not inform me of their substance, and did not give me any opportunity to defend myself or respond to them before removing me from my courses. This was a clear violation of my due process rights, to say nothing of common decency.

As a professor at a taxpayer-supported public university, I enjoy the First Amendment right to freedom of speech — the same right that we all enjoy as private citizens. And in the classroom, this affords me the academic freedom to teach my students as I see fit, provided the material is germane to the subject matter of the course. I do not lose that freedom simply because one or more students or administrative functionaries might find my language disagreeable or even offensive.

As university faculty teaching adult students, we have a responsibility to our students to challenge them intellectually even if that means they may feel uncomfortable. If we abandon that responsibility, students will be shortchanged. Lessons won’t be taught. Vital and vibrant classroom discussions will never take place.

Thankfully, I have received an outpouring of strong support from the public, students and scholars at the finest universities worldwide who understand what is at stake when a professor is disciplined for merely doing his job.

This case is not just about me — it’s about free speech, due process, academic freedom, and what prevails in a college classroom: intellectual exploration or coerced silence.