A lawsuit filed by a former graduate student has Temple in the midst of a legal battle over students’ First Amendment rights.
On April 10, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Temple appealed a March 2007 ruling that the university’s old sexual harassment policy was too broad and unconstitutional. Temple amended the old policy, which the District Court permanently enjoined.
Sgt. Christian DeJohn, 38, a Pennsylvania National Guard combat veteran and former Temple graduate student, filed suit against Temple in 2006, challenging the constitutionality of the university’s then-standing sexual harassment policy.
If Temple loses the appeal, it will be prevented from reverting back to its old policy, said David Hacker, an Alliance Defense Fund attorney who is representing DeJohn.
“There’s no objectivity to [the old policy],” Hacker said. “Temple did the right thing by changing [it], but the only reason they changed it was because of Mr. DeJohn’s lawsuit.”
Hacker said it could take three to six months for the court to make a decision.
University counsel George Moore said the old sexual harassment policy, which was developed through a university-wide committee including faculty, administrators and student consultations, contained language similar to the Equal Opportunity Act.
“The District Court found that Temple’s policy was overly broad based on a Third Circuit decision involving a civility code in primary education out of the State College School District,” Moore said. “Temple’s sexual harassment [code], which is not a civility code [or a speech code], is a code addressing illegal sexual harassing conduct.”
Moore said the outcome of the case is difficult to predict.
“One [option] is to seek reconsideration by the Third Circuit. Although, if the Third Circuit believes that the case was decided with regards to State College School District, the Third Circuit might feel bound to follow that,” he said.
“If the decision comes out based on that prior case, they don’t have any choice,” Moore said. “It might be a waste of time to ask them to reconsider. In that case, either side that is unhappy … can seek certiorari from the [U.S.] Supreme Court, [but] the Supreme Court only takes a small percentage of cases that way.”
In the same suit, DeJohn accused Temple of retaliation, which prevented him from graduating, and specifically sued the university itself, former President David Adamany, former history department chair Dr. Richard Immerman and history professor Dr. Gregory Urwin.
Moore said the court properly dismissed DeJohn’s claims of retaliation, as he did not meet university standards.
“With respect to his claim about the university sexual harassment policies, his claims really had nothing to do with the sexual harassment policy as it existed at the time,” Moore said. “It was not even a pertinent part of his claims of retaliation.”
DeJohn said his problems with Temple began when he took a leave of absence from working toward his military history degree to serve in Bosnia after the Spring 2002 semester.
When he returned back to the United States in March 2003, he learned that he was expelled from the university for failing to properly document his leave.
“This was my ‘welcome home’ from Temple,” DeJohn said. “‘Welcome home, you’re kicked out.’”
DeJohn was readmitted into the university and completed his class requirements. He began to research and write his graduate thesis, the last step in obtaining his degree.
“Because of Sept. 11, my whole life was disrupted,” DeJohn said. “I just wanted to finish my degree.”
When the primary reader of his thesis, history professor Dr. Jay Lockenour, was ready to sign off on it, DeJohn had one more hurdle to overcome – a secondary reader, Urwin, also had to approve it.
“DeJohn could have easily executed the revisions I recommended for his flawed [Master of Arts] thesis in two weeks and walked away from Temple with his degree years ago,” Urwin wrote in an e-mail, adding that he is currently helping four service members obtain degrees.
“One of the wildest charges DeJohn has circulated since the trial is that I have had him blackballed by various potential employers. How in the world would I know where he was applying for work?”
DeJohn said that though Urwin did not approve his thesis, Lockenour advised him to register to graduate in May 2005 anyway.
Although he never graduated, he said Temple reported to his student loan companies that he obtained a diploma, causing his loans to default, damaging his credit.
“As a veteran, I feel really strongly about civil rights, freedom of speech and First Amendment rights,” DeJohn said. “I think I have a responsibility to defend them. I like the irony here. I come home to Philadelphia, the cradle of democracy, and Temple is denying me my civil rights.”
“Before the disagreements, I had no problems as a student,” DeJohn said. “My cumulative GPA was a 3.2 or 3.3 in graduate school.”
DeJohn said he believes that his issues with the history department stemmed from his objections to receiving anti-war e-mails for weekly Dissent in America teach-ins sponsored by the department while he served overseas.
He said he is not sure what he could win in the case. He said one possibility is declaratory damages, in which Temple would be required to acknowledge that it violated the law.
“If we prevail on the First Amendment [issue], the usual award is $1. It’s a totally symbolic award,” he said.
He said he is ready to take the case as far as needed to ensure First Amendment rights for Temple students.
“If someone is hit by lightning once, it may be an accident,” he said. “If they’re hit seven times, something’s going on. I really have faith that this story will get out and that justice will be done – on the big picture level and my own personal individual level.”
Morgan A. Zalot can be reached at morgan.zalot@temple.edu.
Interesting story. I’m curious to know what the current president, Ann Weaver Hart, has to say about this case. In her own words, “Academic freedom and Freedom of Speech in higher education” [are] a key “research interest.” Did you have an opportunity to talk to her?
The article neglects to mention that while Temple lacks even one single organization willing to publicly support its alleged right to arbitrarily suspend students’ First Amendment freedom of speech and expression, our case has garnered the support of a remarkable bipartisan coalition including the ACLU of Pennsylvania, Feminists for Freedom of Expression, the Christian Legal Society, Collegefreedom.org, the Individual Rights Foundation, Students for Academic Freedom, and the Student Press Law Center.
See “Fire Files Amicus Brief in DeJohn vs. Temple,”
http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/8355.html
Dr. Gregory Urwin of Temple’s History Department has called me “mentally imbalanced from being trained to kill by the US Army,” accused me of “suffering from Alzheimers’ Disease,” compared me to the Virginia Tech mass murderer, and referred to my MA thesis as “a monotonous agony (using) juvenile argumentation…a comic book for five-year olds.” For good measure, he has admitted under oath to contacting “about a dozen” Temple alumni, potential employers, etc. to blackball me and sabotage my job search.
See ‘Temple’s Civil Rights Violations are a Disgrace,” at:
http://www.thebulletin.us/site/index.cfm?newsid=19475653&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=8
Dr. Richard Immerman, former Chair of Temple’s History department, wrote to fellow Temple History Department professor Urwi- in language he admitted he has never used towards any other student in 30 years of teaching- “Christian is a gnat whom I hope will self-destruct.” Another Temple witness, Jeffrey LaMonica, wrote to Urwin that DeJohn “should be dealt with in the Sicilian way,” i.e., murdered, for bringing a civil rights suit.
Here’s a senior magazine editor’s view of Immerman’s behavior:
“In the course of discovery proceedings, e-mail correspondence among Temple University History Department faculty members came to light in which Sgt. DeJohn was accused of suffering from “paranoid delusions,” being “mentally imbalanced,” “trained to kill by the U.S. Army,” and being “literally obsessed with the idea of liberal bias.”
Among the emails was one from (former Temple History Department Chair) Richard Immerman, in which he stated that “Christian is a gnat whom I hope will self-destruct without any help from us.”
This is interesting language for a professor to use about one of his students, especially a student who voluntarily chose to put himself in harm’s way to defend Richard Immerman’s right to spout nonsense.
If dissenting students were treated in this way at Temple University, how are dissenting analysts within the intelligence community treated now that Immerman is responsible for investigating their complaints of left-wing and/or any other form of bias?
I would welcome receiving reports from any “gnats” who have had experience dealing with the good professor.”
See “If Michael Moore Had A Security Clearance,” at:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/793cusff.asp
and, “The Richard Immerman Watch,” at:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/category/connecting-the-dots
ian Says:
Reading the decision, the most important point is that the Court, even though it found that veterans are not within a traditional protected class, found triable issues that the plaintiff was treated differently than other similarly situated individuals without any rational basis and refused to dismiss the 1983 equal protection claim, which is the heart of the issue. The other claims, conspiracy to violate civil rights, promissory estoppel, tortious interference with contractual relations, violation of the state’s Educational Leave Act, are peripheral or are in areas with very heightened pleading standards, and their dismissal says nothing at all regarding the merits of the plaintiff’s contentions as to whether he was the victim of discrimination. One thing that troubles me is just how limited a student’s legal options are in the event of the type of discrimination that plaintiff is alleging. Where racial or sexual harrassment cases are afforded protection based on the classification of these categories in a traditional protected class, the options that the victim of anti-military or ideological bias has at a university is comparatively narrow. Finally, the undisputed facts, such as evidence of retribution for disagreeing with a professor’s political views, is well established in the decision. Whatever the legal outcome, the professors and administrators at the school should be deeply embarassed. Specifically regarding Immerman, the arrogance and intolerance by which he has performed his current job in the IC is entirely consistent with the arrogance and intolerance that he previously demonstrated in dealing with others, especially those so-called “little people” that he evidently feels are of no account.
Christian,
Great to find you here telling your side of this sickening saga. I just got back from the movies, having taken my family to see “Expelled”, the new Ben Stein documentary on the failure of the academic world to maintain objectivity in light of fierce leftist views, and it seems your story is more of the same. I am both appalled to see this state of affairs laid open and visible like cockroaches under the kitchen light, and pleased to see that ground can be regained and common sense still has appeal in some circles.
Thanks for standing tall. Keep up the good work.
Dave in Texas
SGT DeJohn – I hope you at least have a workable resolution on your student loan(s) and credit rating. It appalls me that university professors can, in this arbitrary and unaccountable fashion, have an impact on someone that is as profound and pervasive as the one you have had to deal with. Thanks for your service and your determination, shipmate, and my best to you in this time of trial.
J.E Dyer
CDR, USN (Ret.)
WilliamInWien Says:
I find the major problem to be the granting of “tenure”.
As a Viet Nam Vet (Navy), I found my viewpoints not welcomed at the university after my service.
Much later, I found it necessary to speak to a faculty member of a school in Vienna, Austria who constantly placed my teenage daughter in the position of justifying the US invasion of Iraq.
Ward Churchill, the arrogance of many of the Duke faculty, etc. all have their roots in “tenure” and the abuse of the professorial interpretation of freedom of speech and academic freedom.
Teaching capability cannot be discerned from the number of degrees one may have acquired; I have found teachers at many levels but only “professors” at the university level.
Gnats are persistent and not easily squashed!
As to my academic situation at Temple right now…though I have completed all the required credits (26) towards a masters’ degree in military and American history at Temple University grad school, registered and paid for “MA Thesis Guidance” from the Temple History Department for four semesters, and turned the latest draft of my MA thesis to Dr. Andrew Isenberg (Richard Immerman’s successor as Chair of the Temple History department) over two years ago, in February 2006, Temple is refusing to even evaluate my work so I can complete my degree.
As of today, I remain in total academic limbo. At one point, Temple’s defense attorney in the case, Joe Tucker, Jr. stooped so low as to threaten- in front of a judge, no less- to expel me for bringing a First Amendment, civil rights lawsuit.
What has been the response of Temple’s President Ann Weaver Hart to Professors Richard Immerman and Gregory Urwin’s words and actions, and to this case?
Long before she even arrived at Temple, when she was inaugurated as President of the University of New Hampshire, Ann Weaver Hart gave a speech called “Future Gifts” (which, oddly enough, appears to have disappeared from the Web, though I accessed it on 15 April).
In her speech, President Hart mouthed wonderful platitudes about her alleged commitment to academic freedom:
“The University must be an open community free of prejudice. The fundamental principles of academic freedom, and the inquiry and scholarship they were meant to preserve, also protect people whose person and ideas differ substantially from either the mainstream or the fashionable.
We must recognize and uphold in our own time and circumstances a university that celebrates the right to inquire, to speak, and to be within very broad parameters….we must avoid the temptation to suppress the expression of controversial ideas, …(be) dedicated to the open discussion of differing views, and at the same time… nurture the ethic of civility and non-intimidation…(and) play out our commitment to civility alongside our commitment to the free expression of difficult ideas…
In ringing tones, Hart proclaimed,
“We resolve to maintain the Unviersity’s highest value- academic freedom.”
Wonderful sentiments, aren’t they? But judging by the words and actions of Temple professors like Gregory Urwin and Richard Immerman, and by Temple President Hart’s thunderous silence on the judge’s initial decision against Temple, since veterans are not a “protected class,” it seems like “Veterans need not apply.” You gotta love the delicious irony of that argument- which Temple has actually argued in court, in their initial motion to dismiss the case.
The program for President Hart’s inaugural ceremony at Temple,
http://www.temple.edu/president/documents/investiture_f.pdf
includes similar platitudes about “Academic freedom and freedom of speech in higher education” being a key “research interest of hers.” President Hart has even mentioned her alleged commitment to them on her personal University web pages.
In fact, Temple’s President Ann Weaver Hart has proclaimed, “We must have the courage to face the inevitable tests of our commitment to academic freedom.”
So, what has been her response to this case, and to the initial decision (and permanent injunction aganst Temple University) that Temple- a taxpayer-funded school- is violating students’ fundamental First Amendment rights through an unconstitutional speech code?
Accountability and taxpayers be damned; for all her hot air on freedom of speech and intellectual diversity, President Hart refuses to comment on the judge’s ruling that her school, Temple, is making a joke of academic freedom- one of her favorite “research interests,” mind you- through an unconstitutional, illegal speech code.
As to addressing the abhorrent behavior of professors like Richard Immerman and Gregory Urwin (and the novel idea of actually holding them accountable to the state and federal taxpayers that pay their salaries), again, President Hart refuses to comment, or to provide any explanation to the taxpayers footing her generous salary, along with Temple’s massive budget.
Two years into the case, while I remain in total academic limbo, President Hart refuses to hold Temple professors Richard Immerman and Gregory Urwin publicly accountable for their actions. As recently as mid-April, in a meeting with student reporters from Temple’s student newspaper, when asked specifically about this case, you guessed it: again, Temple President Ann Weaver Hart refused to comment on the record.
What happened to her passionately proclaimed “commitment to the free exploration of difficult ideas,” and to her self-professed obligation, as a university president, to “protect people whose person and ideas differ substantially from either the mainstream or the fashionable (which, in Richard Immerman’s case, would be the radical Left)?”
The program to Hart’s inauguration as Temple’s President gushes about the flashy, expensive, sterling silver medallion she wore at the ceremony, and about the elaborate chain and mace she was handed.
Ahh, the mace: a traditional symbol of power and authority, designed to intimidate and crush the opposition.
Presumably, Temple University President Ann Weaver Hart’s chain and mace are for her to wield against students who dare to actually put into practice her wonderful words about academic freedom and intellectual diversity?
President Hart’s pretty speeches and lofty platitudes about freedom of speech and expression are one thing, but God forbid a student should have the effrontery and cheek to actually exercise (while serving overseas with the Army in a hostile fire zone, no less!) his First Amendment rights to dissent with professors like Gregory Urwin and Richard Immerman.
Ian Says:
If the recent incoherent intelligence productions are an indication,
then Richard Immerman is just not very bright. An ineffectual moron using a position of authority to disparage a student who has the temerity to disagree with him deserves all the scorn he gets.
Regarding the comments in this story of Dr. Gregory Urwin, who has compared me to the VA Tech mass murderer, and says veterans are “Mentally imbalanced…(from) trained to kill:”
Professor Gregory Urwin has caught himself in a priceless lie in this story, as corraborated by his own internal History Department e-mails that were subpoenaed for this case.
The good doctor says in this story, “One of the wildest charges DeJohn has circulated since the trial is that I have had him blackballed by various potential employers. How in the world would I know where he was applying for work?”
How? Because- as corroborated by Urwin’s own admission under oath when confronted with the evidence, and by his own Temple e-mails- Michael Lynch, a new Temple grad student of Urwin’s, was working at the Army War College with me, and knew I was applying for fulltime jobs there.
In an e-mail to Urwin, Lynch agreed to badmouth me with my potential employers, and to sabotage my historian job search at Carlisle- after Gregory Urwin first contacted Lynch and asked him to do so. It’s all in Urwin’s own e-mails that were subpoenaned for the trial.
As to how Professor Urwin blackballed me: when confronted with the evidence, Gregory Urwin has admitted under oath to contacting “about a dozen” Temple alumni, supporters,and possible employers to badmouth me.
The impact of Urwin’s actions? At Carlisle Barracks, I applied for many historian jobs, at the very same place where Urwin’s eager new grad student Michael Lynch, who worked there, enthusiasticly agreed to help Urwin sabotage my job search.
Though I applied for dozens of jobs- perhaps, 45- curiously, I heard almost nothing about my applications, as they’d dropped down a black hole.
Why? Was it Fate? Chance? Coincidence? As Mark Twain wrote, “facts are funny things-” even if floating ina pond of scum, they have a curious way of rising to the surface, and the truth will out:
Later, using the Freedom of Information Act, I uncovered secret, internal candidate job rating lists from Carlisle Barracks. The internal records show that, for example, for one military historian job, 62 people applied, including myself.
I was rated and scored number one out of all 62 applicants for that historian job, with the highest score and rating of any of the 62 applicants- 103 out of 100 points. Yet…the number-one-rated candidate for the job…was never even contacted or interviewed for it.
Lo and behold, the military historian job for which I was rated #1 out of all 62 applicants… was in the very same office where Urwin’s new student Michael Lynch (he so eager to curry favor with his new professor) was working.
This is the same Michael Lynch who agreed- in response to an e-mail request from Temple’s Dr. Gregory Urwin- to help Urwin blackball my job search.
We have Gregory Urwin’s sworn testimony from his deposition, his internal Temple e-mails, and all the job rating documents (some obtained through the Freedom of Information Act) that bear this out.
If Christian DeJohn actually possesses any evidence that I conspired with Major Michael Lynch, U.S. Army (retired), or anyone else to deny him employment, he should produce it. Post pdf. files on the Internet showing the documents in full without creative editing, distortion, or falsification.
DeJohn has neglected to mention that he held an internship at the U.S. Army Military History Institute, which gave the good folks who run that Army agency (most of whom are veterans) ample opportunity to assess his suitability for full-time employment there. It is not my fault that they have repeatedly declined to hire him. I was never consulted on these matters — by Michael Lynch or anybody else.
All I ask of anyone interested in DeJohn’s case against me (which was decided a year ago) is that they actually review the court transcript and the evidentiary exhibits. The full official record will easily explain why the case was thrown out by a federal judge appointed by President H. W. Bush — a jurist who did not evince much sympathy for the defense at the start of the proceedings. I am pleased that there are such conservatives — men who prize integrity over partisanship — in positions of trust in this great country of ours.
The case DeJohn and his lawyers presented against me rested on nothing more than an overheated imagination. I’ve taught military history for nearly twenty-five years, and my classes have always contained a considerable number of conservatives and veterans. If I pursued a vendetta against such people — or exhibited an unwarranted bias against
their values — don’t you think other injured parties would have stepped forward to testify on DeJohn’s behalf? The only Temple students and alumni who volunteered to testify in the case were those who refuted DeJohn’s charges — including Joseph Seymour, his former squad leader in Bosnia who earned an M.A. under my tutelage, and Frank McCloskey, a
Marine veteran of the Vietnam War who retired as a lieutenant in the Philadelphia Police Department (and Frank is no liberal). Michael Lynch also volunteered to testify that I am not biased against veterans and conservatives, and I suspect that is what inspired the slanders that DeJohn is spouting against him here.
For the record, since my arrival at Temple I have guided two Army colonels and one Air Force major through their Ph.D. work. I have guided one Marine major and Joe Seymour of the PA National Guard to their M.A.s. I currently have a U.S. Army colonel, a retired Army major, a retired Navy
commander, and a former Marine sergeant studying under me for either Ph.D.s or master’s degrees. I also work closely with the Army and Marine Corps history programs, and have lectured at several of the military’s schools and bases. This is not the profile of someone who hates the military and persecutes veterans.
You should also ask yourself why none of the conservative organizations on campus allied themselves with DeJohn’s suit. The Temple chapter of David Horowitz’s Students for Academic Freedom refused to do so because its president at the time had taken my British Army course and we became
friends. She knew I do not attempt to impose my political views on students or punish them for theirs. (In fact, I wrote a letter of recommendation on her behalf to the Heritage Foundation when she applied for a summer internship. I’ve performed the same favor a couple of times
for a recent vice president of Temple’s College Republicans and also for a recent graduate who became an intern in the current George Bush’s White House.)
April 19th, 2008 at 9:54 PM
Christian,
Great to find you here telling your side of this sickening saga. I just got back from the movies, having taken my family to see “Expelled”, the new Ben Stein documentary on the failure of the academic world to maintain objectivity in light of fierce leftist views, and it seems your story is more of the same.
I am both appalled to see this state of affairs laid open and visible like cockroaches under the kitchen light, and pleased to see that ground can be regained and common sense still has appeal in some circles.
Thanks for standing tall. Keep up the good work.
Dave in Texas
Ian Says:
Reading the decision, the most important point is that the Court, even though it found that veterans are not within a traditional protected class, found triable issues that the plaintiff was treated differently than other similarly situated individuals without any rational basis and refused to dismiss the 1983 equal protection claim, which is the heart of the issue.
The other claims, conspiracy to violate civil rights, promissory estoppel, tortious interference with contractual relations, violation of the state’s Educational Leave Act, are peripheral or are in areas with very heightened pleading standards, and their dismissal says nothing at all regarding the merits of the plaintiff’s contentions as to whether he was the victim of discrimination.
One thing that troubles me is just how limited a student’s legal options are in the event of the type of discrimination that plaintiff is alleging. Where racial or sexual harrassment cases are afforded protection based on the classification of these categories in a traditional protected class, the options that the victim of anti-military or ideological bias has at a university is comparatively narrow.
Finally, the undisputed facts, such as evidence of retribution for disagreeing with a professor’s political views, are well established in the decision.
Whatever the legal outcome, the professors and administrators at the school should be deeply embarassed. Specifically regarding Immerman, the arrogance and intolerance by which he has performed his current job in the IC is entirely consistent with the arrogance and intolerance that he previously demonstrated in dealing with others, especially those so-called “little people” that he evidently feels are of no account.
“If there is any fixed star in our Constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”
United States Supreme Court,
West Virginia Board of Education vs. Barnette (1943)
DeJohn is not a “combat” veteran. A veteran yes, but has not served a tour of duty in combat or a combat zone. Please check your facts when writing an article, without facts you loose credibility.
As Independence Day Nears,
Sgt. Christian DeJohn is Still Waiting
by William Creeley, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education
July 1, 2009
This Saturday, Americans will celebrate the 233rd anniversary of our declaration of independence. With our nation presently fighting two wars abroad, this year’s Independence Day reminds us again that the brave men and women of our armed forces make unimaginable sacrifices every day in defense of our constitutional freedoms.
It’s fitting, therefore, to inform Torch readers that this Sunday, Sergeant Christian DeJohn of Wyncote, Pennsylvania, will return to active duty for the Army. One day after the Fourth’s fireworks, Christian will be heading out on active duty to the National Training Center in Fort Irwin, California, right smack in the middle of the Mojave Desert. When he arrives, Christian will be greeted by 100-degree heat, 100 pounds of gear and body armor, and several weeks of very intense desert training.
But Christian is used to enduring hardships for the constitutional freedoms of both himself and others. Indeed, the name “DeJohn” should be familiar to anyone with an interest in free speech on campus. As FIRE supporters no doubt recall, Christian brought a successful suit against Temple University, where he was and is still a graduate student, which resulted in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit striking down Temple’s former sexual harassment policy on First Amendment grounds last fall.
The Third Circuit’s landmark ruling in DeJohn v. Temple University made clear that the free speech rights of students at public universities in Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania cannot be abrogated by poorly written speech codes. As such, it was a resounding victory for free speech on campus, and we have Christian to thank. Without his courage, unconstitutional policies would still be on the books.
Unfortunately, Christian’s “reward” for his victory has been bitter indeed. As I described at length back in March, Christian has been in an uncomfortable academic limbo following the Third Circuit’s decision. I urge you to read the ugly details in full, but here’s the bottom line: Despite obtaining each of the 26 credits necessary for his master’s degree and maintaining a GPA of 3.2, Temple’s History Department has refused to grant Christian an honest review of his master’s thesis.
That’s right: After filing his lawsuit against Temple, Christian’s progress towards his degree has been completely stonewalled by a school with an axe to grind. He’s done everything required but finish his master’s thesis, and he can’t do that because no professor will review it. Obviously, this leaves Christian in an unbelievably frustrating position. And all for standing up for his First Amendment rights. If it sounds unfair, that’s because it is. Temple should be ashamed.
Since my entry about Christian’s dilemma was posted back in March, there has been a small but promising sign that Temple may be coming around. In response to an e-mail query, Provost Lisa Staiano-Coico’s office informed Christian last week that they are reviewing his situation, and that they plan on being in touch in the next several weeks.
While this small note is far from a guarantee, there’s no choice but to hope that Temple decides to proceed in good faith. It goes without saying that Temple should do the right thing and establish a clear path for Christian to complete his degree, free from lingering faculty animus and petty persecution. Christian deserves to be treated fairly, like any other student. To single Christian out and prevent him from obtaining his degree because of his willingness to go to court on behalf of the First Amendment is just plain wrong.
So here’s hoping that Christian receives good news from the Provost’s office while he’s in California, sweating it out under the desert sun.
Until then, he’s still waiting. And so are we.
A Temple Alum Reacts to DeJohn’s Dilemma
by William Creeley, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education
July 6, 2009
This past weekend, FIRE supporter Kenneth H. Ryesky took particular interest in our recent update on Sgt. Christian DeJohn’s unfortunate situation. As a graduate of what is now Temple University’s Fox School of Business, Ryesky was disappointed to learn that his alma mater has as of yet failed to address the academic limbo in which Christian now finds himself stranded. In response, Ryesky—a practicing attorney—decided to pen a letter to Temple President Ann Weaver Hart, urging her to do the right thing and ensure that Christian’s thesis receives an honest review on the merits.
With his gracious permission, we’re pleased to be able to share Mr. Ryesky’s letter here on The Torch.
TO: Ann Weaver Hart, President, Temple University
Re: Sgt. Christian DeJohn
Dear President Hart:
If there is one word that is inextricably associated with Temple University, it is “diversity.” Temple’s cultural diversity is used in Temple’s promotional literature, you yourself do not hesitate to tout the cultural diversity of the Temple community in your speeches, and I myself have spotlighted Temple’s cultural diversity when participating at several Temple student recruitment functions in the New York City area over the years.
Temple’s diversity is special because it goes beyond comparing the student body to a color chart such as those commonly available in the paint section of the hardware store — Temple’s diversity has also been diversity of ideas and diversity of thought. And freedom of expression has always played a key role in Temple’s diversity of ideas and thought. During both of my stints as a Temple student, there always was a diverse spectrum of ideas presented in the classrooms, and in the halls, and on the streets and walkways of the Temple University campuses. Notwithstanding my frequent disagreement with many of the positions presented, I consider this diversity to be one of Temple’s great strengths.
As matters currently stand, Temple University now gives the appearance that it is retaliating against Sgt. Christian DeJohn for asserting his rights of free expression. This is certainly an impression that Temple ought not allow itself to make to the world, for it is diametrically at odds with Temple’s diversity. Sgt. DeJohn’s course work should be fairly and objectively evaluated on its merits, in a matter which does not give the appearance of any improper bias, and by the same impartial standards merited by the course work of any other student.
As a Management major at what is now Temple’s Fox School of Business, I was taught the principles of Management by Exception, which essentially means that managers should allow organizations to function normally unless and until an exception occurs where the organization’s routine functions fail to adequately handle a given case. At that point, management must intervene to redirect the organization to the appropriate courses of action.
As you and I know, the great bureaucracy that is Temple University occasionally functions inefficiently, occasionally requires regrouping time in order to correct its dysfunctions, and occasionally requires attention and intervention from the higher echelons. In other words, Temple, like other large organizations, requires Management by Exception.
Given that Temple’s routine handling of Sgt. DeJohn’s situation has in fact gotten to a point which has necessitated intervention by an outside authority (and an appellate-level judicial authority at that), perhaps some specific attention from Sullivan Hall is now warranted, to ensure the proper handling by the University of a student who obviously is intelligent, motivated, and likely destined for future achievement.
At stake is more than Sgt. DeJohn’s personal career. At stake is Temple’s essential core attribute of diversity.
Yours very truly,
Kenneth H. Ryesky, Esq.
BBA 1977, JD 1986
I know I speak for both Christian and all of us here at FIRE in thanking Mr. Ryesky for his eloquent support—indeed, letters from citizens like him help FIRE secure favorable outcomes for the students and faculty we assist at our nation’s universities. We rely on concerned alumni, parents, trustees, donors, and citizens who have both the common sense to recognize when universities mistreat members of their community and the courage to stand up and tell those in power that such behavior is entirely unacceptable.
While Christian, now training in the Mojave Desert, waits for word from Temple’s Provost regarding the status of his thesis review, it’s encouraging to recognize that many readers stand in support.
Temple University’s Civil Rights
Violations are a Disgrace
By Chris Freind, The Philadelphia Bulletin
White males are not a protected class under the Constitution, and veterans do not have First Amendment rights. After all, their concerns should be ignored because they are “mentally unstable” from being “trained to kill.” And disagreeing with one’s professors can result in insults such as “gnat,” “juvenile,” “liar” and “fool.” As far as academic freedom of speech, forget it.
Welcome to taxpayer-funded Temple University.
Temple finds itself at the center of a firestorm regarding an appalling case of squashed academic freedoms and restricted First Amendment rights. The victim of Temple’s suffocating speech code is a graduate student simply trying to earn a master’s degree in military history. He also happens to be one of our ultimate defenders of freedom, a decorated sergeant in the Pennsylvania Army National Guard. This man’s civil rights were violated, not overseas in a hostile fire zone but right back here in Philadelphia, birthplace of the nation and cradle of liberty. How’s that for irony?
But since this is still the United States of America, and politically correct professors don’t rule the day, this grave injustice is on track to be rectified. All it took was a huge dose of courage.
Meet Sgt. Christian DeJohn.
DeJohn was called to active duty by the Army after the Sept. 11 attacks while attending Temple graduate school. When serving in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Temple did the unconscionable and sent him invitations to weekly “Dissent in America” anti-war “teach-ins,” sponsored by Temple professors. Sgt. DeJohn objected, immediately becoming the target of retribution and retaliation which continues to this day.
What did the university do? According to Sgt. DeJohn, he was dismissed from the school (later reinstated), was denied guidance and advice during his thesis completion, obstructed his graduation, contacted potential employers to sabotage his job search and even destroyed his personal credit by
falsely reporting that he had graduated.
This situation led to Sgt. DeJohn testifying before the Pennsylvania Select Committee on Academic Freedom, which ultimately brought about reform referred to as “the biggest victory in the history of
the academic freedom movement.” He then filed a federal civil rights lawsuit to challenge the school’s “speech codes,” through which Temple claims it has the right to restrict and deny students’ First Amendment rights. Sgt. DeJohn won, and a federal judge issued a permanent injunction against the speech codes. With its tail between its legs, Temple appealed, and arguments were heard on April 10
at the Federal Court of Appeals in Philadelphia.
What’s really troubling in this whole affair is that Temple, an institution of higher learning, is supposed to be run by intelligent, objective people. Yet they actually argued in court that Sgt. DeJohn was a “marginal learner, barely passing” with failing grades, knowing full well that he had a 3.2 GPA and had never received a grade lower than a B-minus. When called on this, the Temple attorney referenced the failing grade Sgt. DeJohn received—in high school. Go figure.
In a display of uncommon maturity, history department chair Richard Immerman wrote about his hope that Sgt. DeJohn will “self-destruct.” In his “professional” critique of Sgt. DeJohn’s 300-page thesis, Prof. Immerman wrote abusive comments such as these: “You use juvenile argumentation”; the thesis was “a monotonous agony”; Sgt. DeJohn sounded like a “crackpot”; and the thesis came across as a “comic book for five-year-olds.”
If that’s not constructive criticism fostered in an open atmosphere conducive to learning, I don’t know what is.
Interestingly, this fight for academic freedom is not a partisan one. Sgt. DeJohn has allies across the spectrum who have filed amicus briefs with the court, from the ACLU and Feminists for Freedom of Expression to the Alliance Defense Fund and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.
And Temple’s allies? None. Nada. Can’t imagine why.
When Sgt. DeJohn wins, his efforts and courage in the face of fire—both at home and abroad—will have resulted in a landmark case in the academic freedom movement.
Sir Edmund Burke stated, “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” Thanks to people like Sgt. Christian DeJohn, such evil is being vanquished, and he deserves our salute.
The Richard Immerman Watch
By Gabriel Schoenfeld, Senior Editor, Commentary magazine
We have already noted here and in the Weekly Standard that a fox is guarding the hen house. Richard Immerman, a far-Left professor of history on leave from Temple University who participated there in “teach-ins” against the Iraq war, is working in the heart of U.S. intelligence, serving as the ombudsman for “analytic integrity” in the office of the Director of National Intelligence.
How he is able to perform this job while himself being a partisan in the intelligence wars is a mystery. As recently as this past January, Immerman published an essay lambasting the “Bushites” for manipulating intelligence in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. They made “every effort to ‘cook the books,’” Immerman wrote, ” they ‘hyped’ the need to go to war, and they lied too often to count.”
Matters are complicated by an additional wrinkle. While at Temple, Immerman became the target of a lawsuit. The student who filed it, Christian M. DeJohn, was a master’s candidate in history, He also happened to be a decorated tank commander in the Pennsylvania National Guard, who days after September 11, 2001 was called up to serve on a counterterrorism mission in Bosnia.
While at Temple, Sgt. DeJohn had clashed with Immerman about some of the professor’s left-wing views. Then, while he was stationed in Bosnia, the Temple history department began sending him anti-war fliers, inviting him to take part in its teach-ins against Bush’s “imperialist” foreign policy. Sgt. DeJohn objected, and asked to be taken off the list.
When Sgt DeJohn returned to the states in April 2003 and attempted to resume his education at Temple, it seems, according to the complaint, that a campaign of retribution ensued, carried out by Immerman and some of his history department colleagues. Matters became so serious that Sgt. DeJohn filed a lawsuit alleging that his First Amendment right of free speech was being infringed.
In the course of discovery proceedings, email correspondence among history department faculty members came to light in which Sgt. DeJohn was accused of suffering from “paranoid delusions,” being “mentally imbalanced,” “trained to kill by the U.S. Army,” and being “literally obsessed with the idea of liberal bias.”
Among the emails was one from Richard Immerman in which he stated that “Christian is a gnat whom I hope will self-destruct without any help from us.”
This is interesting language for a professor to use about one of his students, especially a student who voluntarily chose to put himself in harm’s way to defend Immerman’s right to spout nonsense.
If dissenting students were treated in this way at Temple University, how are dissenting analysts within the intelligence community treated now that Immerman is responsible for investigating their complaints of left-wing and/or any other form of bias?
I would welcome receiving reports from any ”gnats” at Temple who have had experience dealing with the good professor.