University course tests the limits of online threats
By Vimal Patel
NEW YORK TIMES
Rebecca Journey, a lecturer at the University of Chicago, thought little of calling her new undergraduate seminar “The Problem of Whiteness.” Though provocatively titled, the anthropology course covered familiar academic territory: how the racial category “white” has changed over time.
She was surprised, then, when her inbox exploded in November with vitriolic messages from dozens of strangers. One wrote that she was “deeply evil.” Another: “Blow your head clean off.”
The instigator was Daniel Schmidt, a sophomore and conservative activist with tens of thousands of social media followers. He tweeted, “Anti-white hatred is now mainstream academic inquiry,” along with the course description and Journey’s photo and university e-mail address.
Spooked, Journey, a newly minted PhD preparing to hit the academic job market, postponed her class to the spring. Then she filed complaints with the university, accusing Schmidt of doxxing and harassing her.
Schmidt, 19, denied encouraging anyone to harass her. And university officials dismissed her claims. As far as they knew, they said, Schmidt did not personally send her any abusive e-mails.
And under the university’s longstanding, much-hailed commitment to academic freedom, speech was restricted only when it “constitutes a genuine threat or harassment.”
The university’s 2014 declaration of free speech principles, known as the Chicago statement, has become a touchstone and guide for colleges across the country that have struggled to manage campus controversies, particularly when liberal students shout down conservative speakers. Scores of schools have adopted it.
But what followed for the rest of the academic year at the University of Chicago has tested whether its principles address a new, rapidly changing environment where a single tweet can rain down vitriol and threats.
The Chicago statement assumes that what takes place on campuses is “in good faith and that people have an interest in engaging the ideas,” said Isaac A. Kamola, of Faculty First Responders, which monitors conservative attacks on academics. But, he added, “the ecosystem that Daniel Schmidt is part of has no interest in having a conversation.”
Geoffrey R. Stone, a law professor, led the faculty committee that drafted the Chicago statement. He said that back then, the group was not thinking about how online threats could harm free expression — never mind this situation, where Schmidt simply posted a tweet with publicly available information.
Posting repeatedly, while knowing the response, might be harassment, said Erwin Chemerinsky, a constitutional law scholar at the University of California Berkeley.
But, he said, “The hard question is, where is that line crossed?”
Classes that explore whiteness have been taught in liberal arts departments for decades. Students explore how white people are treated as the norm, affecting, among other things, wealth and political power.
Similar courses, though, have come under scrutiny by conservatives for being divisive.
In an interview, Schmidt said his goal was to show Journey “what normal Americans think.” But he condemned anyone who sent her death threats or hateful messages. And, he said, even if he had not posted her e-mail address, “let’s face it, people would have found it.”
Two weeks after Schmidt’s first tweets in November about the course, John W. Boyer, then dean of the college, sent an email to a handful of staff and faculty, describing the incident as “cyberbullying,” intended to intimidate the instructor by mobilizing anonymous threats and harassment. The university, he added, would not allow it.
But by February, the university had dismissed Journey’s complaints. Officials declined to discuss the case. Journey was furious. “I don’t want disciplinary action against this student just for a sense of justice for me personally,” she told the Times. “By condoning cyberabuse, there’s no deterrent effect.”