We have been following the case of Professor Jason Kilborn of the University of Illinois-Chicago John Marshall Law School, who was forced into a demeaning racial re-education program for trivial “offenses” designed to prepare his students for the real world:
Professor Jacobson told the evil tale:
Not all of academia is mean-spirited, vindictive, and vicious. But enough of it is that the term “cancel culture” — a concept most associated with campuses — has penetrated the broader culture. The University of Illinois-Chicago John Marshall School of Law is a prime example of all of the above pathologies, an institution that is psychologically torturing a professor just because it thinks it can.We have covered so many of these attacks on professors, and there is a pattern – much like in the Maoist Cultural Revolution, students frequently are the aggressors who consider it their right to end a career as “accountability” for perceived offense. The difference in campus culture is not so much student activists, that’s a given almost everywhere, it’s whether the administration becomes a party to the cancel culture.Which brings me to the case of Prof. Jason Kilborn of the third-tier U. Illinois-Chicago Marshall Law School (not to be confused with the University of Chicago Law School, a top 10 school). At UIC, the administration seems to be enjoying being tormentor-in-chief.
After Black Law School Association students complained, Kilborn apologized and settled the case with the administration.
Well, not really, as Professor Jacobson explained:
Case close, right? No, it’s never case closed.Despite the apparent agreement, UIC is now demanding that Prof. Kilborn go through re-education on “inclusion” including by taking a course taught at [Cornell University]…This is nothing short of an attempt to humiliate Prof. Kilborn through a reeducation and supervisory program that would make Maoist Red Guards blush.This is repressive and abusive. UIC John Marshall Law School is a disgrace.
So Professor Kilborn sued: UIC Law Prof. Jason Kilborn Sues After University Tried To Force Him Into Humiliating Racial Reeducation Program:
Now Prof. Kilborn has sued, as announced by…FIRE. And there’s a twist I was not previously award of, the reducation program UIC demanded Prof. Kilborn attend used the terms, wait for it, “N” and “B” to signify pejoratives — the very terms for which Prof. Kilborn was being disciplined…Prof. Kilborn asserts violation of his First Amendment rights[. From the Complaint]:
49. Defendants have purported to punish Plaintiff for speech that expresses “anger, dissatisfaction, and disappointment related to issues of race” or that “demonstrate[s] racial insensitivity and even hostility to those voicing concerns about a racially-charged topic.” This is a plainly unlawful, content based restriction on speech.
Remarkably, the federal district court where Kilborn sued threw out his Complaint, saying that he had no First Amendment right to free speech in the classroom.
Fortunately, Kilborn appealed the case to the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, based in Chicago, and they have now reinstated Kilborn’s free speech claim.
From the Courthouse News Service: Seventh Circuit revives Chicago law professor’s free speech retaliation claim against university officials:
A three-judge Seventh Circuit appellate panel partially sided with a University of Illinois Chicago law professor on Wednesday, reversing a lower court’s dismissal of his First Amendment retaliation claim against several current and former university administrators.The appellate panel found UIC law professor Jason Kilborn had plausibly shown he suffered adverse employment actions over protected speech.”The district court found that Kilborn’s speech was not constitutionally protected and dismissed his claim. We conclude that Kilborn has plausibly alleged that his speech is constitutionally protected and reverse the dismissal of his claim,” U.S. Circuit Judge Thomas Kirsch, a Donald Trump appointee, wrote in the panel’s 25-page opinion.The appellate panel on Wednesday…disagreed with [district judge Sara Ellis’] conclusions regarding the professor’s First Amendment retaliation claim.”Kilborn’s exam question, out-of-class statements, and in-class remarks are all academic speech that address matters of public concern, notwithstanding the limited size of Kilborn’s audience,” Kirsch wrote. “The exam question was designed to give students experience confronting a highly charged situation that they may encounter in real-life practice and to be a continuation of the learning that occurred in the classroom.”Besides reversing Ellis’ ruling on Kilborn’s First Amendment retaliation claim, the appellate panel also vacated the district judge’s dismissal of Kilborn’s state law claims “for further consideration.”Kirsch was joined on the appellate panel by U.S. Circuit Judges Ilana Rovner and David Hamilton, George H. W. Bush and Barack Obama appointees respectively.
This is great news for university professors in general, but especially those for whom the slightest perceived misstep means persecution by the powers that be.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY
