Interpreting the Actions of Nicholas DeGenova: :: Essays Papers

Interpreting the Actions of Nicholas DeGenova: While speaking at an anti-war teach in, Columbia Professor, Nicholas DeGenova called for a â€Å"million Mogadishus† and an American loss in Iraq, which has led to a controversy over his future employment at the university. Although some may consider this hate speech, there is a thin line between that and infringing upon a professor’s freedom of speech. As students at Syracuse University, we realize that this could have potentially occurred at our school, but still do not advocate firing Nicholas DeGenova. According to the Faculty Handbook of Columbia University and the guidelines of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), DeGenova is protected by his rights as a citizen and as a professor to free speech even if it does go against popular opinion. However, the statements made were no doubt offensive especially in a time of war, which is why we feel that DeGenova should be reprimanded, but definitely not fired. First and foremost, as a citizen, Nicholas DeGenova, is protected under the First Amendment of U.S. Constitution. This provides that â€Å"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances†(â€Å"Amendment I†). Furthermore, DeGenova definitely had the right to assemble and speak out in the anti-war teach-in although it angered many. In addition, under the Columbia University Handbook and the guidelines of the AAUP, as a professor he â€Å"may not be penalized by the University for expressions of opinion or associations in their private or civic capacity; but they should bear in mind the special obligations arising from their position in the academic community†(â€Å"Academic Freedom†). The AAUP and Columbia University only outline punishment for when â€Å"immediate harm to the faculty member or others is threatened by the faculty member’s continuance†(â€Å"Procedural Recommendations†). Since none of these codes that DeGenova must follow call for firing in this type of situation, his employment at Columbia University cannot be terminated on these grounds. While DeGenova abided by the laws that govern him as a professor and as a citizen, we still feel that he should be reprimanded.