I was disappointed to read Daniel Hiester's U-Wire column that ran in The Post on March 28 ("Political discussions need to be leveled").

Since neither Hiester nor the syndicated columnist he cites in his piece called DePaul University to check their facts, the author erroneously characterized the incident involving DePaul instructor Thomas Klocek as a matter of academic freedom...

...DePaul University has great respect for academic freedom. For more than a century, DePaul has fostered a free and open environment where vigorous debate is encouraged.

Contrary to Hiester's contention, academic freedom and personal beliefs are not the issue here. The incident involving Klocek is about inappropriate and threatening behavior directed at our students.

Last September, Klocek acted in a belligerent and menacing manner toward students who were passing out literature at a table in the cafeteria. He raised his voice, threw pamphlets at students, pointed his finger near their faces and displayed a gesture interpreted as obscene. This continued for some time before other students in the crowded cafeteria summoned staff help to intervene.

Quite simply, the issue is Klocek's conduct, not the content of his speech.

After university administrators met with Klocek, DePaul took action to protect our students and maintain a professional standard of conduct at the university. As an adjunct instructor who is hired on an as-needed basis each term, Klocek does not receive the same privileges as full-time tenured professors. However, the university and its Faculty Council have encouraged him to file a grievance and receive the hearing he claims he was denied. In the six months since that suggestion was made, Klocek has not done so.

Instead, his lawyer threatened DePaul with litigation and demanded a large sum of money. Then he hired a publicist in an attempt to exert pressure to secure the financial settlement.

DePaul University continues to honor its commitment to academic freedom, open expression and due process, but DePaul also insists on the highest professional standards of behavior from our faculty and staff. DePaul's 23,570 students deserve nothing less.

-Robin Florzak is the director of media relations at DePaul University. Send her an e-mail at rflorzak@depaul.edu

Robin,

The university has mishandled the case from the beginning. As a result of its own unwillingness to correct its mistakes it is getting a lot of negative publicity. Putting out a lot of transparently erroneous claims about its actions will only hurt the university in the long run.

There are five documents that clearly contradict your contention that the issue was conduct rather than content.

The students clearly claimed they were insulted ethnically and religiously. Salma Nasser's opinion piece in the DePaulia states that the university must be protected from Klocek's discriminatory views. It didn't say that they had to be protected from "pacing around", "Pointing his finger", "arguing with them", etc. They didn't like the fact that he said that the suicide bombers were deliberately murdering civilians in Israel and the Palestinians who were killed were collateral damage from military actions that were taken by Israel in self defense. They didn't like his disputing that Rachel Corrie was deliberately run over by a bulldozer. They didn't like the fact that he said that until recently the citizens of the west bank were not Palestinians but Arabs and Jordanians who happened to be living there. They didn't like the fact that he said that most of the world's terrorist violence was caused my Muslims even though he was clearly quoting a statement from the director of the al aribya television network. And they didn't like the suggestion that Christians had as much claim to Jerusalem as Muslims and Jews. This is made clear by the first DePaulia article.

As for the claim that he didn't get a hearing I suggest you reread Dean Dumbleton's letter to the DePaulia which essentially says Klocek attacked the students for their religious beliefs and ethnicity and furthermore pressed his erroneous assertions on them. This is a direct quote:

"No students anywhere should ever have to be concerned that they will be verbally attacked for their religious belief or ethnicity. No one should ever use the role of teacher to demean the ideas of others or insist on the absoluteness of an opinion, much less press erroneous assertions. This is particularly true at DePaul, which strives to be an institution in which the values of all faiths and all peoples are held in high esteem."

What is more Dean Dumbleton makes it abundantly clear that he was immediately removed of his duties. Once again the direct quote:

"Our college acted immediately by removing the instructor from the classroom. This is a part-time faculty member, whom the university contracts for individual courses. He has no further responsibilities with the university at this time."

There was no hearing before he was removed. That is an undisputable fact. It is also undisputable that the faculty handbook says that a faculty member can be summarily removed of his classroom duties only in case of an emergency and in that case only with written authorization of the EVP. This did not occur.

As for filing a grievance procedure would you be so kind as to inform the public as to the exact nature of the grievance procedure. What university body constitutes a grievance committee, who appoints it, who sits on it, what are its duties, what are its powers, does it hold formal hearings, who is allowed to be present at such hearings, is the professor entitled to bring a lawyer, can he confront his accusers, are there formal charges presented against him and most of all, what powers does the committee have to correct his mistreatment if the committee decides the school mistreated him.

The fact is that there is no grievance procedure. When Tom Donley asked Faculty Council to set something up they passed a resolution saying that all faculty members are entitled to present grievances but quite consciously refused to put any such procedures in place. In fact they passed the question of how to proceed to the university's lawyers.

The fact is the president of the university sent a letter to the entire university community saying that two unnamed faculty members had been "insensitive" to students and I think anyone reading his letter would conclude that the faculty members had made some kind of ethnic, racial or gendur slur. He did so without ever talking to Tom Klocek and listening to his side of the story. Now your office is sending out press releases based on information that is completely one sided.

Tom Klocek claims that the comment that angered him was the student's claim that the Israelis were acting like the Nazis. So far nobody in the DePaul administration has responded to that. If you don't personally find the remark provocative, you should at least see how others might find it extremely offensive. It is certainly more offensive than anything Tom Klocek is alleged to have said or done.

What is more, where is DePaul's sense of proportion? Does getting angry at some students passing out political literature and pointing a finger at them warrant termination of his appointment with public censure. Nothing was done to the students beyond momentary harsh criticism. Tom Klocek's life was severely damaged by an institution that had employed him for fifteen years and by all accounts which Tom had served extremely well.

The facts of the case are not on the school's side on this one. DePaul is a powerful institution and Tom is only a part-time instructor but the longer this mess drags on the more likely it is that DePaul will get dragged through the mud. We overreacted and we need to straighten it out.

Sincerely,
Jonathan Cohen
Department of Mathematics
DePaul University