Inside Higher Ed reports in this article on the quandary University of Oregon law professor Merle H. Weiner finds herself in after publishing an article regarding international domestic violence disputes. When one of the alleged batterers in one of the cases she discussed in her article for the University of San Francisco Law Review threatened to sue her, neither the law review nor the University of Oregon would agree to help defend her in the lawsuit.
The law review removed the offending passages from its electronic data bases and the University issued a statement stating, "as was ‘customary’ — Weiner had agreed to indemnify theUniversity of San Francisco against actions arising from the article.While the university [of Oregon] was happy to advise Weiner on the case, it did notfeel any obligation to defend her."
On the other hand, Roger Bowen, general secretary of the American Association of University Professors, states in the same article that, "under his group’s policies, theuniversity should have backed Weiner. The events that transpired withregard to her article were ‘blatant censorship’ and ‘an obviousinfringement on academic freedom.’"
As for Weiner, Inside Higher Ed reports her observing that, "if colleges take Oregon’sapproach, other professors will be sued by plaintiffs who know thatfaculty members lack the resources to defend themselves. ‘My fear isthat this is a tool that is going to be used by certain groups andcertain people to stop feminist professors and others from writing onissues that they don’t like.’"
Who do you side with?
Posted by: Paul M. Secunda