A federal appeals court has opened the way for a controversial Afrocentrist to be removed, once again, as chairman of black studies at City College.
The court last week reversed itself and ruled that the City University of New York had acted legally in demoting the professor, Leonard Jeffries, Jr., in March 1992. He had been accused of making anti-Semitic and racist remarks.
Jay Hershenson, a spokesman for CUNY, called the ruling “a total and complete vindication.”
“The bottom line,” he added, “is CUNY did the right thing in the right way for the right reason.”
Mr. Jeffries’s legal odyssey began after an off-campus speech he made in Albany, N.Y., in July 1991 caused a public furor. He contended that Jews and Italians in Hollywood had conspired to denigrate blacks in the movies. He also said that rich Jews had played a key role in the slave trade, and he referred to a colleague as the “head Jew” at City College.
After CUNY’s Board of Trustees ousted Mr. Jeffries as department chairman, he sued, seeking reinstatement and damages. In May 1993, a federal jury found that the university had violated his First Amendment rights and awarded him $400,000 in damages. Three months later, the judge reinstated him as chairman but reduced the damages to $360,000.
A year ago this month, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled in favor of Mr. Jeffries’s reinstatement but took away the damages.
Then, last November, the Supreme Court turned the entire case on its head. The Justices told the appeals court to reconsider Mr. Jeffries’s case in light of a new ruling they had issued in Waters v. Churchill. In that case, a plurality of Justices said that in firing a public employee for disruptive speech, a government employer need show only that the speech was likely to be disruptive. Previously, the employer had had to show that the speech had actually interfered with the efficiency of government operations.
Under the new standard, the appeals court said, the university prevailed. “Defendants made a substantial showing at trial that their decision to limit Jeffries’ term was based upon a reasonable prediction that the Albany speech would disrupt university operations.”
In an interview, Joseph Fleming, Mr. Jeffries’s lawyer, vowed to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court. “This decision impacts public employees everywhere in terms of their ability to speak their minds without fear of reprisal,” he said. “And it impinges on academic freedom.”
Mr. Jeffries could not be reached for comment.
What the decision means for his future as chairman of black studies is unclear. CUNY is consulting the state Attorney General’s office and awaiting specific orders from the appeals court before taking any action, Mr. Hershenson said.
Department heads at City College serve for three-year terms. They are elected by members of their departments, subject to the president’s approval. Mr. Jeffries has served as chairman for more than 20 years. His latest term expires in June.
“If they remove him now,” Mr. Fleming said, “it would be purely a punitive measure. It would throw the department into chaos. The faculty will be electing next month its chairman for the next three years.”
Bernard Sohmer, a professor of mathematics at City College, was the man Mr. Jeffries referred to as the “head Jew.” He said that even if the black-studies department re-elected Mr. Jeffries, university rules allow the president to reject its choice without explanation.
Mr. Sohmer said many faculty members were alarmed by the appeals court’s decision. The CUNY faculty senate submitted an amicus curiae brief to the appeals court opposing the application of the Waters decision to a public university.
“He made a speech off campus,” Mr. Sohmer said. “It was a disreputable speech, no doubt about that. But to then use that to impact what he does on campus is just a terrible threat to academic freedom.”
The appeals court disagreed. Mr. Jeffries’s academic freedom “has not been infringed here,” it said. “The position of department chair at CUNY is ministerial. ... Jeffries is still a tenured professor at CUNY, and the defendants have not sought to silence him.”
Ann H. Franke, a lawyer for the American Association of University Professors, said the appeals court had left unanswered the question most significant to the A.A.U.P. “Does a reasonable belief about disruption justify silencing an outspoken faculty member?” she said in a statement. “The court sidesteps this issue.”
Mr. Fleming, the lawyer for Mr. Jeffries, acknowledged that the odds of his prevailing before the Supreme Court were not good. But, he said, “We think it’s still possible to convince the Supreme Court that part of their function in this society is to protect and uphold the Constitution, a part of which is the First Amendment.
“Perhaps we can provide them with a strong-enough argument to remind them of that.”
