The joke may have been stupid and callous. But was it a firing offense?
That is a key question underlying a controversy at the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, where Gregory F. Sullivan could lose his tenured position as an assistant professor of humanities because of a joking reference to the mass shooting in a Colorado movie theater last month, in which 12 people died and 58 were injured.
While punishing a faculty member for a single ill-advised joke struck some observers as excessive, the Merchant Marine Academy, like the service academies, observes different standards of professorial propriety than other parts of academe. Higher-education experts say this cultural context may influence how Mr. Sullivan is disciplined, though they also point out that faculty still have rights.
The controversy stems from an incident that took place in Mr. Sullivan’s class on July 31, just 11 days after the Colorado shootings. Preparing to show a documentary film, the professor attempted a joke as he turned down the lights. “If someone with orange hair appears in the corner of the room, run for the exit,” he told the students, according to an internal academy document obtained by The New York Times.
One of his students was the son of a man who was killed by the accused gunman, James E. Holmes, who had dyed his hair bright orange.
Mr. Sullivan later told academy administrators he had not realized the student had lost his father in the attack, and the professor reportedly apologized to the student and the entire class. In the internal document, however, the administration argued that Mr. Sullivan “reasonably should have been aware” of the student’s grief because the academy had sent an institutionwide e-mail the week before the class in question.
The joke breached the academy’s rules against “notoriously disgraceful conduct,” according to the notice of proposed removal written by a dean, Shashi Kumar, and described by the newspaper.
Mr. Sullivan could not be reached for comment on Thursday. The academy issued a statement, saying that its first priority was the academic well-being of its students.
“As soon as I learned of the incident, I immediately placed the professor involved on administrative leave and he is not teaching class at this time,” said Rear Adm. James A. Helis, the academy’s superintendent. “As with any investigation, we are interviewing both students and faculty, and the professor will have the opportunity to respond before we issue our final determination.”
After the investigation is completed, Mr. Sullivan will have 10 days to respond before a final decision is made by the superintendent.
A Different Context
Applying a standard of “notoriously disgraceful conduct” is unusual for institutions of higher education, said Ada Meloy, general counsel for the American Council on Education. Typically, a faculty contract will make provisions for a tenured professor to be dismissed for conduct that is “seriously prejudicial” to his or her teaching or research, or to the welfare of the institution, she said.
“Notoriously disgraceful conduct” is defined by some federal agencies as behavior that, if it became widely known, would cause embarrassment to or discredit the perpetrator and the government. Examples include frequenting prostitutes, engaging in public or promiscuous sexual relations, spousal or child abuse, or profiting from one’s position.
The Merchant Marine Academy, which is on New York’s Long Island, trains future shipboard officers and other leaders in civilian maritime transportation. It operates under the supervision of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and its faculty members are civilian federal employees.
But the academy retains a military ethos. At its dedication in 1943, President Franklin D. Roosevelt described the academy as serving the Merchant Marine “as West Point serves the Army and Annapolis the Navy.”
Such context is important, said Peter F. Lake, director of the Center for Excellence in Higher Education Law and Policy at Stetson University College of Law. “Something that might be tolerable or expected in a community college on Long Island might not be tolerated at a Jesuit institution or military academy,” he said.
Mr. Lake could also sympathize with the plight of a faculty member saying something in class that he later regretted. Sometimes professors try to present lessons provocatively in an attempt to engage students, but wind up going too far. In such cases, the best remedy is to apologize quickly and sincerely, he added.
While the details of Mr. Sullivan’s situation are still emerging, including whether he had a history of inappropriate comments, Mr. Lake wondered whether the academy’s proposed discipline could have a chilling effect. “You won’t make any jokes,” he said. “You’ll sterilize your class right down to nothing.”
Chilled speech, however, is not the primary concern in this case, said B. Robert Kreiser, an associate secretary of the American Association of University Professors. The larger issue, he said, is academic due process, which generally calls for a faculty committee to render judgment and places the burden of proof on the administration. In Mr. Sullivan’s case, a dean will conduct a fact-finding inquiry and make a recommendation, as will a faculty personnel committee, the academy said.
“The question is, Should it be up to the dean or the administration generally to justify his dismissal?” Mr. Kreiser said. “Our view is that it should be a judgment rendered by faculty peers.”
And, Mr. Kreiser said, just because the academy operates according to a stricter code of behavior and values, one more in line with the military, that does not mean that the standards and protections of the academic community should not also apply.
Beth Mole contributed to this article.
