Dean's Email Sparks Debate Over Free Speech Under Trump At Stony Brook University

An email circulating among faculty at Stony Brook University, urging staff to be "cautious" in how they use the SBU name in emails of protest regarding the federal government under President Donald Trump's leadership, sparked a flurry of discourse on campus this week.

The email was sent to faculty members by R. Lawrence Swanson, interim dean and associate dean of the School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences and director of the waste reduction and management institute at Stony Brook.

"I know there are strong feelings about writing letters of protest concerning the way the federal government is handling distribution of environmental data and information as well as silencing federal scientists. Remember to be cautious in how you use the SoMAS and SBU name, stationary, franking privileges etc. We receive federal funding from a variety of sources in many different ways. We don't want to jeopardize our ability to continue these revenue streams. And, if you sign a petition, it is probably best that you don't use your SBU/SoMAS affiliation," he wrote.

The letter raised some questions about whether a new climate was coalescing on the campus, one that would put a clamp on free speech — with some tenured faculty, in an alleged email thread, "protesting" the effort they believed was meant to keep them quiet and not besmirch the university's name. Patch was never able to see that alleged email chain or, in fact, verify that it exists.

Free speech has become a hot button issue in recent days, as Trump's Environmental Protection Agency freeze and media blackout, as well as the censorship and shutdown of National Parks Service Twitter accounts, has triggered fierce backlash.

SBU Professor Carl Safina told Patch: “Free speech means just that. And free speech is basically all we have. When what we value is under assault, it’s not a time for silence. Silence is the sound of complicity.”

He added, "The dean’s written message initially struck me as potentially muzzling. But in further conversation and at a faculty meeting it seemed clearer that his message was intended to de-tangle what the university might be saying officially and what the faculty as individuals might be saying and doing. I don’t think it was an attempt to tell anyone not to express what they wished to express as individuals.

In an investigative report, Patch reached out to Swanson, as well as SBU's media representative and 56 faculty members who serve in the SoMAS department. While none of those that responded spoke out directly against the email, they did weigh in on the principle of free speech.

"The First Amendment is valued, respected and supported at Stony Brook University," said Lauren Sheprow, Stony Brook University media relations officer.

Sheprow also said there have long been policies in place for faculty on how to use the university seal, logo or stationery.

"The use of University stationery is strictly limited to official University business. Using University stationery to conduct personal or non-agency business is prohibited. University employees must exercise care to separate their official and personal activities in order to avoid potential conflicts of interest as well as the appearance of such conflicts," the policy states.

Swanson responded directly to Patch about his intent in writing the email that ignited some contention.

"What I was conveying in my email is that there exists New York State Law, guidelines and JCOPE" — or NYS Joint Commission on Public Ethics — "policies that prohibit State employees from using State resources for personal correspondence, political activity or commentary," he said. "This is made clear in a variety of resources on campus and within the SUNY system. These laws and policies do not infringe upon free speech; they are specific to use of public resources for political and personal activism."

Faculty reached out to Patch to explain how they felt about the email.

The issue, said SoMAS Professor Mary I. Scranton, was clarified in a recent faculty meeting.

"My understanding is that faculty are permitted to express opinions on any issues but that we are not to use university email or equipment or letterhead to do this. We are allowed to indicate our affiliation but should indicate that we are speaking as a private citizen not for an organization," she said, adding that using university letterhead to voice an opinion could mean SBU or the state as a whole endorsed that stance. "I think this would apply to any opinion on either side of a specific point."

Professor David Black agreed. "I don't feel my right to free speech is being violated. No one in the Stony Brook administration has said we would be punished for protesting or speaking," he said.

"Too many people seem to think that freedom of speech means one can say anything without consequences," he continued. "The First Amendment only prohibits the government from punishing one for something one may or may not have said. Indeed, private companies are perfectly within their rights to fire an employee who says something with which the company disagrees. We have been expressly told we are free to protest as private citizens. Given that I'm allowed to protest as a private citizen, my freedom of speech is not being imposed upon at all."

He added that the Stony Brook administration has instructed that faculty not use university resources, such as official email — the reason he responded from a personal email to Patch's questions — or indicate that they are officially representing the university while protesting or contacting elected officials, Black said.

"I am free to use my personal phone, email, etc. to contact elected officials as often as I want, albeit not during my regular work hours," Black said.

To that end, he added, "As a climate change scientist I can not even begin to describe how deeply disturbed I am about President Trump's words and actions to date on a variety of issues. However, it would be inappropriate for me to push a specific political agenda as a representative of a taxpayer-funded institution. I teach a class where we talk about the science and politics of climate change, and while I am more than happy to discuss the different political parties' views on climate change, and which view is more scientific than the other, at no point will I ever discuss my personal political view(s) in class — such action is not appropriate under the circumstances."

Trump, Black noted, "has already made it clear he is willing to be vindictive with regards to free speech issues." Black gave as an example the recent threat to cut off federal funding to the University of California-Berkeley. "And as such, yes, I do feel the head of the federal government is starting to impinge on my freedom of speech. That does not mean I will not continue to exercise my 1st amendment rights as vigorously as possible."

Meanwhile, Assistant Professor Christopher L. Pitt Wolfe, when he got the email from Swanson, posed a similar question to the dean. The answer he got from Swanson urged "prudence. Of course when you are giving a paper, etc., you want to identify. If you are going to write disparaging letters to and about the administration you probably don't want to do it on official stationary. It’s more guidance than a rule and it seems reasonable enough to me."

Professor Robert Aller said he did not feel Swanson's note "in any way restricts free speech as an individual. I found it simply a reminder that in most instance we speak for ourselves and not on behalf of the larger institution at which we work. There are means, however, to take action as a group."

Aller pointed to a recent strong stand SBU took to defend its undocumented immigrants.

On Feb. 6, he noted, a general resolution was passed by the University Senate regarding Trump's recent executive action on immigration.

Trump's promise to deport undocumented immigrants when they enter college campuses and churches without requiring a warrant, and his executive order to temporarily halt the admission of immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries to the United States for 120 days and to suspend entry of any Syrian refugees until further notice will "adversely affect the academic quality of this and other colleges and universities by depriving them of the ability to attract highly qualified students and scholars," the resolution said.

Those actions, the resolution continues, "have already created a level of anxiety and stress that will hinder the educational process that is at the heart of the functioning of this campus."

The SUNY chancellor and board of trustees have passed a resolution affirming support for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program, and the New York State Attorney General has provided an advisory . . . document that indicates that information on individuals required by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency should not be provided absent a judicial warrant, the document states.

To that end, the University Senate urged administration to implement actions to ensure the safety and security of members of the campus community and to maintain the high quality of its academic programs.

Those measures mean that Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, officials are subject to certain restrictions when they enter college campuses and churches without a warrant. "We urge the administration to refuse to comply with ICE officials beyond what is minimally required by law," the resolution says.

Patch file photo.