DECEMBER 28, 2007 --

At the end of October, Brandeis University politics Professor Donald Hindley received a letter from University Provost Marty Krauss telling him that an assistant provost would attend his classes as monitor, that he must undergo anti-discrimination training, and that he faces termination if he did not comply.

The story leading to the Krauss  letter to Professor Hindley is obscured, at present, by  claims of confidentiality raised by the school administration. Apparently, during a class on Latin America, in September, Prof. Hindley mentioned the term "wetback." (Perhaps other terms stated on that or another occasion were also complained of by one or more students. According to reports, most students in the Latin American class supported Professor Hindley.)

Further, apparently, one or more students took offense and complained to the head of the politics department who went to a dean who went to the Human Resources department who undertook some form of investigation with, again apparently, the results given to Ms. Krauss.

This matter has drawn comment on several websites.  It has also been reported in university and student publications at Brandeis. It has not been reported in the local or national press.

(Brandeis is located in Waltham, MA, outside Boston.)  This writer is a member of the Brandeis Class of 1962 (full disclosure, a very low-ranking member of '62) and was informed of the Hindley matter by a member of the Class of 1961.

At this point, it is not clear to LPR if the university's procedures in cases alleging improper classroom speech provide for imposition of a human monitor in class, plus anti-discrimination training -- and threat of dismissal, or if the penalties were applied in ad hoc way in any way.

A faculty committee has determined that the penalties applied against Professor Hindley are "excessive." The committee seemed, also, to indicate that  apposite procedures were not followed by the administration -- with respect to consulting with the faculty in a matter that could lead to termination, and suspending  the penalties while the matter was appealed to the Faculty Senate.

The campus newspaper, "The Justice" reported that Provost Krauss acknowledged there had been a procedural "'hiccup,'" which she explained, according to the Justice story, as necessary because Professor Hindley might have been in violation of state or federal law.

This statement of Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes in De Jonge v. Oregon seems to question the "could have violated" test, that would, as suggested by Provost Krauss, justify a procedural "'hiccup'" at Brandeis: "Conviction upon a charge not made would be sheer denial of due process."   

Sensitivity training might be called for at Brandeis, with some monitoring by administration officials indeed: in the  course on Constitutional Law. It seems to LPR that  to speak of a "hiccup" in procedure is merely  another way of saying "sheer denial of due process."