By Leah Bohmer
A communications instructor at the University of Louisville won a Supreme Court ruling last Monday, April 1, giving him the right to continue a lawsuit against his former employers at Jefferson Community College. Ken Hardy claims to have been let go after allowing the discussion of a racial slur during his interpersonal communications class covering the topic of hurtful speech. Someone was hurt and offended, which led to Hardy not being rehired at the college after the summer of 1998. A complaint was filed by a black female student claiming one of Hardy’s communications classes included a discussion on the slurs “nigger” and “bitch.”
The Supreme Court’s decision allowed Hardy the right to proceed with his lawsuit against former JCC president Richard Green and then acting Dean Mary Besser. Hardy called the decision a victory for free speech in the classroom. He has also filed a separate discrimination suit in Jefferson Circuit Court, claiming violations under the Kentucky Civil Rights Act. JCC argues that Hardy was not rehired after the summer break due to low enrollment numbers and the unavailability of classes for him to teach.
Hardy is currently teaching at U of L as an adjunct professor. He is seeking unspecified damages against Besser and Green, not JCC, which is protected by sovereign immunity. The Supreme Court decided the former dean and president only became interested in Hardy’s lecture after the student complained to a local civil rights leader, Rev. Louis Coleman. Coleman asked that “corrective action be taken,” but claims he never asked for Hardy to be fired, only that Green investigate fully.
The topic of the class focused on how language is used to discriminate and marginalize groups of people, Hardy said, and as part of the discussion he sought examples of derogatory terms for discussion. David Anderson, who teaches an African American literature class at U of L, claims that “in using the ‘N’ word alone, you are not creating a hostile environment.” Anderson feels, “Part of the responsibility of teachers is to raise certain issues and start a discussion on these types of things. There is a need for discussion in the classroom, but teachers have to be sensitive to the way students feel.”
“At any university, there is always a balance of interest between a need to protect free speech and a need to maintain an environment for that to go on in,” Anderson says, “but you cannot say anything you want in class. There are elements of free speech involved and ideally, this is why tenure exists.”
“However, teachers have a responsibility to be competent instructors, and it is perfectly legit to raise certain kinds of issues in class.”
A “tenured” professor is offered lifetime protection of free speech from the university, but only professors hired on a tenure track position receive this protection. Ideally, tenure exists to protect faculty who say controversial things, but there is no protection for part-timers or term teachers. JCC argues Hardy’s free speech claim is invalid because, as the law stands now, the college ultimately controls what is taught and said in the classroom. Glen Cohen, Hardy’s lawyer, disagreed, saying that college teachers need protection to safeguard academics from censorship and political pressure. When Hardy was granted the right by the Supreme Court to pursue this lawsuit, he said, “I’m overjoyed. This decision helps preserve academic freedom.”
