“To Sir with Love” no more seems passé; rather an attitude frowned upon with penal consequences. At least that is what Oakland University student Joseph Corlett found out to his chagrin this week.
For writing in a class assignment (that specifically allowed students to write creatively on any subject), that he found some of his teachers attractive, Joseph Corlett was hauled up for “unlawful individual activities,” barred from campus, suspended for three semesters, and instructed to undergo “sensitivity” counseling by the Oakland University, Detroit.
So, what hurt the delicate sensibilities of the faculty to question the application of the First Amendment to an extent that his professor wrote in an email on November 29 “Either Mr. Corlett leaves campus or I do.”?
It seems Corlett accepted the assuring directives of his course too literally: The course material described the student journal that students had to write as part of the course as “a place for a writer to try out ideas and record impressions and observations….free-writing/brainstorming…creative entries.”
Corlett’s journal entry submitted to his Advanced Critical Writing professor contained an entry titled “Hot for Teacher,” and expressed his worries over getting distracted in class by attractive professors.
The Dean of Students and Assistant Vice President of Student Affairs, Glenn McIntosh informed Corlett in writing on January 20 that,
- He had been found “guilty” and was being suspended for three semesters through Fall 2012;
- He wouldn’t be allowed to transfer credits during the suspension;
- He would have persona non grata status and that
- He would be arrested for criminal trespass if he entered the campus; and that
- He would be on disciplinary probation for the rest of his college career, and
- If he chose to enroll for winter 2013 courses, he also must prove that he had undergone “counseling on sensitivity issues”
Corlett, being effectively barred from all directions for his creative attempt, sought legal help with FIRE (Foundation of Individual Rights in Education).
FIRE Vice President of Programs Adam Kissel commented, “Oakland University is treating Corlett like a student with a mental disability who needs counseling for insensitivity…I can hardly imagine what kind of counseling Oakland would have required for Quentin Tarantino, Vladimir Nabokov, or Stephen King.”
FIRE has already written to Oakland University President Gary D. Russi that Corlett’s creative writing was fully protected under the First Amendment, which is binding on public universities such as the Oakland University.
You might want to search and find what else he has written, and quite publicly on campus, as in advocacy of concealed-carry in the classroom. I suspect that this action regarding his “activities,” plural, covered more than a class assignment.
Did you ask? Did you commit an act of journalism? This report does not clarify your sources — or, perhaps, that there was only one source.
There are many more facts to this case than the few that Mr. Corlett has presented to various media outlets in his attempt to raise publicity for himself. The University Conduct hearing in which Mr. Corlett was found responsible for repeatedly and deliberately intimidating his professor and another student in the class considered a range of evidence, not just his writing journals. Moreover, Mr. Corlett had a history of inappropriate classroom and campus behavior prior to this event. His case was reviewed by a committee of faculty and student representatives, and University procedures were followed to insure that Mr. Corlett received a full and fair hearing. Please do not mistake this for a free speech issue: it is not. This is a case where a student’s pattern of deliberate and repeated intimidation led to his suspension.
This is not a case of free speech. This is a case of harassment, intimidation, stalking, and threatening language referencing fire arms. Mr. Corlett’s writing and behavior were entirely inappropriate for a university student and caused great risk to the Oakland University community. Faculty in English, Writing, and those associated with the Writing Center were directly targeted. I knew only of the gun references until The Fire posted Mr. Corlett’s course work, and I am even more assured of the correct decision by the administration to remove him from campus.
Mr. Corlett’s harassment was not just physical intimidation and sexually harassing writing; he verbally waved his gun. I own fire arms. I’ve taught my children fire arms safety and how to shoot, so I am not an anti-gun faculty or some other stereotype. One does not reference guns at all unless there is the intention to harm another, physically or emotionally, or when planning a trip to the range. In truth, Mr. Corlett yelled fire in a crowded theater.
At my last position prior to moving to Oakland, I was stalked by a student, so I do not speak without personal knowledge of the fear and intimidation that can be presented by stalking and harassing behaviors. In addition, I am one of the faculty targeted based on my work with the Writing Center. I feared for the safety of colleagues and students as the result of what I know about mental illness, stalking, weapons ownership, and the bits of information available about this situation. While I was vocal about my personal fears for safety on campus, I was not vocal with the fact that I was considering resigning if Mr. Corlett was not removed from campus.
Oakland University administration did the only right and just thing possible: protect the campus community. Personally, I feel safe again and will now be able to refer students to campus resources without anxiety that they will be met with danger: these are the people whose rights to campus safety and resources that were attacked by Mr. Corlett and are now protected. Free speech has nothing to do with this situation. Do not allow this man’s personal issues to sully an entire University and to cause damage to real issues of free speech.
The submission was not creative. It was about real people, mostly faculty members, whom he described in overtly sexual terms. The instructor did not invite commentary on her body or that of her colleagues. Taken together with his comments that he feels naked without his gun and talk of how much alcohol he had consumed before composing each entry, he effectively sought to intimidate his professor, and it worked. By the way, he is a 56 year old man pursuing a vanity degree, not a clueless teen expressing a harmless crush. There is a great deal more to the story than has been conveyed by Fire.org, but it is clear by your coverage and the visual aid you paired it with that you simply want to titillate. Isn’t this supposed to be a professional site? I certainly hope none of you proport to represent women against sexual harassment and intimidation claims.
This is a very incomplete version of the story, to put it mildly. First, this student had a history of harassing students on campus long before he enrolled, and some women found his attentions disturbing enough to notify campus police. His entries in his student journal, in which he was assigned specifically to address the readings in the course, were not only sexual but occasionally threatening and violent, and they mentioned not only the teacher but one of the students by name. When the disciplinary meeting was held, not one other student would testify on his behalf, despite his claims that they supported him.
Do you remember the Virginia Tech tragedy? Do you remember how harshly the administration was blamed after the fact for neglecting clear warning signs that the student who perpetrated the massacre was dangerous and potentially violent? And do you remember who try the hardest to warn them? It was — wait for it — an English professor who had seen his disturbed and disturbing thought processes in writing assignments.
By the way, the picture that accompanies this story is disgraceful. I can assure you that no female faculty members at this institution or any other that I know of dress like hookers. This is “blame the victim/she asked for it” slander of the worst kind.
sdjunct:
“Firearm” is one word, not two. With writers like you on staff, perhaps Oakland isn’t the value I believed it to be.