Keep 'Adam and Steve'
Out of His In-Box.
Is That So Hateful?
By PETER APPLEBOME,
NYTimes on the Web, December 11, 2005
Wayne, NJ -- IF it weren't
Women's History Month, if he weren't an observant Muslim, if no one had sent him
the e-mail invitation to view a film billed as "a lesbian relationship story,"
no one would be accusing Jihad Daniel of harassment and hate speech.
| |
 |
| |
New Jersey
Attorney General Peter C. Harvey sided with William Patterson
University in the case.
(Photo:
Mel Evans/AP) |
But, in the way these things play
out, it took only one word in a 44-word e-mail message from Mr. Daniel to find
himself in the middle of one of those free speech-hate speech epics that seem as
much a part of college campuses as binge drinking and sleep deprivation.
Mr. Daniel, who repairs printers at William Paterson University and also takes
courses toward a master's degree there, was reading his e-mail before work on
March 8 when he came upon a message sent in connection with Women's History
Month announcing the showing of a film, "Ruthie and Connie: Every Room in
the House."
Mr. Daniel, 63, who has been a Muslim since the 1970's, had no interest in the
film. He believes his religion condemns homosexuality. So following
the instructions, he sent a reply to the e-mail address of Arlene Holpp Scala,
chairwoman of the department of women's studies.
"Do not send me any mail about 'Connie and Sally' and 'Adam and Steve.'
These are perversions," he wrote. "The absence of God in higher education
brings on confusion. That is why in these classes the Creator of the
heavens and the earth is never mentioned."
Two days later, Dr. Scala filed a complaint with officials at William Paterson.
It read: "Mr. Daniel's message to me sounds threatening and in violation
of our University's nondiscrimination policy. I don't want to feel
threatened at my place of work when I send out announcements about events that
address lesbian issues."
She said Mr. Daniel should be informed that he had violated university policy
and that she was not sure what else should be done to censure him and "make me
feel I am working in a safe environment."
Mr. Daniel had an otherwise spotless record in 15 years at the university and
gave no other reason to be perceived as a threat. And though many people
may take offense to his use of the word "perversions," Mr. Daniel did not give
any indication that he had any interest beyond warding off unwanted e-mail
messages. There were no follow-up messages, no threats, no public
statements, no protests, nothing that could be taken to be harassment.
Still, he soon received a letter from the university's Office of Employment
Equity and Diversity saying he had violated a section of the New Jersey state
code and would be charged with engaging in harassing and threatening behavior.
"I said, 'You're kidding me, aren't you?' " he said. "I didn't harass
anyone. I didn't threaten anyone. I said, 'Don't send me any more
e-mails because I'm a religious person and God does not condone that kind of
behavior.' "
Next came an investigation and then, in June, a letter from Arnold Speert, the
president of the university. The hearing investigator had concluded, and
he concurred, that Mr. Daniel had violated the Interim State of New Jersey
Policy Prohibiting Discrimination, Harassment or Hostile Environments in the
Workplace.
At that point Mr. Daniel might have packed it in, but he figured a letter in his
file saying he was guilty of harassing behavior was no small price to pay.
And he had been taking courses in media communications and decided that what he
had learned about the First Amendment applied to him as much as it did to the
founding fathers. Yes, he was just the guy who fixed the printers, but he
didn't see how he had done anything wrong.
HE decided to appeal and found an ally in the Foundation for Individual Rights
in Education, which has found no shortage of free-speech cases on college
campuses. The New Jersey attorney general, Peter C. Harvey, responding to
a letter from the group, sided with the university, saying, "Speech which
violates a nondiscrimination policy is not protected."
But Mr. Daniel kept at it, and his union eventually filed an appeal that was
heard on Nov. 16. There was a review of the very thin record -- mostly Dr.
Scala's original e-mail message and Mr. Daniel's response.
According to the hearing record, Dr. Scala said she found the phrase "Do not
send me ..." to be threatening. Mr. Daniel said he just wanted off the
e-mail list, and that he hadn't meant to upset anyone.
The hearing officer ruled that the word "perversion," though upsetting to some,
"does not appear to have caused any discriminatory actions." She said the
e-mail message did not sound like hate speech, Mr. Daniel was expressing a
religious belief and "one e-mail message of this type does not, in my opinion,
cause a hostile work environment." She said the letter of reprimand should
be removed from his file.
This stuff never seems to go away on college campuses, but Mr. Daniel said he
just wanted to go back to attending class and fixing printers. "This was
not about having my 15 minutes of fame," he said. "I'm not ego-tripping.
I just thought from the start this whole thing was ludicrous."
E-mail: peappl@nytimes.com
|
