"... your direct communication with these candidates at this point in the process is not authorized and can be deemed a disruption of on-going University business." Stephen W. Director, Dean of Engineering. "We as an Aero faculty want to evaluate the candidates in a democratic way. Since the majority of the Aero faculty has not objected to the present process, by consensus it follows that the majority is in favor of the process we are now following. It is not fair for you to disrupt this process or to scare any candidates away. If you do then you are treating your Aero colleagues unfairly by imposing your minority view on the rest of us. Therefore, please accept whatever answer the candidates choose to give to your email questionairre. This includes no answer. Do not send them any more email messages. Any additional contact that you have, not including research seminar and the scheduled reception of each candidate, will be considered to be harassment of the candidates, in my opinion. If you choose to ignore the above request, we will interpret you [sic] action as an attempt to destroy the department...." James F. Driscoll, Interim Chair, Department of Aerospace Engineering.

In another story (reminiscent of the Kathleen Sheridan story) of mid-level education bureaucrats gone wild, The Czar's Court has received e-mails evidencing the pattern of U-M's disregard for academic freedom and the First Amendment. This time it is Dean of Engineering and an Interim Chair of Aerospace Engineering seeking to censor a tenured Professor of Aerospace Engineering.

The professor, Dr. William Kauffman, sent via email a questionairre to the three remaining publicly identified candidates in the search process for a new Chair of Aerospace Engineering. The email followed the May 19th publication of the finalist candidates in a memo from the "Department of Aerospace Engineering Chair Search Advisory Committee" to all "Faculty of the Department of Aerospace Engineering." The memo invited faculty to attend a reception and technical presentation of each finalist, and informed the faculty of a schedule of various non-public meetings with search committee members. Most of these meetings weren't open to the public or faculty. The memo makes no mention as to whether interested faculty should or should not contact the named finalists. Kauffman, interested in the outcome of this selection, sent an email questionairre to each candidate asking twelve questions.

Question 1 asks about how the candidate envisions his relationship with Dean of Engineering Stephen Director. Question 2 asks about the deficit of a half million dollars the Department has with the College of Engineering. Question 3 asks about the candidates "biggest contribution" to the advancement of flight. Question 4 asks what the most significant interaction the candidate has had with American industry (a great question for ivory tower elites). Question 5 asks about the role the Department plays in serving Michiganders (over non-residents) since U-M is a state public body. Question 6 asks about how the candidate would use his position to regain the 300,000 manufacturing jobs the State of Michigan has lost in the last three years. Question 7 asks whether undergraduates should be allowed to take certain advanced courses. Question 8 how the candidate thinks undergraduate curriculum should be balanced between the experimental and analytical. Question 9 asks what time committment the candidate expects to give. Question 10 asks what the candidates views on plagiarism are. Question 11 asks about the shortage of educational space. Question 12 asks the most timely and politically charged question (but nonetheless fair) of whether a "new faculty member should be hired solely on the basis of gender, or for that matter, ethnicity, race, or creed?"

All of these questions seem to be fair and professional questions for the position, the email request was written in a professional tone, and seems to be genuine. Each of the candidates penned a response email that was cordial, appreciative of the interest, and expressed a desire to answer Kauffman's questions when they visited. But one of the candidates forward the message to the Dean of Engineering or an assistant; and therein lies the heart of the story.

On June 1st, Dean Director sent Kauffman a terse e-mail insisting that Kauffman's "... direct communication with these candidates at this point in the process is not authorized and can be deemed a disruption of on-going University business." Director then "asked" that Kauffman "direct any comments" to the Chair of the Advisory Search Committee. The following day, Interim Chair of the Aerospace Department, James F. Driscoll, sent Kauffman a clarifying e-mail with more details, apparently after a discussion with Kauffman in person about the meaning of Dean Director's letter. Driscoll clarified that Kauffman could still attend the reception and events all faculty were invited to; but only those events (the original letter does seem to indicate that Kauffman could be barred from any communication, which would include those events). Driscoll suggested that it was Kauffman's email questionairre explicitly that was "unauthorized," not attendance at the publicly scheduled events. Driscoll went on to explain in his own view how Kauffman allegedly crossed the line, when he wrote, "We as an Aero faculty want to evaluate the candidates in a democratic way. Since the majority of the Aero faculty has not objected to the present process, by consensus it follows that the majority is in favor of the process we are now following. It is not fair for you to disrupt this process or to scare any candidates away. If you do then you are treating your Aero colleagues unfairly by imposing your minority view on the rest of us. Therefore, please accept whatever answer the candidates choose to give to your email questionairre. This includes no answer. Do not send them any more email messages. Any additional contact that you have, not including research seminar and the scheduled reception of each candidate, will be considered to be harassment of the candidates, in my opinion. If you choose to ignore the above request, we will interpret you [sic] action as an attempt to destroy the department ...."

The insanity of this written tirade is best illustrated by the idea that Kauffman's email question was "an attempt to destroy the department." There is less to analyze in Dean Director's shorter email, but the key missteps there are that the Dean believes he has the right to "authorize" a professor to ask or not ask questions of any individual for whatever purpose they choose. The essence of academia is inquiry; the essence of democracy is participation. Director violates both the principles of academic freedom and the First Amendment by suggesting that he has such a right to interfere with another Professor's inquiry. Another logical misstep is taken with the assumption that Dr. Kauffman's action "disrupted on-going University business." This ascribes an unrealistic amount of power to Kauffman's mere questions and the implied ideas they might carry. If questions can "disrupt" the University, one wonders what type of Orwellian university has evolved. Questions are the essence of the traditional university - not asking them would seem to be more disruptive. Given that this is a state public university, subject to the Constitution, its policies are further subject to the review of the citizenry - candidates for these public positions of trust are public figures for the purposes of anyone, Kauffman or a person off the street, to make contact with and inquire about. The candidates of course retain the right to choose how and to whom to answer questions - but they misuse that discretion at there own peril by subjecting themselves to normal public criticism. Kauffman clearly had a First Amendment right to ask them whatever at his own whim.. Where Dean Director "asks" that Kauffman cease and desist, the Interim Chair Driscoll crosses the line with the open threat of either "harassment" prosecution or discipline if Kauffman persisted. Driscoll violated Kauffman's First Amendment rights in this threat; and subjected the University to grave legal risk because of his position of power over Dr. Kauffman.

Breaking Driscoll's tirade down into its illogical elements, I've interjected some analysis. "We [Driscoll errantly assumes he speaks for some unknowable collective] as an Aero faculty want to evaluate the candidates in a democratic way [he betrays this "democratic way" in the next few sentences]. Since the majority of the Aero faculty has not objected to the present process, by consensus [the fallacy of "silence equals consent," clearly not found in the rules of logic] it follows that the majority is in favor of the process we are now following. It is not fair for you to disrupt this process or to scare [mere questions, or expressions, are scary?] any candidates away. If you do then you are treating your Aero colleagues unfairly by imposing your minority view on the rest of us [a private questionairre can only affect the candidates, not the rest of faculty; and "minority views" are to be protected, even if "minority" or "special interest" views have been improperly imposed in the past, this is a case where the minority doesn't have the money or the power to "impose" anything]. Therefore, please accept whatever answer the candidates choose to give to your email questionairre. This includes no answer [Read as, "We've instructed them not answer and insist that you accept that."]. Do not send them any more email messages. Any additional contact that you have, not including research seminar and the scheduled reception of each candidate, will be considered to be harassment [questioning a public figure is obviously not "harassment", and this is an illegal threat in violation of Kauffman's rights] of the candidates, in my opinion. If you choose to ignore the above request, we will interpret you [sic] action as an attempt to destroy the department ...." [Driscoll really loses perspective here].

It should be noted that Kauffman has pending litigation against the University. This might explain the desire to retaliate and keep him out of the policy loop; and no doubt the University might argue that he has an "axe to grind." Even if that were the case though (which I wouldn't accept), the written, documentary evidence in this case again shows a gross U-M overreaction to events. The words tell the real story.