September 30, 1999
Macomb Daily
To the Editors:

I have been silent long enough.  The letter from David Batholomew with its frightening invitation for [some]"one" to do physical violence on my husband, John Bonnell, is exactly the response Macomb Community College panders to with their Open Letter ad.

Simply stated, the Open Letter is a list of lies and distortions. This is why the College paid $1400.00 to run the "ad." Their method eliminates the possibility of a competent reporter, one who has actually read and comprehends the district court ruling, from exposing their deceit. MCC was severly reprimanded by the district court and is already publicly announcing their intent to ignore the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals decision should it also rule against them.

The case is very complicated. But the basic issue is not. Contrary to what reporters and certain editors in their desire to sell papers state, John is not a "Professor of Profanity" or a "swearing" professor. He has never been charged with sexual harassment. John is a remarkable educator who teaches literature - some of which contains sexual imagery and themes - to adult students (average age 26). All of his class discussions pass the so-called "germanity" test of the College's chilling speech code.

Yes, John uses the full range of the English language in his explication of the text - all of it relevant to course content and educational purpose.  Are you aware that the College has never produced any document or expert to indicate otherwise? Rather, personnel administrators and labor attomeys, with not a shred of education in the interpretation of literature nor having ever stepped foot in John's class simply state its not germane to the course because we said so.   Our side has highly respected educators and published authors indicating their support of John's teaching methods. Unfortunately, the College has been so successful in creating a chilling effect on their own campuses that our experts hail from public universities that still acknowledge the fundamental principle of academic freedom.

The single most important aspect that gets lost in all this controversy is John's immense respect for all his students.  They are the ones who know the real truth: that he treats them as the intelligent adults that they are. That is why we have a volume of letters of support - most of which were addressed to MCC administrators or Board - sent by former students.  They speak of being "inspired" by his teaching, of gaining an "abundance of knowledge," of finally learning to appreciate literature and (repeatedly) that he is the best or one of the best teachers they ever had in college.

The district court correctly ruled that John never breached the confidentiality of nor retaliated against his student.  Publicly disagreeing with a single student's desire to dictate content and methodology in a college classroom (while diligently protecting the identity of that student) is not retaliation. This is a right guaranteed by his union contract's academic freedom clause and the First Amendment.

Can you imagine having taught 10,000 students over 32 years and then being threatened with the destruction of your career based on the first formal student complaint ever filed against you?  The College used this complaint to try and regain the type of totalitarian control over faculty not seen on college campuses since the 1950's.

But they picked the wrong person to use their intimidation tactics on. We are inspired by the continual support of students, family, friends and excellent attorneys.  The College will not succeed in its immoral attempt to bankrupt us, both spiritually and financially. I know we will prevail in the end.

(signed)  Nancy Crawley Bonnell
      Roseville, Michigan
(ed. note: This letter was edited and published)
 
 
 

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

1