Argument Classical Arrangement

¶ … Court Was Correct: Silva Deserves to Teach Exordium: OJ Simpson was one thing; this time, the courts got it right. Professor Silva used questionable teaching methods, yes, but the federal court's decision was correct: Any possible improprieties did not amount to sexual harassment, and indeed fell into the category of protected speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. As a result, exonerating Silva and reinstituting him with pay is the only possible correct result. Narratio: J.

Donald Silva was a tenured Communications professor at the University of New Hampshire's Thompson School of Applied Science. (Court, 1) In his lectures in class, Silva once compared writing's focus to sexual activity, and on another occasion elucidated the meaning of a simile with a famed belly dancer's description of her craft. (Greve, 12) Several female students complained that Silva's comments were inappropriate, and the University Appeals Board suspended him without pay for a year and asked him to begin counseling.

The sanctions stemmed from the fact that he was in violation of the University's Sexual Harassment Policy. Silva sued, and the court found that the University violated Silva's right to free speech and reinstated him to his position with full pay. Partitio Silva did not sexually harass anyone by making the "offending" comments in class. Sexual harassment has ceased to focus on harm to individuals, and has instead begun to implicate any impropriety at all, and this is unjustified.

Also, Silva has a constitutional right to free speech, and the University can only violate that right when it is linked to a legitimate pedagogical purpose. Silva used the sexual analogies well within his pedagogical style, and they served to advance his lectures and discussions. As a result, he did nothing wrong, and his free speech rights remain paramount. Finally, firing Silva would set a very dangerous precedent for university professors nationwide.

Certain topics do justify and necessitate frank sexual discussions, and forcing the professors to skirt the issues only harms the students in the long run; and in some occasions may even preclude the professors from doing their appointed jobs: Sexual discussions are often necessary to understand complex texts or sociological phenomenon, and simply disallowing free speech because it is of sexual nature in the classroom is too draconian a solution. Confirmatio Linda Hirshman is not at all thrilled with the district court's decision in Silva's case.

She, though for a long time skeptical of sexual harassment suits, is of the firm belief that professors and teachers often use their exalted status simply to sexually harass: "Yet the more I know about the offending teachers, the more I realize that what really matters to them is the privilege of sexual abuse. The academics' attachment to acting out has made me realize the importance of this issue." (Hirshman, 511) In fact, Hirshman even cites that her professors managed to teach their classes without sexual references.

Michael Greve responds by saying, it seems, "Congratulations." He believes that the lines have been blurred between harmful and innocuous speech: "The current legal rules, which define a 'hostile environment' on the basis of a case-by-case, multifactor analysis and with reference to the perception of a 'reasonable person,' are exceedingly vague. By that very virtue, they deter not only genuine harassment but also harmless and desirable speech; faced with legal uncertainty, individuals will avoid any speech that might be interpreted as creating a hostile environment." (Greve, 512) Jeffrey Tobin agrees.

He cites Paula Jones' and Monica Lewinsky's cases and notes that sexual harassment is no longer about harm to the victim; it is actually now about simple impropriety. To punish for impropriety is far too close to punishing for bad morals, or bad thoughts. Indeed, that is a very logical extrapolation of the reduction ad Hitler that Hirshman bemoans: "Is the law intended to protect women from sexual impropriety or job discrimination? Jones' lawsuit rests almost entirely on the former proposition.

Her case seems noticeably slim on evidence that she suffered any kind of professional setback as a result of her encounter with Clinton." (Tobin, 465) Could the students show any harm from Silva's decisions to infuse his lectures and discussions with frank sexual talk? They did not; really, they complained, and the school infringed upon Silva's rights to free speech simply because of his impropriety, not because of any harm caused to the students. Silva used sex in his classes to illustrate pedagogical points.

He wanted to inspire his students to find their foci in writing and to truly understand the ever-so-powerful tool that is simile. He did not, as Hirshman suggests, simply exercise is privilege to sexually harass. Not at all. In contrast, he sought not to harass, but to inspire. He did not make lewd gestures at women, or suggest that he might improve grades in trade for attentions. No: He simply wanted to teach and inspire, and his tools happened to be sexually charged.

Truth be told, sex is a powerful tool to teach. Without doubt, his students will remember his lectures on those two days. The university's own policies allow them to interfere only when there is a teaching reason to do so. Otherwise, they violate a professor's free speech rights. In this case, there was a teaching reason not to interfere with Silva. Silva in fact had pedagogy on his side: He sought to teach, and the university sought to halt the learning process.

This flies in the face of everything a university should believe. Even more frightening is the thought of what an unsuccessful suit might have implied for professors and teachers nationwide. If Silva suffers firing because of trying to inspire his students, will that not stop other teachers from trying to do the same? Will not professors nationwide be on tenterhooks as far as their lesson plans go? Courts and schools should not and cannot stop professors from teaching,.