As the spring semester concludes, it marks a significant milestone for me: the 20th anniversary of my professorship at Duke University. During these two decades, I transitioned from an assistant professor to an associate professor of the practice at the Sanford School of Public Policy. Throughout my tenure, I have regularly taught the required ethics course for all undergraduate public policy majors, earning multiple teaching awards and consistently achieving above-average scores in student evaluations. In a Duke Chronicle poll of undergraduates, I was ranked as one of the three most popular professors at Duke University for several years.
The Shock of Non-Renewal
Given this history, I was blindsided last April when informed that my contract would not be renewed. This news was particularly perplexing as I was never informed of any performance issues over the past five years of my renewable contract, nor was I given an evaluation, despite a change to Duke bylaws in 2017 mandating such reviews.
When the news of my non-renewal became public, a letter in my defense, signed by 100 former students, was published in the Duke Chronicle. These students and others initiated a letter-writing campaign, urging the Sanford administration to reconsider their decision.
Filing a Complaint and the Faculty Hearing Committee’s Findings
In response, I filed a complaint with the Faculty Hearing Committee (FHC), a university-wide committee tasked with hearing faculty complaints regarding tenure and contract renewal. In their report, they revealed the actual reason for my job loss: dissatisfaction with my “classroom performance.” Specifically, Sanford cited my “tendency to provoke negative reactions, and perhaps harm, among some students in the classroom due to [my] confrontational teaching style—a style that had a tendency to be polarizing among students, particularly in a required Sanford course in which not all students could choose to have [me] as an instructor.”
This claim stands in stark contrast to the FHC’s assessment: “The members of the panel were disappointed with Sanford’s handling of Professor Charney’s reappointment. Professor Charney was, for many years at Duke, a highly-rated, University-decorated, and—for many, many students—beloved and formative professor. He was an asset to Duke.”
A Contradictory Assignment
Despite the stated concerns, I was assigned to teach two classes of the same required Sanford course in the following year. This decision raises questions: if Sanford truly believed their own rhetoric, they would be knowingly endangering their students by assigning me to teach these courses.
Questioning the Basis for Non-Renewal
Why did I lose my job based on the purported tendency to harm students, when no evidence of such harm exists in my student evaluations or feedback? I believe the answer lies in two factors: a complaint from a handful of students regarding a single class discussion on racism at Duke, and an administration that gave undue weight to this complaint over my 20-year record of excellence.
The Broader Implications of Student Complaints
The complaint from a small group of students proved decisive, despite contrasting reactions from other students in the same class. One student of color highlighted my ability to foster essential conversations about race relations and empathy, particularly in today’s polarized climate.
To be sure, I am a provocative professor. I challenge students’ deeply held beliefs and present material that some may find shocking or offensive. This approach has made me a popular and impactful teacher, with many students asserting that my class changed their lives.
The Growing Trend of Protectiveness
Unfortunately, what happened to me is becoming increasingly common at colleges and universities nationwide. A growing number of students equate discomfort in the classroom with harm, encouraged by faculty and administrators who prioritize shielding students from discomfort over meaningful education. In this “surveillance university,” students are encouraged to report faculty transgressions, leading to “vindictive protectiveness” where faculty are judged harshly and unjustly.
This protectiveness often stems from political ideology. Complaints from conservative or religious students are taken far less seriously, and “safe spaces” and “trigger warnings” rarely extend to those with opposing viewpoints.
The Threat to Academic Freedom
Such ideologically driven protectiveness undermines faculty free expression. It imposes content-based restrictions on speech and stifles meaningful education. I do not advocate for an expansion of this protectiveness to include all viewpoints but rather for its abandonment, as it is corrosive to the educational mission of a university.
The Plight of Non-Tenured Faculty
The increasing reliance on non-tenure track faculty at Duke and other universities is alarming. Tenure was instituted to protect faculty speech in all forms. Without it, non-tenured faculty face greater risks and are incentivized to avoid any teaching style that might cause discomfort, particularly on controversial topics.
Conclusion
Teaching driven by fear is ineffective, especially when addressing controversial issues. As the FHC noted, “even if every member of this panel viewed it as deeply wrongheaded, a school or department at Duke could decide that it simply did not want a [professor] in any of its classrooms who would make any student feel uncomfortable at any time.”
The future of education depends on preserving academic freedom and fostering open, challenging dialogues in the classroom. As my experience at Duke illustrates, this mission is under threat, and it is imperative to resist the trend towards protectiveness that undermines the very foundation of meaningful education.
