Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Michael Gutsell Review Article
Michael Gutsell Review Article
O
ne year after graduate student Two separate incidents were the itself was their exam. Having tricked his
Andre Massena’s free-speech focus of a December 4th meeting of the students, Professor Murphy joked about
battle with the University made department’s Advancement Committee, them coming after him after class, to which
national headlines, the Masters of Social which addresses concerns related to Gutsell responded jokingly, “well just be
Work (MSW) department is again at MSW students’ academic or professional careful when you start your car.”
the center of a free-speech controversy behavior. The department's reaction to The second matter presented to the
that forces us to reassess the University’s both highlights its flagrant disregard for its Advancement Committee was a story
commitment to free expression. students' rights. that Gutsell told during a November
At the end of the fall semester, MSW The first occurred on October 27th, 17th meeting of Murphy’s class. The
student Michael Gutsell was expelled during a class with Professor Kevin Murphy. topic being discussed was, according to
from the Graduate School after a series of According to statements by Gutsell, Gutsell, “the docking of employee pay
incidents that Gutsell and the Foundation Professor Murphy told the class that they for infraction.” Gutsell mentioned that in
for Individual Rights in Education were to reach a unanimous decision as to Ontario, where he once worked, it is illegal
(FIRE) maintain are protected by the the content and format of their midterm to dock an employee’s pay unless that
First Amendment of the United States exam. Once the class reached a consensus, employee violated the law. He proceeded
Constitution. they were informed that the exercise to tell a related story about an incident
www.binghamtonreview.com 9
FREE SPEECH
violated by the MSW department. Last to an official transcript. These conflicting are raised, said student’s academic advisor
December, MSW student Andre Massena explanations leave Gutsell wondering to is to devise a “written plan” which the
was nearly expelled for putting up posters this day the exact reasons for his expulsion. student will be required to follow. (Gutsell’s
that criticized the department’s hiring of a Similarly, during the Massena case, plan demanded he maintain rapport with
professor Massena believed to be responsible Bronstein added dozens of pages of new his peers; Massena’s required he apologize
for “social injustice.” Massena was to be charges, unrelated to the posters, after and retract his poster’s statements). The
suspended and forced to apologize and Andre’s appeal. student’s progress is later evaluated by
retract his criticisms before FIRE stepped The most blatant consistency, the Advancement Committee, which has
in with a letter to President DeFleur and however, is the department’s treating of the power to recommend “the student be
a posting on their website. FIRE explained innocent words as expellable infractions. suspended for a period of time or dismissed
the free speech and freedom of conscience Gutsell, who describes himself as “critical,” from the program.” Gutsell’s assertion
protections that were being violated, and, “assertive,” and “not afraid to disagree with that Advancement Committee can “expel
one day after the case was made public, the people,” blames this on department culture. you for anything,” appears to have merit,
department dropped its charges. “They don’t like a lot of disagreement. They judging by its unchecked discretion in his
The parallels between the Gutsell and don’t like diverse views [and are] very much and Massena’s cases.
Massena cases—in terms of department about conformity.” Despite not having exhausted his final
abuse—are glaring. Neither was informed In a letter written last year in appeal, Gutsell plans to leave Binghamton
in advance of the charges that were being support of Massena, MSW graduate later this week to return to Vancouver,
brought against them by the Advancement Cindy Overstreet describes how she had Canada. He explains that even if he were
Committee, denying them their right to “repeatedly encountered a tremendously to win his second appeal, he doesn’t believe
prepare a defense. disturbing pattern of fear and institutional the department will let him graduate. “The
FIRE contends that Gutsell’s bullying by the program against social department will make things either too
Advancement meeting “covered his work students.” Several other MSW unpleasant or impose further restrictions
entire set of utterances since entering the students penned similar letters last year that I cannot meet.”
program,” all of which were to be held again supporting Andre, all which decried the This unfortunate ending is sadly not
him. This is supported by the fact that an department’s abuses and cited additional the first, and may not be the last we see
appeal committee, which heard Gutsell’s cases of students being targeted for things in Masters of Social Work Department.
appeal, upheld his expulsion but noted that like “insubordination.” The department’s flagrant disregard for
“the two incidents reported from Professor The “advancement” process is the its students’ basic liberties has already
Kevin Murphy’s [class] are not the primary means through which students, including received national attention. The question
basis for your dismissal.” This despite those Massena and Gutsell, have been targeted. is now, when will it receive attention from
two incidents being the only ones discussed According to department policy, when those at the University level who have the
at the advancement meeting, according concerns relating to a student’s performance power to intervene? ◄