One Woman's Fight for Religious Liberty and Academic Freedom

Deep in the heart of Texas, a university instructor who won her case for church-state separation now finds her academic freedom may have been abridged. Sissy Bradford, an adjunct professor of criminology at Texas A&M University-San Antonio, recently lost her teaching position, months after questioning a display of crosses at the campus' entrance. Whether her dismissal is related to the cross contention forms the center of an intense debate over the limits of religious expression in American society.

[Parallel coverage appears in the New York Times and Texas Tribune.]

The controversy began last fall, when Bradford sent an e-mail to an administrator questioning the placement of crosses on a tower at the University entrance. A subsequent letter from Americans United for the Separation of Church and State facilitated the removal of the crosses. Though built on privately-owned land, the tower was taxpayer-funded and serves as a public face for the school. Private displays of religion are allowed on private land, but the tower seems to exist in a legal gray area, as the structure is publicly funded, promotes a public institution, and allegedly was intended to be gifted to the University.

The case raises a classic question out of religion and politics courses: can public funding be used to support religious displays? The answer to this question is generally “no.” There are some gray areas, but publicly funded institutions are generally banned from displaying religious emblems.

It is telling that legal action was not required to remove the crosses. Simply raising the issue was impetus enough to point out that this was an improper action on the part of the University. However, a cadre of voices defends the display – and criticizes Bradford for questioning the crosses' placement – even though Texas A&M is not religiously affiliated. I would venture to guess that this is not truly a matter of religious liberty for proponents of the crosses. Crescent moons at the base of the tower would surely provoke a tremendous outcry. And in any case, the real issue is that displays which associate a publicly-funded institution with a particular faith are inappropriate.

Thanks, jonrev at Wikipedia!

But could the crosses serve as purely historical imagery? Articles in the San Antonio Express-News from November 2011 report that the crosses were intended to reflect the historic design of the tower - a throwback to Spanish missions that once dotted the area. This argument from history/heritage is bolstered by the contentious 2005 Supreme Court decision that forbade displays of the Ten Commandments which favored monotheistic religion, but allowed displays that exemplified the Commandments as a basis for secular American jurisprudence. The 5-4 decision leaves plenty of wiggle room, but it is unlikely that the authenticity the crosses add to the tower justify their placement. The tower itself is far enough divorced from its religious roots that it does not serve as a religious symbol (witness Taco Bell). Crosses, on the other hand, still serve as powerful religious signifiers.

In the wake of her complaint and subsequent news coverage, Bradford, who is Jewish, was threatened verbally and received hate-filled e-mails and letters, including death threats. Support in comment sections of online articles was overshadowed by venomous hatred. She wrote in a December 5 statement to university police that her religious freedom was being abridged:

“I am being stalked & harassed & threatened by student(s) & community members because I am not a Christian. There exists a clear & prolonged pattern of unwanted communication, contact, threats, & invasion of privacy.” 

When campus police failed to respond to her pleas, students offered protection by walking her to her car and defending her against verbal assaults.

But these students seemingly could not protect her from the administration. She was informed in May that she would not be teaching any more courses, even after she had confirmed with the school that she would teach four courses in the fall (on a "tentative basis," writes the New York Times). She is still listed on the faculty page of the University’s criminology department.

Here the religion issue transmutes into a political issue. Universities must follow internal rules and labor laws for hiring and firing. (Yes, even for adjuncts!) There was something strange about Bradford's sudden dismissal, and it was not difficult to sniff out.

The American Association of University Professors came to Bradford’s defense in a letter [PDF] to the university president, dated May 31, 2012. The letter details how Bradford was given many indications that she would teach in the fall 2012 semester: she received confirmation that she would teach four classes, and students had already enrolled. The dismissal seems at odds with academic due process outlined by the University’s own policies.

Because adjunct professors are generally viewed as part-timers, it is easy to drop an adjunct’s professorship because it is not a tenured position and often is expected to be short-term. However, the University must comply with its internal policies and the rule of law. The former seems to have been contradicted in Bradford’s dismissal. The latter would be contradicted if it can be proven that this dismissal was tied to Bradford’s expression of religious freedom, and questioning the display of religious imagery by a public institution.

Media reports seem to indicate a strong connection between Bradford's outspokenness and her dismissal, and this seems to be a continuing narrative in higher education. Untenured professors who espouse controversial ideas often find themselves without a job. But to question Christian iconography on promotional material for a publicly-funded school? That does not seem controversial at all.