Free speech is indeed under threat at WSU – and no, I am not talking about Coach Leach’s ability to endorse Donald Trump or the College Republicans’ illusion that safe spaces prohibit the freedom of expression.

Instead, I am talking about an event widely overlooked by the campus at large; a very public WSU administration attack on the ability for professors to weigh in on issues they are expert in.

On Aug. 31, WSU released a statement publically disavowing comments concerning the killing of a Northeast Washington wolf pack made by Associate Professor of Wildlife Ecology Robert Wielgus.

“Some of Wielgus’ statements in regard to this controversial issue have been both inaccurate and inappropriate,” the statement said. “As such, they have contributed substantially to the growing anger and confusion about this significant wildlife management issue and have unfairly jeopardized the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Wolf Advisory Group’s many-months long stakeholder process.”

Wielgus, who is also the director of the Large Carnivore Conservation Lab at WSU, criticized the lethal removal of the Profanity Peak wolf pack in an Aug. 25 Seattle Times article, prompting the university’s response.

Now, without weighing into the actual event, the underlying issue is this: public blanket disavowals and condemnations like this make WSU an implicitly hostile academic environment. Specifically, it creates a prohibitive precedent that might hinder faculty from offering public commentary or opinion.

“Robert Strenge, spokesman for WSU, said the university’s statement did not concern Wielgus’ lab, research or work. Nor was it about expressing his opinion. It was solely about the inaccuracy of the statements,” wrote Seattle Times reporter Lynda V. Mapes in an Aug. 31 article.

Yet the university says nothing of the kind in its actual statement:

“Regarding future steps for preventing subsequent inaccurate or inappropriate statements, we are implementing applicable internal university processes,” the statement said.

If the vagueness of the language does not sound ominous enough, the message is: public image takes precedence over faculty who create controversy, even in fields they are expert in.

The problem here also is the hypocrisy; On May 7 – the same day Leach endorsed Trump at a rally in Spokane – WSU released a statement in favor of faculty free speech.

“Free speech is a form of diversity – diversity of opinion,” the statement said, “and diversity is a core value of WSU.”

A football coach who represents the face and brand of the university can endorse one of the most resoundingly controversial presidential candidates in history with no criticism from the university – yet, when that speech concerns affairs as unsexy as conservation, the university feels free to roundly condemn the expert and solicited opinions of one of its faculty.

I am not saying Wielgus was innocent of using charged language; statements to the Seattle Times like “after careful thought…. go ahead and quote me ‘where McI(rvin) grazes … dead wolves follow’” are certainly not wise.

However, when a conservation expert says a rancher behaved irresponsibly with regard to cattle pasturage and when this expert has extensively monitored the pack in question, I tend to lean toward the side of the expert. The university seems to hold the opposite opinion.

A university that refuses to unequivocally support its faculty in terms of their ability to speak on issues they are expert in does not bode well for future faculty recruitment.

Certainly WSU professors should not be allowed to engage in hateful and intentionally bigoted speech, and the university does not even need to condone what professors say – however, professors should always be defended in their ability to give their comments freely, especially with regard to expert opinions. This should be true from things as minor as in-class opinions to testimonies in Olympia or Washington.

Travis Ridout, a WSU professor in the school of Politics, Philosophy and Public Affairs, said tenure mitigates some of a professor’s risk exposure, but not all.

“Most tenured faculty, I think, feel they have a fairly large degree of freedom in what they may say in the classroom or in public; tenure offers us a lot of protection,” Ridout wrote in an email. “That protection is not, however, absolute, and increasingly, many faculty are not on a tenure or tenure-track stream.”

Luckily, Wielgus is tenured and directs a prominent research lab. Increasingly, however, faculty members do not have this protection to speak out in university environments hostile to controversy.

World-class universities should have world-class professors that from time to time generate world-class controversy to create world-class dialogue. Teachers should be expected to motivate our minds as much as our passions.

Yet the administration has made a dangerous example for faculty free speech at WSU, one which should be acknowledged and corrected if the university desires to remain an institution where those world-class controversial conversations happen.

Tyler Laferriere is a graduate student pursuing his master’s in economics from Phoenix, Arizona. He can be contacted at 335-2290 or by [email protected]. The opinions expressed in this column are not necessarily those of the staff of The Daily Evergreen or those of The Office of Student Media.