Colleges and universities pride themselves on being open, inclusive settings for diverse thought and expression.

But that ideal in the post-9/11 era is being test.

On Jan. 14, Harvard President Lawrence H. Summers gave a speech at Yale in which he said women are "inherently worse at science" and "less willing than men to work long hours." Outraged Harvard professors have called for Summers resignation and faculty members are also actively seeking a collective vote of no confidence.

A program director at Hamilton College has stepped down after inviting Ward Churchill to speak at the New York school. Churchill's essays, which compared victims of 9/11 to Nazi war criminals, outraged victims' families and others on campus. The school canceled Churchill's appearance, as have a number of other universities across the country.

"While professors should not use their classroom as a soapbox, they need to challenge students' views," said Arthur Bellinzoni, assistant to the president for strategic initiative at Wells College. "If you don't challenge people's views and beliefs, there is no place for growth and development."

The University of Colorado this month has launched a 30-day review to determine whether Churchill, who is chairman of the university's Ethnic Studies Department, can be fired. Media outlets are exploring his scholarship - one Denver radio show claims school documents prove he lied about being an American Indian to land his job - and state legislators are considering making it easier to get rid of tenured professors. Churchill has refused to apologize and has threatened to sue if he is let go over the controversy.

"What these men said may not be the popular views to express, but we need to welcome all views even if they are minority positions or political incorrect," Bellinzoni said. "I am a bit appalled at the way situations are being handled."

Academic freedom has never completely protected professors who make unpopular statements. One was fired in 1960 for suggesting that premarital sex among students could be a good thing. Three decades later, a department chair was demoted for saying a Jewish conspiracy denigrated blacks in the movies.

David M. Rubin, dean of the Newhouse School of Public Communications at Syracuse University, agrees it is up to professors to spark conversation and raise issues people would not normally consider. He said the issue is not about what is being said but what is not being said.

"We are fighting a war in Iraq and there are so many controversial issues on the table, why are there no students protesting?" Rubin said. "As a university, we should be hoping students will get politically engaged enough to protest, register to vote, and engage in discussions."

Before graduating, students studying communications are required to take a course on First Amendment law. The course is offered by eight professors.

"All of those (professors) who do not teach the class, still have a far greater knowledge of the law then the average citizen does," Rubin said. "The first amendment is curtail. You do not have a democracy without the freedom of speech and press."

Richard Bower, an English professor at Cayuga Community College, recognizes that some issues are sensitive, but he thinks that in the last couple years, students have become more open to new ideas and more willing to listen to other perspectives.

"I feel without the freedom of speech we could just go to the Internet or books and read about things," Bower said.

"If we can't talk about things, then there's no point in teaching them. There would be no need for education."

There are no exact figures on attempts to fire or discipline professors since Sept. 11, but experts say they have probably increased. The fight is especially fierce at state universities, where some question whether taxpayers must pay the salaries of professors they find unpatriotic or outrageous.

"We have never been free of the issue of professors coming under intense scrutiny or attack for having written something somebody finds utterly loathsome," said Jonathan Knight of the American Association of University Professors in Washington.

Knight said firings are relatively rare, with 50 or 60 losing their jobs each year for a variety of reasons out of some 800,000 tenured and untenured professors nationwide. Tenure, a protection normally granted after several years of probation, is designed to allow teaching and research without fear of political reprisals.

And those that have resulted in reprisals have generally been handled through a formal review, as the University of New Mexico did for Richard Berthold, a former history professor.

Berthold told students hours after the Sept. 11 attacks: "Anyone who can blow up the Pentagon has my vote." The university resisted enormous pressure to fire him, instead conducted a review and eventually issued a letter of reprimand after he apologized.

Berthold said the discipline system worked only because he caved in under pressure.

"I look back on it, and I just ate too much crow and apologized too much. I'm ashamed," he said. "It wasn't, 'Let's applaud the killing of innocent people,' it was my expression of my revulsion for the leadership of this country."

In an attempt to protect professors' multiple viewpoints and encourage speakers and other activities on campuses, State University of New York Trustee Candace de Russy has asked the state board to consider adopting the Academic Bill of Rights. The bill is designed to prevent discrimination against faculty and students based on their political, social or religious views.

"I am fully supportive of assuring that all the campuses of the State University sustain a robust climate of academic freedom and intellectual diversity," SUNY Board of Trustees Chairman Thomas Egan said.

"Proposals that may help to further these objectives, such as the Academic Bill of Rights, deserve serious consideration." Bellinzoni, who is also a retired Wells professor, feels there are already policies in place to protect professors from being criticized for their teaching methods.

"Really, that is the basis of tenure," Bellinzoni said. "It was not intended to be job security, but to allow professors to ability to express unpopular views."

Rubin thinks the bill is a waste of time, and believes the SUNY board is so focused on rights that have not been violated, that they are losing sight of more important issues. "The first amendment applies to government censorship only," Rubin said.

"It is about government control of speech, not Hamilton's control of speech, not SUNY's control of speech. No one has been threatened by the government so, legally, no rights are being violated."

Hamilton believes that instead of focusing on the Academic Bill of Rights, people should focus on accepting responsibility for their actions.

Just as everyone is able to say what they want, they also need to accept the consequences that come with those statements.

"The academic community should press this freedom and its limits as far as they can," Bellinzoni said.

"If you can't do this in the classroom or in a public forum, where else can you do it?"

The Associated Press contributed to this report. Staff writer Ashley

Lipsky can be reached at 253-5311 ext. 235 or ashley.lipsky@lee.net