Dear Director Murphy and President Armstrong,

Thank you for your thoughtful comments and discussion.  While I don’t agree with all the details of your public statement, I’m impressed with the clarity and tone;  you have given the issue some thought and are honestly and professionally working with the issue.

Nevertheless, I still feel that the notion of free speech and the first amendment in the context of a university environment are being distorted.  The university has many policies and guidelines against behavior and words that are nominally in the category of protected free speech.  That is, some behavior may be legal and protected by the constitution at the state and federal level, but the university does not condone it and, in some cases, has strict policies against it.

For example, hanging a confederate flag and a noose is not by itself illegal. Such acts are protected speech, although one may find it deeply offensive for what it represents.   Flying a confederate flag with a noose is something private citizens can do under the first amendment.  By itself it isn’t a hate crime. However, this exact event on campus four years ago in 2008 sparked one of the most heated campaigns against racism and bigotry at the university in recent history.  Rightly so.  The university recognized that such behavior is not in line with our university mission; it’s message is deeply offensive and creates a hostile, intolerant climate.  The university defended the students responsible citing the first amendment.  As far as I know, we did not take legal action against the students for that reason.  But, the university still took swift action to make sure such a thing would not happen again, making it clear that behavior of that kind (even if protected) was not acceptable. Indeed, that incident motivated Dean Bailey himself to augment the university mission in CoSaM with placards outside of every department office making it clear we promote an environment of tolerance and openness.  The flag and noose were removed on philosophical grounds, not legal ones.  Now, circa 2012, because of this incident, displaying a noose on a campus in California is actually illegal, but Cal Poly’s actions in 2008 were in advance of that law.  So, I argue, even if Chick-fil-A has not violated any discrimination laws on campus and their donations are legal and protected by their first amendment rights we, as a university community, should still make a philosophical stand and terminate our relationship Chick-fil-A since their presence does not create a climate of tolerance.

http://mustangdaily.net/Hundredsprotestcollegeclaimsactsprotected/
http://www.ksby.com/news/displaying-a-noose-is-now-against-the-law/

As another example: The university has both a drinking policy and a charter that attempts to stem alcohol abuse.  These go beyond the law; they extend to students that are over 21 years of age.  Drinking is not allowed on campus except under special, highly controlled circumstances.  This isn’t just a business or legal decision, it is a philosophical one.  We have issued strict statements that try and attenuate binge drinking and other alcohol abuses both on and off campus.  But alcohol itself is not illegal.  Alcoholism isn’t illegal. It isn’t a right either, but assuming they aren’t violating any other laws, adults over 21 are essentially allowed to do whatever they want to their bodies and consume as much alcohol as they wish, even to the brink of death.  Yet the university has rightly taken a stand against such abuses on purely philosophical grouds.  Why?  Because drinking (particularly binge drinking) is not in the spirit of the university mission and is an epidemic problem on colleges across the nation.
http://studentaffairs.calpoly.edu/content/alcohol
http://www.osrr.calpoly.edu/alcoholpolicy/
http://hcs-test.calpoly.edu/sites/hcs-test.calpoly.edu/files/documents/PULSE/Alcohol_Drug_Handbook_2009.pdf

Another example: As you know, faculty and staff at Cal Poly who are in supervisory positions (such as you and I) must regularly take an extended course online in harassment sensitivity training.  This, of course, includes outright illegal discrimination and harassment, but goes well beyond that and extends to a rather large category of otherwise legally protected speech and behaviors.  This includes behaviors that impact race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, etc. It is informed by the law, but is calibrated by people’s sensitivities. Indeed, the university’s policy attempts to stem even *potential situations* from arising.  For example, if someone finds a joke, comment, flyer, poster, email, behavior, and so on, offensive — or even believes one of those things to be *potentially* offensive to anyone in the protected categories — we are obligated to report it and have it investigated by the appropriate qualified human resources personnel.  This does not just apply to classroom behavior or in-office behavior, but also all auxiliary campus affiliations and contracts that might be in contact with university students and personnel.  Why doesn’t Chick-fil-A’s behavior at the national level count in this category?  If bikini calendars or overheard discussions in the copy room are reportable offenses under the campus’s current harassment guidelines, certainly the very controversial and offensive public statements of a company’s leadership and their company’s active donations should be considered in the same harassment category.  Doesn’t Chick-fil-A’s mere presence on campus now create a hostile and uncomfortable environment in the same sense that a bikini calendar or offensive office talk might create an uncomfortable learning/work environment for others?

Is there a place for controversial remarks and open discussion on campus?  Absolutely.  In the halls of academia such things should be welcomed in the form of seminars, speakers, forums, courses, protests etc.  We’ve had Ann Coulter visit our campus espousing her irrational and vitriolic form of right wing entertainment.  Do I personally agree with her on, well, anything at all?  Very unlikely.  Did I think it was a good use of university resources to have her come to campus?  Absolutely.  Veritas Forum, hosted annually by the student club Cru (formerly Campus Crusade for Christ) hosts a series of (in my opinion) remarkably silly, anti-scientific talks masked in pseudoscientific blather.  Do I agree with it?  No.  Do I approve of their presence in a university environment?  Yes.  It is a forum.  Anyone can come and discuss and debate.  We’ve had creationists speak on campus.  Skeptics debate them.  Atheists give talks on rather unpopular topics, with lively debate afterwards. Ex-Mormons have come to convey their controversial point of view, and Mormons attend the talk to defend their position.  You may recall Michael Pollan’s talk in 2009, the author and left wing activist who holds somewhat controversial views on diet and food.  There was a kerfuffle with Cal Poly donor Harris Ranch about his presence and we ultimately let a Harris Ranch representative come and defend their position.  Anyone should be able to express their views, even racists, sexists, religious zealots, atheists, pro-binge-drinkers, pro-bikini calendar people, pornographers, Confederates, and completely crazy people no one understands.  Although sometimes discussion topics and comments may be offensive to individuals, this vibrancy does not create a hostile and intolerant environment — quite the opposite.  It is is part of having an open and honest intellectual university community.  But does this mean we have to do business with them or lease them a space in The Avenue under the guise of “free speech” or “the first amendment”?  Absolutely not.  Having Chick-fil-A as a business partner on campus is definitely not in that same free speech category as creating an open intellectual environment.  In light of their anti-gay views, views they are free to *express* (and proudly do) under the first amendment, having a Chick-fil-A on campus is distinctly in the category of the harassment policy I gave above.  It makes many people uncomfortable in the same way vitriolic office talk, Penthouse, or a bikini calendar might make others.  For many campus citizens, it creates a climate of intolerance and hostility on campus as uncomfortable as a noose and confederate flag do.

In summary, we routinely decide as a campus that otherwise protected legal speech and behavior will not be tolerated at our university based on philosophical reasons rooted in our university mission.  Why Chick-fil-A is apparently being given a special status in this regard is unclear to me.  We are perfectly allowed to terminate our business relationship with Chick-fil-A on philosophical grounds while still celebrating their first amendment rights to express those very beliefs we disagree with.  Indeed, I would love for a representative of Chick-fil-A to come to campus to exercise their free speech and openly defend and discuss their position on gay rights.  Let them exercise their free speech in that capacity.  But this in no way obligates us to do business with them or lease them a space on campus to sell their product.

Regards,

Thomas D. Gutierrez
Associate Professor
Physics Department
California Polytechnic State University
San Luis Obispo, CA 93407

Dear Director Murphy and President Armstrong,
I believe you have mistakenly framed this problem in the category of free speech, politics, and religion.   Our situation at Cal Poly is not in those categories.  People frequently mask their bigotry behind their religion and politics, but this does not make bigotry itself a form of behavior we should accept.  Our problem here is in the category of civil rights.  And it is about making the right business choices in that context.

Cal Poly is under no obligation to do business with any particular organization; if we disagree with the business practices of a campus partner, we should stand by our mission statement and sever ties with it.  Chick-fil-A’s campus contract was renewed in 2010 and ends in 2015 (and is the only Chick-fil-A franchise on the Central Coast).  That it is locally operated is irrelevant to this bigger issue.  However, one worry on your part is certainly pragmatic: that we will be cited for breach of contract.  While understandable, this consideration merely puts an actual dollar price on our university mission:  for the price of a breach of contract settlement, the university is willing to compromise its principles.  This gives the impression the university’s core ideals can be bought, which is unfortunate.

Cal Poly has an amplified responsibility to make the right business choices in light of its strong mission statement and its recent WASC accreditation report.  Cal Poly already has serious diversity problems, and associations with organizations like Chick-fil-A compounds the issue.  Other universities, cities, and organizations around the country have had the courage to take a prompt stand against the policies of Chick-fil-A by severing their business relationship. Cal Poly should follow suit.

As you must know, Chick-fil-A’s business practices are becoming a national issue; many recent news articles have covered the evolving situation.  I strongly encourage you to further investigate the problem and see the bigger civil rights issues at stake.  I hope the Armstrong administration has the courage and conviction to act promptly and be on the right side of history in this matter.

Regards,

______________________________
Thomas D. Gutierrez
Associate Professor
Physics Department, 25-223
California Polytechnic State University
San Luis Obispo, CA 93407

Cal Poly Corporation Director Bonnie Murphy’s response to the third letter:

Dear Professor Gutierrez:

I fully agree with you that many people mask their bigotry behind their
politics or their religion. Of course, many people don’t bother masking
their bigotry at all.

We’ll have to agree to disagree, however, that the Chick-fil-A situation
is a civil rights issue, or that this issue involves the company’s
business practices. We have seen no evidence that the company has violated
anybody’s civil rights. If any evidence surfaces, I assure you we will
re-examine our contract. The only thing we know is that Dan Cathy has
strong feelings about what constitutes marriage.

I must reject your assertion that the university is willing to compromise
its principles for the sake of a dollar. In fact, if we are to remain
committed to our scholarly mission, we are required to assess the
situation for what it is, and to me that means we should be very careful
before jumping to a decision to abrogate a contract because a business
owner has expressed an opinion we might not like. I respect that you see
this situation differently.

On a matter that we can agree on: We are carefully monitoring
Chick-fil-A’s business practices, and we are reviewing how we approach
entering into contracts. For more on that, let me direct you to a fuller
statement I have made on this situation, which we posted online earlier
this week and can be read here
http://www.calpolycorporation.org/media/release073112.asp

Thank you again for sharing your thoughts with me. I appreciate your
candor and interest in this issue.

Sincerely,

Bonnie D. Murphy
Associate Vice President of Commercial Services
Executive Director of Cal Poly Corporation
California Polytechnic State University

Dear Director Murphy and President Armstrong,
As I said in an earlier email, thank you very much for your prompt reply on this issue, and thank you for looking deeper into the problem.  However, in reading your response more carefully, there may have been a misunderstanding about the nature of my complaint.  I was not claiming that Chick-fil-A had formally discriminated against anyone, nor that there was a documented history of such discrimination.  Nor had I asserted that our particular campus franchise, or anyone who works here, was acting inappropriately.  I was addressing a different concern about the nature of Chick-fil-A’s larger corporate philosophy, reflected in their recently released financial statements, which indicate they’ve made contributions to organizations that run contrary to our University’s mission statement.

This presents perhaps a more nuanced problem for the University and CPC than outright discrimination because it is one step removed from our local professional relationship with the franchise.  But, for example, if we discovered a campus partner regularly and legally made contributions to white supremacists groups, but otherwise behaved as an ordinary company following all employment and customer service laws, I still feel we would need to examine our desire to have a financial relationship with such a partner.  Arguments like “their local franchise is run by the campus, so they are ok” and “they don’t have a history of discrimination in the courts, so must be ok” would not be addressing the relevant core concern.

Based on the kinds of financial contributions their larger corporate organization has made to groups that actively opposes the rights of gays and lesbians, I would strongly encourage the University and CPC to look again into the matter and reflect on whether Chick-fil-A is an company we wish our campus to partner with.

Thank you for your time and best regards,

______________________________
Thomas D. Gutierrez
Associate Professor
Physics Department, 25-223
California Polytechnic State University
San Luis Obispo, CA 93407

Cal Poly Corporation Director Bonnie Murphy’s response to the second letter:

Hi Professor Gutierrez,

Thank you for sharing your concerns with us. We agree wholeheartedly with
you that discrimination of any type is wrong and that we, at Cal Poly,
should never be directly or indirectly involved in discrimination.

As we act, we recognize that the very fabric of a university requires that
openness and objectivity be applied to counter conditions that might lead
to discrimination.  Data must drive our conclusions, and evidence as well
as experience must be included in those decisions.

I also believe that Cal Poly, in all of its operations and functions,
needs to instill in students, faculty and staff the tools to fairly and
intelligently assess situations, data and opinions, and make sure we check
our assessments against the backdrop of our values in arriving at rational
conclusions.  Just as we act to mitigate discrimination, we also must act
to mitigate any air of aggressive intolerance.

As shared, we did a review of Chick-fil-A and found no evidence that the
company has discriminated against gays and lesbians in employment or
customer service.

While its owners have, through their family foundation, given money to
various causes that espouse political and social views, we, as a campus,
embrace the First Amendment and free expression, and that means tolerating
views with which we might disagree.  As we also know, corporations are
free to engage in political activity. By the same standard, of course, no
one has to buy food at Chick-fil-A as we offer a variety of choices.

I think we all would agree that as a public institution, Cal Poly cannot
be in the business of deciding who its vendors should be on the basis of
the corporate owners’ political views. We can, of course, remove from
campus any organization that engages in discrimination.

It’s worth noting that while we have an agreement with the franchise,
Chick-fil-A on campus is operated by the Cal Poly Corporation, so all
employees and services are for us and provided by us.  As such, we have
not received any concerns from the Cal Poly community indicating that the
Corporation staff has acted in any way but respectfully to employees and
customers.

Based on all the research and experience that we have, Chick-fil-A
provides quality product and service in an environment free of
discrimination.  With that in mind, it is our intention to honor our
agreement.

Please let me know if you would like to discuss this further.  Best wishes
for a good summer.

Respectfully,

Bonnie D. Murphy
Associate Vice President of Commercial Services
Executive Director of Cal Poly Corporation
California Polytechnic State University

Dear President Armstrong,
I’m writing to express a concern that has recently come to my attention. Press reports indicate that Chick-fil-A has a history of donating to and supporting anti-gay groups:
http://equalitymatters.org/factcheck/201207020001

As you know, we have a Chick-fil-A in The Avenue here on campus, an organization we “proudly feature”: http://www.calpolydining.com/theavenue/

A number of students have indicated discomfort with this association. While I do respect the rights of businesses to support causes they value, Cal Poly also has a responsibility to choose the types of businesses we partner with. It is my view we should partner with organizations whose values are in line with our own mission as a university. In particular:
“As an academic community, Cal Poly values free inquiry, cultural and intellectual diversity, mutual respect, civic engagement, and social and environmental responsibility.”
Chick-fil-A’s actions neither foster mutual respect nor social responsibility. Their ongoing denial of their actions in the face of direct evidence indicates their unwillingness to engage society in an intellectually honest manner. Naturally, as a campus, we should not hesitate to discuss these issues openly in the spirit of free inquiry and civil engagement. However, this does not require us to tacitly support their anti-gay position by providing this company with a platform for financial gain; these gains will likely be directed in part towards said causes in direct conflict with our university mission. Especially given such a wide spectrum of other partners to select from who are not in conflict with our mission who could fulfill the same function on campus as Chick-fil-A.

I urge you to take issues like these into consideration when renewing campus partnerships and while developing any new partnerships in the future.
Thank you for your time and best regards,
Tom
______________________________
Thomas D. Gutierrez
Associate Professor
Physics Department, 25-223
California Polytechnic State University
San Luis Obispo, CA 93407

Cal Poly Corporation Director Bonnie Murphy’s response to the first letter:

Dear Mr. Gutierrez:

Thank you for your message related to Chick-fil-A. President Armstrong shared it with me and asked that I look into the question and respond. I have read similar articles and understand the concern you expressed. I am sure that others also have been concerned in reading that any organization might be discriminating against anyone in our community or elsewhere.

It was that concern that caused me to join others in looking deeper into this question and learn more about Chick-fil-A’s practices. In doing so, we have not found any evidence that Chick-fil-A has discriminated against gays and lesbians in its employment or its customer service—nor did we find that anyone had accused them of any such discrimination.

Similarly, we have not received any concerns from the Cal Poly community indicating that Chick-fil-A has acted in any way but respectfully to employees and customers. It might help to note that the Cal Poly Corporation operates the Chick-fil-A on campus so all employees and service are for us and provided by us.

With this additional information, I have confidence that Cal Poly is well served and that our relationship with Chick-fil-A provides quality product and service in an environment free of discrimination.

Please let me know if you would like to discuss this further. Best wishes for a good summer,

Bonnie D. Murphy

Associate Vice President of Commercial Services & Executive Director Cal Poly Corporation

Customer Response