Did clash over crosses cost instructor her job?

From the New York Times:

Last fall, Sissy Bradford, an adjunct instructor who taught criminology at Texas A&M University-San Antonio, questioned why crosses were being placed near the public university’s entrance. Last month, she was informed that the university would not offer her any courses to teach in the fall semester. Ms. Bradford insists there is a connection, but university officials deny any link.

Though critics in online message boards have accused Ms. Bradford, who is Jewish, of being intolerant of Christianity, she said that is not the case. “I think I’m the only instructor these students ever had who required them to know passages from the Bible,” she said, “because we base so much of our criminal justice policy on it.”

Now, she is out of work, and the campus has been cast into a heated debate about academic freedom and the separation of church and state.

Read entire story here.

Comments (4)

Unless there's a lot more to Mr Davila's actions that wasn't included in the article, Dr Bradford comes off a little whiny in this piece: the tee-shirt idea is pretty mild. Making an issue of the provost using her middle name doesn't put her in the best light, either.

Bill, I agree the article does a poor job of really pulling all the pieces together. Taken individually, each action can be shrugged off, but if, as is implied but not adequately reported, there was more of a concerted campaign, then it turns into bullying.

I think the name thing just goes to show how sloppy and perfunctory the university's "investigation" was.

Off-topic request: when linking to a NY Times articles, could you (Cafe Mods) please put a link to the "Single Page" (entire article)?

With only 10 free articles per month permitted, having to click 2 pages uses them up fast! :-/

JC Fisher

None of the "articles" flesh out. Most are libelous.

Heres, the thing, and you when you're feeling bored or have time can cross check this information:

1. She states in the articles that she is a Criminology adjunct, right?

So the minimum requirement for that is 18 graduate credits in Criminal Justice or Criminology.

She has a masters in Kinesiology and a Masters in Sociology. (assuming her information on LinkedIn is correct)

That means that she wasn't even qualified to be a Criminology Adjunct (this per what the school is listing in their advertisements, and what SACS is requiring.)

2. The University does not have it's own accreditation.

It just applied, spring 2012, for it's own. One of the requirements is to have more tenured employees and less adjuncts faculty.

Ms. Bradford does not have a PhD, and therefor cannot apply for a tenured position.

3. She complains about administration using her "middle" name, but in the past she has provided that as her "name".


4. Why is she encouraging harassment of students on the internet, who offended her over the internet, if she is declaring their actions to be harassing & threatening? I'm confused.

5. She's Jewish? I thought she declared herself an Atheist? Then again, she proclaimed that she requires students to memorize bible passages, in the same article.

6. That award she's showing off online, was awarded based on student popularity. She was 1 of 38 from the campus, that received the award.

7. Bloggers may want to really fact check their sources because much of what is being said, is libelous. (Evidence can be easily found online to show that she was not qualified for the job, and could definitely not sneak by SACS during the accreditation process.

8. These "help groups" who have sent out letters, the people who demand to be in interviews with her, are a playwriter (FIRE), a Historian (AAUP) and a photographer (AU) and somehow they are qualified legal experts.

For example, take the letter from AAUP, which they are proud enough to gloat over and display on their website.


Notice, they aren't quoting any actual laws. No, the writer, a History adjunct at George Mason University, decides to give the false impression that he is a lawyer or is some kind of legal expert (paralegal perhaps?)

He published it on the internet; how cute, right? Now it's public, it's in print and it's chock full of libel.

But, the USD $10,000 question is, how do courts view the libelous actions of bloggers or entities like FIRE, AAUP, AU?


"U.S. District Judge Marco Hernandez found last week that as a blogger, Cox was not a journalist and cannot claim the protections afforded to mainstream reporters and news outlets."

Add your comments

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Reminder: At Episcopal Café, we hope to establish an ethic of transparency by requiring all contributors and commentators to make submissions under their real names. For more details see our Feedback Policy.

Advertising Space