Pepperdine University professor Christina Littlefield won’t be teaching this fall.
Not because Pepperdine says she is unqualified to teach. Instead, the university put Littlefield on paid leave and banished her from campus for 15 months for “unprofessional” speech and making students “uncomfortable.”
Her crime? Teaching about depictions of Jesus as black in a religious history class and criticizing colleagues who supported censoring an art exhibition as following the “fascist playbook” on art censorship.
That’s a serious problem at a university that extols professors’ academic freedom to teach controversial material and vigorously debate their colleagues. Pepperdine should live up to its promises and reinstate Littlefield.
Exile
Littlefield is a 14-year Pepperdine professor who earned her Ph.D. in divinity from the University of Cambridge and researches church history and the intersection of religion, politics, media, and culture.
Yet on May 6, Seaver College Dean Lee B. Kats issued Littlefield a “Final Written Notice” accusing her of falling “significantly below the professional standards expected of a faculty member.”
The disciplinary notice alleges that Littlefield used “unprofessional and derogatory names toward colleagues in public settings” and engaged in classroom conduct that “made students feel uncomfortable.” Pepperdine faulted Littlefield for criticizing her colleagues as following the “fascist playbook” for supporting the school’s censorship of an art exhibition. It also cited a 2024 parent complaint about her assigning students a chapter of the book American Jesus, which examines how different groups in American history have reimagined Jesus in their own cultural, racial, and political image. The book covers depictions of Jesus as an enlightened sage, masculine redeemer, Mormon elder brother, Jewish rabbi, Hindu figure, and black messiah.
The punishment was sweeping.
Pepperdine placed Littlefield on mandatory paid leave through Aug. 1, 2027—a total of 15 months—and barred her from campus and university-sponsored events without the dean’s prior written authorization. The university also ordered her to undergo professional-development training in workplace communication, conflict resolution, and “behavioral sensitivity.”
And that’s not all. Pepperdine ordered Littlefield to “stop all derogatory communication regarding colleagues.”
Black Jesus
Pepperdine’s own promises of academic freedom protect Littlefield’s ability to teach relevant controversial material.
Pepperdine is a private Christian university, so the First Amendment does not require it to provide faculty the same speech protections they would receive from a public university. But the school has voluntarily made certain promises to its faculty.
Its Statement of Academic Freedom declares that “free inquiry and the pursuit of truth are indispensable conditions for the attainment of the goals of any university.” It promises professors “freedom of discussion in the classroom” and says faculty have a “basic duty to encourage freedom of inquiry in peers and in students.”
It properly recognizes faculty’s “freedom in teaching … must not be interpreted to discourage what is ‘controversial,’” adding that “Controversy is at the heart of the free academic inquiry, which this statement is designed to foster.”
Any professor teaching at Pepperdine would rightly believe the university has their back when it comes to complaints about subjectively “offensive” lecture content. They would reasonably feel safe to teach even provocative material to students, to challenge their assumptions and expand their worldviews.
Yet Pepperdine suspended Littlefield for more than a year for teaching about how other scholars discuss a black Jesus in her “Christianity and Culture” class, merely because that “made students feel uncomfortable.”
Whatever one thinks about the notion of a black Jesus, student discomfort is not a legitimate basis for overriding academic freedom. Academic freedom exists in substantial part to protect professors’ ability to introduce relevant ideas, arguments, and materials without having to predict whether every student—or parent—will approve. If universities can punish professors simply because pedagogically relevant material makes someone uncomfortable, the promised “freedom in teaching” becomes meaningless.
In the year of our Lord 2026, God knows faculty criticize each other
Pepperdine is a modern university, not a kindergarten. Yet Littlefield is suspended because she won’t play nice with her colleagues. Administrators cited remarks she made during a faculty meeting criticizing colleagues who supported censoring an art exhibition. Littlefield characterized their approach as following the “fascist playbook.”
Professors shouldn’t face discipline for the inevitable conflict among faculty members with divergent views. Pepperdine itself recognizes that “a demand for civility must not be used to discourage vigorous discussion of controversial matters.” Those promises matter most when faculty disagreements become heated. Faculty have free speech so they can resolve these disputes without resorting to campus inquisitors.
Treating impassioned rhetoric as punishable “unprofessionalism” gives administrators enormous discretion to decide which criticism is sufficiently polite to deserve protection. Worse, Pepperdine’s disciplinary order now commands Littlefield to cease “all derogatory communication regarding colleagues.” Faculty cannot vigorously debate university affairs if criticizing a colleague too sharply could jeopardize their jobs.
Pepperdine should honor its promises
A university cannot credibly promise that “controversy is at the heart” of academic inquiry while suspending a professor for teaching her class and criticizing colleagues. Nor can it promise that demands for civility will not suppress vigorous debate while ordering a professor to stop making “derogatory” comments about her colleagues.
Pepperdine laudably chose to make robust academic freedom part of the bargain it offers its faculty. It benefits from these promises by sending the message that its faculty can be trusted to engage in independent academic inquiry rather than simply parrot whatever the campus’ conventional wisdom might be. For that to be meaningful, those promises must protect professors precisely when their speech becomes controversial, provocative, or uncomfortable.
Littlefield has filed a grievance seeking reinstatement. Pepperdine should grant it.
I have a tendency to think that teaching about a Black Jesus should be ignored / even applauded by the administration, and that college students who are offended ought to be told to pound sand.
By the same token, I would be in favor of almost no protection for accusing colleagues of operating out of a "fascist playbook." That comment is unnecessary and shows a lack any sort of mark of serious engagement with ideas. I'm not sure I would punish to the extent that Pepperdine did, but I would certainly be tempted.
C'mon FIRE, you can do better than hackery like this. Nothing to do with "black Jesus"; everything to do with a toxic radical who unjustly and repeatedly attacks her colleagues and superiors.