How Colleges Fight Free Speech
Campus civil liberties defender TheFIRE.org's Greg Lukianoff on college "free speech zones" and other attempts to squash civil liberties on campus:
Pre-order Greg's upcoming book, Unlearning Liberty: Campus Censorship and the End of American Debate
Fire's anti-free speech jerks of the month are the administrators at Indiana University, Southeast, for their speech code:
Persons wishing to express their opinions, distribute materials or assemble on campus in accordance with the state and federal constitution in relation to their right to free speech, must submit an Application to Schedule Facilities form. ... This Application should be submitted at least five (5) days prior to the event. Approval must be granted before an event can take place.
Samantha Harris writes at FIRE:
According to the plain language of this policy, students may only "express opinions" within the free speech zone. IUS almost certainly doesn't mean this--technically, if you want to tell your friend that you think it's hot outside, you have to go to the zone to do it--but it's an indicator of just how poorly written and unconstitutional this policy is. (FIRE is assuming here that IUS does not actually intend its classes to be a thought-and opinion-free zone.)But that's not all--not by a long shot. First, the notice-and-permit scheme is constitutionally impermissible. As the U.S. Supreme Court has stated, "It is offensive--not only to the values protected by the First Amendment, but to the very notion of a free society--that in the context of everyday public discourse a citizen must first inform the government of her desire to speak to her neighbors and then obtain a permit to do so." Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of NY, Inc. v. Village of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150, 165-66 (2002).
While the policy does provide that the 5-day notice can be waived if "burdensome," the waiver is wholly "at the Director of Campus Life's discretion," with no criteria provided for approval. This kind of unfettered discretion is an invitation to arbitrary application or, worse yet, to viewpoint-based double standards. Moreover, even if the notice is waived, prior approval is still required for any "persons wishing to express their opinions" on IUS' campus.
...IUS' policy is strikingly similar to the University of Cincinnati's former free speech zone policy, which was just enjoined last month by a federal judge in Ohio. Like IUS, the University of Cincinnati limited all expressive activities to just one area of campus, and required a substantial amount of prior notice (anywhere from 5 to 15 days, depending on which policy you were reading) for speech even within that area. That policy was challenged in court this year by a student group wishing to collect signatures outside of the designated area for an Ohio ballot initiative. Although the university administration had vigorously defended the policy against FIRE's criticisms in 2008, the federal judge hearing the case found that the university's policy "violates the First Amendment and cannot stand."
...IUS' free speech zone policy is a serious infringement on the First Amendment rights that the university is legally and morally obligated to uphold. For this reason, it is our July 2012 Speech Code of the Month.
From skimming FIRE's web site linked above, I get the impression that the official aim of free speech zones is to keep the possible disruption caused by demonstrations to a manageable level. Is the resultant supression of speech a covert, but concious, aim? Or could it be the result of badly-crafted but not necessarily sinister policy?
I don't remember free speech zones when I was in college. Do any Midwesterners remember the preacher Brother Max from back in the 80s? I wonder if he'd be banished to a free speech zone now?
Old RPM Daddy at July 27, 2012 1:55 PM
"Is the resultant supression of speech a covert, but concious, aim? Or could it be the result of badly-crafted but not necessarily sinister policy?"
It depend on the school. Each has their own reasoning behind making these rules. SO some are non-sinister, others were a concious aim, where certain groups or opinions would always be approved others would be put in the zones.
Joe J at July 27, 2012 4:58 PM
Jim P. at July 27, 2012 8:15 PM
Plenty of free speech on campus if you are Liberal.
AJ at July 27, 2012 8:39 PM
In 1917, right after the communists took control in Russia, Marxist theorist Nikolai Bukharin made the following statement:
"We asked for freedom of the press, thought, and civil liberties in the past because we were in the opposition and needed these liberties to conquer. Now that we have conquered, there is no longer any need for such civil liberties."
Colleges and universities are the dominion of politically correct leftists and progressives; and there you see the application of this principle. They pay lip service to ideals like democracy, civil liberties, diversity, tolerance, and equal rights. But actions speak louder than words. And it's obvious by their actions that they don't give a damn about those ideals.
Imagine what life in the U.S.A. would be like if people who think like these politically correct leftist academics were able to govern the whole country the way they govern colleges and universities; and if they had the police, guns, courts and jails of the government at their disposal.
Ken R at July 28, 2012 12:20 AM
Jim, AJ and Ken summed it up pretty well.
I only had to read the first sentence of the story (with it mentioning FIRE - thank god for FIRE!) to know exactly what was coming: College Z does not want non PC, non liberal X. But even for how bad many colleges already are, this rule is so ridiculously arbitrary.
On the surface of it, trying to keep speech off campus that will cause violence is not necessarily an evil thing to do. However, colleges get very little latitude due to their appallingly biased operations and double standards (the lesson of one's word and integrity meaning something is sadly not a lesson taught or demonstrated by many campus officials). Unfortunately liberals too often are among the last people you want to be making 'fair' decisions for everyone (ironic that those living under the banner of tolerance are often less likely to practice it).
My son starts college very soon. He wants to go on to a professional graduate degree so college is a necessary step. But I've been having talks with him about what may be taught/presented to him and the dubious value of a half painted picture. I even went so far as to prove that their is a another side to certain beliefs he is likely to get at college. My goal was not to teach him everything they say is bogus. My goal was to instill critical thinking for things that will be presented to him as absolutely certain....things that will be presented as 'you believe this or you are a bad person'.
TW at July 28, 2012 1:07 AM
"We asked for freedom of the press, thought, and civil liberties in the past because we were in the opposition and needed these liberties to conquer. Now that we have conquered, there is no longer any need for such civil liberties."
David Horowitz once made a very similar statement to me: "We wanted our rights so we could use them to abolish everyone else's rights." In the Left's world, the natural course is for them to win, and anything they do in pursuit of power is self-justifying.
Cousin Dave at July 28, 2012 12:03 PM
Leave a comment