A ruling on academic freedom
Conservative activists successful in campus speech suit.
By Jeff Emanuel Posted in Culture | Featured Stories — Comments (27) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
[UPDATE] Here's a little clarification: While I definitely think that the school's speech codes themselves were a poor use of administrative power, I agree that their selective enforcement was an even worse problem. While conservative students could be disciplined for opposing any PC guideline, any assault on what we would consider "traditional values" by campus Leftists would go absolutely unpunished.
Here's my problem with the action -- actually, with the plaintiffs: to paraphrase streiff, one of the lessons arising from this is and should be the practicality of the old adage "There's No Such Thing As A Free Lunch." If you want to engage in in-your-face political activism, you can't expect the "state nanny" to extract you from your difficulties -- you must be prepared to take abuse and blowback from all sides. Likewise, "if you can't take the heat..," as they say -- in this case, in the form of name-calling, verbal abuse, and protests -- then maybe you should pick up a different avocation, and leave activism to others.
The plaintiff with whom I've had the most contact -- and with whom I conversed in depth when writing my article about the suit itself, which ran on Townhall.com -- definitely fell into the latter camp, in my opinion. She was amazed that she was taking abuse for her activism, and had severe trouble dealing with its extent. While this reaction is absolutely normal, she did at the time have the fallback reassurance that all of the heat she was taking was in the name of showing just how selective the enforcement of these rules were; even though her position was bad, her point was getting across louder and clearer than ever.
Now that is gone. The playing field is level, and anything the other side wants to say is completely legal. Some may say that this is a good thing regardless; I don't disagree. I do think, though, that, for those who have been involved in this with the belief that a victorious outcome would lead to greener pastures and a more tolerant -- and tolerated -- existence for campus conservatives, a Pandora's Box of now LEGAL abuse and protest may well have now been opened.
The problem isn’t the action. The problem isn’t the loosening of one-sided restrictions on free speech. The problem is that now the gloves are effectively off on both sides; no longer can the conservative activists point to discrimination on the part of the administration as the reason for their troubles.
I agree with free speech and a level playing field; however, I just hope that these young, idealistic college students know what it is they've set themselves up for -- and that they want what it is they're going to get. As the saying goes, "be careful what you ask for..."
Read on for original article...
Back in April, the Alliance Defence Fund filed an academic freedom lawsuit against Georgia Tech on behalf of two conservative activist students, citing the school's “blatantly unconstitutional” targeted speech codes, its discrimination against political and particular religious groups through student activity fee allocation, and its evaluation and endorsement of certain religious views . For a detailed recounting of the lawsuit, the plaintiffs, the reasoning behind it, and the situation leading up to it, read here. Also, an interview with one of the plaintiffs, conducted in the Spring, can be seen here.
Monday, a US District judge ordered Georgia Tech to change its speech code, removing "wording that prohibits students from any attempt to "injure, harm" or "malign" a person because of "race, religious belief, color, sexual/affectational orientation, national origin, disability, age or gender."
David French, an ADF attorney representing the students, called the court order a "win for free speech."
"Tech students now won't have to enter a zone of censorship when they walk on campus," he said. "They now have the same rights as every Georgian."
The media reaction was predictably sarcastic -- although not entirely inaccurate. Said the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:
It might not be encouraged, but it is now officially OK to malign someone in a Georgia Tech dorm. And verbal assaults and derogatory signs? They're allowed, too.
For the record, and in the interest of full disclosure, when I wrote the above-linked piece on the suit, I was at least a casual supporter of the action. Given time since then to reflect on the situation -- the circumstances, the plaintiffs, and the goals and tactics involved -- I think I've largely changed my mind. Here's why:
Free speech is vital, as is the ability to avoid administrative discrimination. However, the methods used by the students in question, and others, are often reminiscent of those implemented by the radical campus leftists of a generation ago. Rules are bent or broken, often purposely and in a way that could have been easily avoided while not sacrificing the action or the message, for the sole purpose of getting caught, so that they can point to administrative "discrimination against conservatives."
I don't agree with this Machavielian method (that the end -- namely, eliminating "selective discrimination against the right to discriminate" -- justifies the means, which, all too often, means purposely breaking rules in order to get caught), in the same way that I disagree with most brands of "activism" that involve shocking people and media into paying attention.
The thing I find most ironic is that the parts of the student speech code which were removed at the order of Judge Forrester, were just those sections which would have protected one of the plaintiffs against the figurative assault she received from her fellow students as a result of filing the suit in the first place. The flyers posted in the halls decrying not only her, but her Asian heritage; the student marches against the suit at which racial epithets -- along with props -- were used; the Facebook group against the plaintiff -- all quite possibly, if not definitely, breached the line of "injuring, harming" or "maligning" a person because of "race, religious belief, color, sexual/affectational
orientation, national origin, disability, age or gender."
The US District Court has now ruled on the case, and the offensive restrictions on speech have been lifted. ADF attorney David French was technically correct when he called the court order a "win for free speech." It may not be a win for decency, but decency in personal speech and opinion is probably not the best subject for governmental interference; likewise, regulation "promoting diversity and tolerance," which these speech codes purported to be, is in no way appropriate at a taxpayer-funded institution or organization. In this case of speech code revocation, the blade cuts both ways.
Yes, the College Republicans and others can now freely protest against gay marriage, militant feminism, and countless other perceived perversions. However, this decision also means that those who will protest against positions or people will also be fair game for the resulting blowback, which may well come in the form of vicious, personal, and now absolutely legal retribution.
The air may be clearer and the sun brighter today for conservative activists at Georgia Tech. However, I wonder if they understand just what it is they've gotten themselves into and set themselves up for with this, and whether they will be able to withstand the repercussions of what they've achieved.
« Hating James Dobson: To Heck With His Qualifications, He's a Meanie — Comments (14) | Today's New Site: Right Shelf — Comments (1) »
A ruling on academic freedom 27 Comments (0 topical, 27 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
...I couldn't agree more. The reservation isn't about the court's judgment -- it's about whether or not the conservative students who fought for this "freedom," while complaining about its use against them, are prepared to take that much more of it now that the rules have all been thrown out the window, and now that they are fair game for anybody.
Campus speech codes are only used against political dissent. When racial slurs are used against political dissenters (Oreo, Twinkie), those campus speech codes are rarely if ever invoked against the politically correct racists.
... whether or not the conservative students who fought for this "freedom," while complaining about its use against them, are prepared to take that much more of it now that the rules have all been thrown out the window
The speech code never protected conservatives in the first place, so they lose nothing by its abolition. The restoration of 1st Amendment rights for students in no way legalizes threats of violence or personal harassment; politically deviant students have to put up with that anyway on many campuses. Any correlation of that abuse with school administrators' respect for First Amendment principles tends to be negative, not positive as you so ridiculously suggest.
School administrators ready to trash American principles of free speech in order to suppress dissent, also tend to be the ones who tolerate threats and harassment to suppress that dissent. If those wannabe dictators get more power with speech codes, they're not going to use it to protect dissenting students.
From your original post:
The thing I find most ironic is that the parts of the student speech code which were removed at the order of Judge Forrester, were just those sections which would have protected one of the plaintiffs against the figurative assault she received from her fellow students as a result of filing the suit in the first place. The flyers posted in the halls decrying not only her, but her Asian heritage; the student marches against the suit at which racial epithets -- along with props -- were used; the Facebook group against the plaintiff -- all quite possibly, if not definitely, breached the line of "injuring, harming" or "maligning" a person because of "race, religious belief, color, sexual/affectational
orientation, national origin, disability, age or gender."
See what I mean? The speech code was in effect (whether the original one on speech that would "malign", or the amended one about "otherwise injurious" speech) and it didn't protect the dissident against any of those things. Leaving aside which of those insults you think it is legitimate to have disciplinary sanctions against, the speech code didn't protect the dissident against any of them, but you still think the speech code has some benefit to her.
Politically deviant students who speak up are well aware that that the oposition will not be limited to reasoned rebuttal, but will also include vile personal insults. They know that comes with the territory, and don't expect any protection against such insults (nor should they).
Any opinion-based restrictions on campus speech (as opposed to threats of violence, stalking, etc) never protect political dissenters, only oppress them. Give up on your fantasy.
Sounds like this might have leveled the playing field a bit, as opposed to just applying the rules against one side and not the other.
Wasn't it? Even though these policies were in effect during the litigation - I read nothing about any trouble coming to those protesting these conservative students. In a real sense the problem isn't so much these speech codes as the unfortunate fact that they are selectively enforced, often to the detriment of those holding conservative or traditional values.
I don't think the removal of these shackles poses any more of a problem for those conservatives willing to speak up now, but it does remove the ability of those attempting to silence them from doing so under the color of authority.
As long as the playing field is level - I do not have a problem with this ruling.
If the taxpayers were not forced to subsidise universities then the policies of the universtities would be entirely between them and their customers. A university would have as much right to have a speech code as a restaurant or private club.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
I have a problem with the Israelis. Because of the way they defend themselves, They use bullets and bombs and rockets, I wonder if they realize that they are using the tactics of their enemies?
/not
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
to disagree with the court on this. The idea that a state university could proscribe speech sort of runs against the freedom of inquiry and discussion one would expect at a university.
I'd echo a lot of the above comments in saying that the speech codes themselves were less onerous than their selective enforcement. So while a conservative student could be disciplined for opposing state-sanctioned buggery there was no penalty for maligning religious faith or a belief in what would be deemed traditional values.
As to the risks, one of the lessons arising from this is and should be There's No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. If you want to engage in in-your-face political activism, you can't expect the state nanny to extract you from your difficulties. Another lesson should the If You Can't Take The Heat... , as they say politics ain't beanbag. If you can't take namecalling maybe you should pick up a different avocation.
So I see this as an unalloyed win for truth, justice, and The American Way.
I'd be the last to deny that the purpose behind the speech codes is to control conservative speech and to advance ideas shared by the university administrations. Nonetheless, "selective enforcement" is neither the issue nor the problem. The speech codes are the problem.
Though I share your disapproval of selective enforcement of speech codes, I think we have to expect that in practice selective enforcement is inseparable from campus speech codes. The mindset that leads campus nannies to impose a speech code is the same mindset that leads them to enforce it unfairly. I generally oppose speech codes (content based) as wrong on principle, and the biased way they're inevitably applied just magnifies their loathsome character.
I wonder if they understand just what it is they've gotten themselves into and set themselves up for with this, and whether they will be able to withstand the repercussions of what they've achieved.
If they don't understand, better they learn it in college than in the real world. That's why college should be more like the real world than some cocoon where nobody's sensitive little feelings will ever be hurt.
the basis for the suit is too prevalent in the real world. In pursuit of the globally harmonious politically correct world where no one may "injure, harm" or "malign" a person because of "race, religious belief, color, sexual/affectational orientation, national origin, disability, age or gender" it has been forgotten or ignored that bigotry, zealousness and fanaticism care nothing for a harmonious politically correct world. And when the results of that thought process are seen every day around the world those who wish for the globally harmonious politically correct world add more to the list of what no one may do to offend another or profess that those offended are misunderstood.
It will get alot uglier and bloodier before the situation gets better but perhaps this particular ruling is as good a starting point as any.
It's a little late to worry about slurs and vicious comments.
The bringing of the suit itself led to slurs against an Asian woman and recial epithets at demonstrations and we should worry about what this victory will lead to?? I better have anther sip of coffee.
Obviously hate speech had a broad dividing line drawn between groups, ok for one, a sin for another. If nothing else the decision eliminates this liberal academic bigotry and strenghtens the means and opportunities of conservative response.
If now the vitriol is a two way street the campus left tough guys will discover the meaning of reciprocity, as well as unfettered counter arguments on the issues, suppression of which is what speech codes were all about anyway.
It may be wondered at the number of proto-totalitarian young thugs who have graduated college the last 15 or 20 years thinking it their birthright to slander ans slime those of opposite viewpoints, absent arguments on policies. Therefore you may ponder what effect these academic policies have had on discussion in America.
That to me is far worse than anything I can envision from this decision.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
Using hate speech on RS should be cause for ISP banning.
"The cat is out of the bag..." is hurtful to animals and shows that the author approves of putting cats in bags. While the conduct itself may or may not be criminal, the language is certainly hurtful and is blatant speciesism!
PETA members should be lining up to sign up on RS to protest this outrage. Shame, shame, shame.
:>)
-----
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
That subject line in the Recent Comments list is just a pig in a poke.
--
"In this day and age, you're not going to get a fair shake in the media" -- Lance Armstrong
I'm behind their efforts and their victory in this case 110%. I also agree with Streiff:
As to the risks, one of the lessons arising from this is and should be There's No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. If you want to engage in in-your-face political activism, you can't expect the state nanny to extract you from your difficulties.
But those risks come with a great reward: the freedom from the "state nanny" in the form of en loco parentis liberal speech code restrictions. After all, that is exactly what those regulations exist to create in the first place: a way for disgruntled student activists to use the administrative offices of the University, including the Dean's office, to silence people who have viewpoints they don't like to hear.
Here's a question before we go any further: what does the Code of Student Conduct at Georgia Tech. say about campus speech now that this decision has been rendered? I haven't read it yet, but if it means that students (who are adults under the law, after all) have to abide by the same civil and criminal laws as the rest of the State of Georgia, I really don't think the students are in that great a danger, regardless of what side they're on in this fight.
As to the students' "tactics" in this instance (breaking the rules on purpose to get caught and demonstrate their absurdity) I have to say that I'm proud of them. Sadly, in many cases, *is* no other way to fight this phenomenon on college campuses today. And that is because Conservative/Republican students cannot rely on the administrative apparatus of the Univeristy to protect their right to express their views: the people who occupy those offices simply believe that those students are *wrong.* A great deal has been written about this, and I'd be happy to share some of my own perspectives with anyone who'd like to contact me.
Just summing up quickly here: To the students at Georgia Tech, congratulations! Now it is up to you to live in the adult world that you occupy, with courage, maturity, and determination.
I am a hawkish warmonger with a crusty demeanour and a heart of steel. But I have a softer side.
I don't know whether anyone took the time to watch Sandra Bernhard's new advertisement for M-A-C cosmetics that was featured on the Drudge Report yesterday, in which she paints her ample lips and mouths off about "sixties free expression" and "passionately expressing yourself" and then spits all over the "Intimidated, frightened, right-wing Republican thin-lipped b*tch[es]".
You can't help but giggle at poor at poor Sandra and how dated and out of touch she is. Although it's a fair bet that she could suck the proverbial chrome off a trailer hitch with that mouth of hers, on college campuses today, it's the *conservative* students who are carrying the fight for free expression forward -- against the comfortable, reflexively oppressive, "safe-spaces" liberal establishment and all their smelly little orthodoxies. They are the ones who are battling the Campus Thought Police. I guess Bernhard has broken up her on-again/off-again flirtation with Camille Paglia, and forgotten everything Paglia wrote during the early '90s. Or maybe she's just doing it for the money...
I am a hawkish warmonger with a crusty demeanour and a heart of steel. But I have a softer side.
rather than attract new customers will drive thousands of women to undergo sex change surgery. I know that I will never buy M-A- C lipstick again.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
Is that the version of the commercial that's on the M-A-C website today has been edited to redact (was it censorship?) the line that I link to above. I'll be charitable: maybe Sandra had a change of heart and realized that on campuses today, it's the liberal establishment that is censorious, dogmatic, oppressive and arbitrary.
I am a hawkish warmonger with a crusty demeanour and a heart of steel. But I have a softer side.
From what I have read I would have to agree that the students 'tactics' were something of which they should be proud. They engaged in an act of civil disobedience, in the tradition of Jesus Christ, Henry David Thoreau, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and many others. The students showed the courage of their convictions by breaking rules they believed to be illegal, knowing that if no court agreed with their interpretation they would be punished under those very rules.
Jesus Christ changed the world by refusing to obey what he believed to be inappropriate applications of God's laws, laws in which he profoundly believed. He violated the officially sanctioned interpretations of those laws knowing he would face a court that had in fact been a part of promulgating those interpretations. Nonetheless, he willingly submitted himself to the judgement of the court and never once demanding to be released on the grounds that he was engaged in a legitimate protest. He accepted the outcome that came his way, and in the eyes of those of us who believe in his resurrection, that acceptance changed the very nature of life on Earth. Gandhi followed such tactics for decades and changed life for Indians in South Africa and in India. Many others of various political stripes and persuasions have carried on this centuries-old tradition of passive resistance to unjust laws. These students appear to have contributed to that tradition in a small but valuable way.
So long as one has the courage to accept punishment for violating absurd rules as one tries to demonstrate their absurdity the tactic of deliberately getting caught is honorable. It is when modern-day 'activists' break the law of the land and then cry foul when they are arrested, claiming they had a right not only to protest but to do so without fear of penalty, that such 'tactics' become dishonorable. Until a rule or law has been declared null and void all who violate it, whether as an act of unalloyed lawlessness or an act of protest must be subject to the punishments laid out under that rule or law. If that was not true the act of protesting would be devoid of courage, as all one would have to say is 'I protest' and you could get away with any crime you like.
The tradition of passive resistance to unjust laws has been sullied by many so-called activists who refuse to show any courage in their convictions. How often do we hear the absurd claim that the police violated their right to protest when they arrested the protesters for trespass or unruly conduct or some other clearly illegal activity. Such people demand to have their cake and eat it to. They want to be free to 'protest' everything as violently as they choose and face no consequences for their challenging the laws of the nation.
It is not surprising that in the 21st century those who do show courage and who renew the tradition of passive resistance are conservatives who face persecution on college campuses. We are a badly outnumbered minority on many campuses and even where we are not outnumbered the rules of engagement have long been stacked against us. This ruling, which was a direct result of an act of civil disobedience, gives me hope for a brighter future for real discussion on campus. It also gives me pause, as I think about what I should do to promote open debate and discussion on my campus.
The purpose of Compulsory Education is to deprive the common people of their commonsense. -G.K. Chesterton
and far, far away, the Trade School on North Avenue was where you went if you were really smart and had some notion that brains and hard work were more important than the UGA's ultimate admission question, "What does your daddy do?" Too bad GT has become just another PC illiteracy factory.
In Vino Veritas
its not a PC illiteracy factory.
As a graduate of the institution (of course I had to take offense, lol ) I've had the opportunity to engage in debate with one of the plaintiffs in question--on more than one occassion. While I agree that free speech should be allowed on campus, I think that its way overblown. The CR at Georgia Tech have had the ample opportunity to protest openly and have before. In my last year they had their fair share of protests: against the GT-COW (Coming out week), the Vagina Monologues, and even affirmative action (although Tech does not have an affirmative action policy). Yes, there were protests, and there was criticisms/personal attacks of the CR's actions in these protests, but its college. You will run into fierce opinion. I think this may be what Tech needs to get more politically involved.
Tech has not really had a history of activism on campus because the campus is largely apathetic towards politics off Tech's campus. Oh sure, you may have a protest or two, like when Wes Clark came to campus, but mostly the only ones who notice are those who don't really have time to go to class. Trust me, Ga. Tech may not be the most conservative-friendly school out there, but it's no Berkeley either.
Even in 2004 there wasn't very much to talk about except when one of the Greek organization showed Fahrenheit 9/11 and they countered with the Fahrenhype movie--which we had a nice debate on afterward. I was excited that points of view were exchanged!)
However, more often than not, the female plaintiff (who's was the president of the CR at the time) looked to kick up dust where no one really talked about. There's nothing wrong with that. Open debate is what we need, but all sides should be prepared to face raw opinion (as it probably should be in college.)
While I agree that free speech should be allowed on campus ...
I hope that means you support the abolition of Georgia Tech's attempt to exempt itself from the U.S. Constitution's protection of free speech.
I think that its way overblown. The CR [College Republicans] at Georgia Tech have had the ample opportunity to protest openly and have before. In my last year they had their fair share of protests: against the GT-COW (Coming out week), the Vagina Monologues, and even affirmative action
Your definition of "ample opportunity" apparently is based on the Left's idea of how much dissent from its orthodoxy should be allowed. In two of the three examples that you cite as supposed evidence of the dissidents' freedom to protest, in fact the Georgia Tech administration used its disciplinary authority to suppress the dissenting students' speech.
From sworn statements in the court case (with no factual dispute from other witnesses that I've seen), acting on the speech code Georgia Tech administrators ordered the dissidents to remove from public sight written signs criticizing "The Vagina Monologues" which was performed with school support. Administrators used the campus cops to enforce the speech code, forcing the College Republicans stop a Diversity Bake Sale parody of affirmative action. On your other example, Coming Out Week, the school didn't prevent their dissent, but reprimanded them after the fact.
This is what passes for "freedom of speech" where progressives have their way. "Freedom of speech" is the freedom of to argue for approved opinions without being traumatized by opposing arguments.
Was to show that yes, I agree that conservatives on campus should be allowed to say whatever they want with impunity. I did see that they were allowed to protest but I didn't know that they were punished for it. I don't think it was very much of a campus controversy.
I cited these examples, but there are several more I could have. Not many though--as I said above, political activism on Georgia Tech's campus leaves much to be desired. I only posted what I could find/remember. It wasn't intended as a "look, the CR got to do 3 protests" kind of comment.
I did see that they were allowed to protest but I didn't know that they were punished for it. ...
I cited these examples, but there are several more I could have.
I'll accept your point that there may well be many other examples, where the dissidents expressed their views but without being silenced. That's irrelevant to the fact that in the cases cited, the Georgia Tech administration acted with disgusting contempt for freedoms legally protected by the Constitution, and needed a law suit to slap them into exercising their authority at least remotely like Americans.
If somebody beat his wife a few times for arguing with him, it's no defense to say there were lots of other times they argued without him beating her up.
I don't think it was very much of a campus controversy.
At one time racial segregation at Georgia Tech wasn't "much of a campus controversy", but that doesn't make it any less repugnant.
I still hope you agree that that it's a good thing that the speech code in question was abolished.
I'm having trouble understanding the reservations to the court's judgement. Free speech is not the exclusive provence of conservatives. Opponents of conservative activists have free speech rights, too. This is elementary; why should any of us be concerned by it? Free speech also means that nasty and hateful speech is protected. The campus speech codes were the problem; the court's jugement is the solution, and without qualification.