Posted on 02/07/2006 4:50:54 PM PST by shining_city
Stanford University has indicted The Stanford Review, Stanford’s only conservative student publication, for defying a ban on door-to-door distribution in an act of civil disobedience.
Staff of The Stanford Review distributed their publication door-to-door in the residence halls on campus in violation of University policy. The University responded swiftly by filing a formal complaint to the Organization Conduct Board to begin an investigation, which could result in sanctions. “We believe this ban to be an unreasonable restriction on freedom of speech on a college campus,” argues senior Ben Guthrie, former Editor-in-Chief of The Stanford Review.
Stanford University is engaging in censorship by prior restraint. According to Chris Nguyen, Chairman of the Associated Students of Stanford University (ASSU) Undergraduate Senate, this censorship may be illegal. California passed the Leonard Law in 1992, named after its author Republican Senator Bill Leonard, which applies the First Amendment to private colleges and universities. “Thanks to the Leonard Law, all rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court regarding government restrictions on freedom of speech and the press are applicable to Stanford University,” explains Nguyen. The Supreme Court ruled in Martin v. Struthers (1943) that door-to-door distribution is protected by the First Amendment.
Stanford’s ban on door-to-door distribution may be illegal on its face, but it also may be illegal as applied. Stanford University has enforced its door-to-door distribution policy selectively and discriminatorily. Only once before has a student publication been taken before the Organization Conduct Board in the same manner as The Stanford Review. In 2003-04, The Stanford Progressive, a liberal student publication, was threatened with sanctions. Numerous other violations of the policy have gone unpunished by Stanford University, including door-to-door distribution by Masque, a gay culture publication, and The Stanford Chaparral, a humor magazine.
In the fall of 2003, The Stanford Review published several controversial articles, which prompted some students to complain. Stanford University responded by suddenly deciding to enforce a ban on door-to-door distribution that was technically already on the books. The Stanford Progressive, infuriated by this blatant censorship, violated the distribution ban in 2003-04 in protest. “Stanford University is continuing its pattern of silencing conservative views, even if that means ruining the entire publications community,” contends Guthrie.
Stanford University Resident Fellow Christine Gabali explains her objection to door-to-door distribution: “We’re in an intellectual environment, so we have to exercise free speech in a constructive way, a way that exercises critical thinking, a way that protects our students,” Gabali said. “Roble is a very diverse four-class dorm, so we need to respect everybody.”
Is Stanford University ready to concede that multicultural diversity trumps freedom of speech?
Publisher’s Note: The motto in the Stanford seal reads in German: “Die Luft Der Freiheit Weht” which, ironically, translates into “The Wind of Freedom Is Blowing”
Submitted by Ryan Tracey, Editor-in-Chief, The Stanford Review
This has WHAT, precisely, to do with door-to-door distribution?
It seems they are even handed. I think the main thing is they don't want piles of leaflets outside every dorm room.
This is becoming nearly comedic in and of itself, it it was not so blatantly HETEROSEXUAL-PHOBIC, among other ethical and legal miscarriages of administrative duties, not limited to Stanford University in issue but limited to Stanford here, this thread.
Ha, read my comments following yours.
No, Stanford's private school status does not allow it to be apart from and not subject to the First Amendment, thanks to the Leonard Law.
In 1995 the courts not only upheld the Leondard Law, but also made Stanford remove its politically correct speech code because of it. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corry_v._Stanford for more details.)
Personally, even as a free marketer I'm only partially sympathetic to the "universities are private organizations" argument. Given all the government funding that universities like Stanford take these days, they are inviting government involvement in the way they run their affairs.
Well, if you assume that all conservative publications are the equivalent of the KKK's monthly newsletter, then it makes perfect sense.
And most liberals DO assume that.
Ping
Read it again. it says they were threatened. It does not say if they were stopped or if the action continues. They can make all the threats they want, but if they only enforce against the conservatives, then it is selective.
A group of college kids were caught littering!
They should spend the next 4 weekends cleaning the dorm hallways.
Now that the judiciary returning to strict Constitutional construction (hopefully with Bush's recent Supreme Court appointments), academia remains the last bastion of liberal-think in America. I have to believe the fumigation of institutions like Stanford is inevitable.
Well, it's law. Until countered or otherwise overturned, it's the law.
Yes, exactly.
Laws aren't to be applied or not applied based upon whether or not anyone thinks they are "good ideas" or "bad ideas." I think the point here, specifically, is that a law is being applied selectively and in effect against a conservative group only. Which is clear indication that there is sympathy with or in this case animosity against one group in comparison with another or others.
If Stanford or any other private school, I guess to surmise here (as with other similar laws), is going to consider some/any law as "good" or "bad" and then disallow or apply whatever accordingly, at least do so systematically and consistently, or, not.
It seems very suspect to my read as to why Stanford would take steps to punish/disciple this one group but maintain a blind eye to others. Which, again, indicates a discriminatory/subjective application of policy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.