Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How Campus Censors Squelch Freedom Of Speech
National Journal ^ | 07/15/03 | Stuart Taylor Jr.

Posted on 07/15/2003 6:58:11 AM PDT by bedolido

Under the guise of enforcing vague rules against racial or sexual "harassment," censorship is thriving.

Steve Hinkle, a student at California Polytechnic State University, was posting fliers around campus last November 12 that advertised a speech to be given the next evening. The fliers contained a photo of the speaker, black conservative Mason Weaver, and the words "It's OK to Leave the Plantation," the name of a book in which Weaver likens African-American dependence on government programs to slavery.

When Hinkle approached a public bulletin board in the lounge of the campus Multicultural Center, some African-American students who were sharing pizzas nearby objected. They told Hinkle not to post the flier because they found it "offensive" and "disrespectful." By all accounts, his response was something like, "How do you know it's offensive? Why can't we talk about it?" The offended students then said that the flier violated the Multicultural Center's "posting policy," and threatened to call the campus police. Hinkle left, without posting the flier.

That was not the end of the matter, however. One black student did call campus police, with what was recorded as a report of "a suspicious white male passing out literature of an offensive racial nature." She and others also urged university authorities to discipline Hinkle, a member of the Cal Poly College Republicans, for what she called "hate speech" (i.e., the flier).

Incredibly, university authorities did just that, under the pretext of punishing Hinkle for "disruption" of what complaining students later claimed to have been a Bible study dinner and meeting. (Nobody had told Hinkle that this was a "meeting" at all, and he saw no Bibles.)

This episode provides a window into the politically correct censorship that pollutes so many of our nation's campuses. For seeking peacefully and politely to exercise his First Amendment rights, Hinkle was subjected to a seven-hour disciplinary hearing, from which his lawyer was barred. He was found guilty of "disruption" of the "meeting." And he was ordered to apologize to the offended students, in writing, or face much stiffer penalties, possibly including expulsion. All of this is to go on Hinkle's permanent record, perhaps hurting his chances of getting into graduate school.

The bottom line is that like many other campuses, "Cal Poly gives some people the power to veto what others have to say," says Thor L. Halvorssen, the head of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a nonpartisan, Philadelphia-based free speech group that has come to Hinkle's defense.

Cal Poly's legal counsel, Carlos Cordova, responded to a complaint from FIRE by claiming in a May 9 letter that "many of your factual assertions... are incorrect" and by denying that the disciplining of Hinkle was motivated by the perceived offensiveness of the flier. But Cordova did not specifically dispute any of the facts recounted in the first four paragraphs above, which are based in part on notes prepared by Hinkle's faculty adviser at the hearing. Those facts amount to an egregious violation of the First Amendment.

Cal Poly is but one of hundreds of campuses that penalize student speech of which they disapprove. This censorship regime has attracted little attention since the mid-1990s, after successful legal challenges at the University of Michigan, the University of Wisconsin, and Stanford University seemed to foretell the demise of speech codes.

But in fact, campus censorship lives on, often justified under the guise of enforcing vague rules against racial or sexual "harassment." Administrators typically interpret these rules to encompass any speech that offends nonwhite students or insults the left-liberal-radical-feminist-postmodernist orthodoxies of the academic class. The rules are typically enforced by campus kangaroo courts with no semblance of fairness.

Here are some representative examples of rules that appear to be current as far as FIRE could tell from checking university Web sites: Georgetown warns (PDF) against "expression" that is "inappropriate" and that severely offends others on matters of "race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or sexual preference." (Would that include quoting Justice Antonin Scalia's acerbic dissent from the June 26 Supreme Court decision upholding gay rights?) At the University of Massachusetts, students can be disciplined for speaking in ways that create a "sexually offensive" environment, or for displaying "offensive or sexually suggestive" pictures, cartoons, or posters. At Princeton, they can be disciplined for "unwanted sexual attention that makes a person feel uncomfortable." (Asking for a date after being once turned down?) At Brown, "unwelcome verbal expressions," "degrading language," "jokes or innuendoes," "sounds or whistles," and "gestures" can amount to sexual harassment. At Dartmouth, "sexual harassment [can be] subtle and indirect, possibly even unintentional." Many campuses define "leering" as a form of harassment. A training document once used at the University of Maryland even warned against "holding or eating food provocatively." (Handle bananas with care.)

It is unclear how often such provisions are enforced. In any event, they hang over campus speech like a Sword of Damocles. Their vagueness and overbreadth violate students' First Amendment rights in the case of public universities and may violate their contractual rights in the case of those private universities that advertise themselves as devoted to free and open debate. Such rules nonetheless persist because few students or professors have the stomach to challenge them.

The good news is that since 1999, those willing to fight back have a potent ally. FIRE has battled campus censors with great success since its founding by two men whose passion for the freedoms of speech, association, and religion transcends their politics: left-leaning lawyer Harvey A. Silverglate of Boston and right-leaning University of Pennsylvania professor Alan Charles Kors.

FIRE typically employs the threat of public exposure to persuade campus administrators to back off in individual censorship-through-discipline cases. It has also produced pamphlets informing students in detail of their legal rights. And in the past few months, FIRE has helped launch a litigation offensive against speech codes that is designed to make it "clear to universities across the country that they infringe on students' rights at their own peril," in Silverglate's words, by winning a succession of definitive judicial rulings. The defendants so far have been Shippensburg University, in central Pennsylvania (whose code prohibited conduct that "annoys, threatens, or alarms a person or group"); Citrus College, near Los Angeles (which has already surrendered); and 28,000-student Texas Tech University (PDF).

Texas Tech bans (PDF) "communications [that] humiliate any person," such as "sexual innuendoes" or "referring to an adult as 'girl,' 'boy,' or 'honey.' " Like many other campuses, it also quarantines demonstrations, protests, and other free speech activities to a single "free speech zone" -- at Tech, a 20-foot-wide gazebo that can hold about 40 people. On the rest of the campus, students must seek official approval at least six days in advance to hold protests or demonstrations, make speeches, distribute newspapers or literature, or engage in other free speech activities.

FIRE champions flag-burners as well as flag-wavers, anti-Bush and anti-American dissidents as well as conservatives. In February, for example, it helped persuade Texas Tech not to confine a protest against President Bush's Iraq policies to the gazebo. But the vast majority of the students and professors complaining of campus censorship are to the right of center. American Enterprise magazine recently published some numbers that help explain this: At top universities -- including Brown, Cornell, Stanford, and the University of California (Berkeley) -- the ratio of professors registered in parties of the left (including Democrats) to those in parties of the right (including Republicans) in many departments ranges from almost 10-to-1 to more than 20-to-1. And many of them think of free speech as a right reserved to the politically correct.

Despite the cries of "McCarthyism" raised by the Left since September 11, there has been only a smattering of unwarranted attacks on leftist or anti-American speech. And on campus, you are a lot less likely to be disciplined for assailing President Bush than for assailing militant Islam. Take the Ethiopian student at San Diego State University who reproached some Saudi students in September 2001 for gleefully celebrating, in Arabic, the murders of 3,000 people at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. A university committee warned the Ethiopian -- not the Saudis -- that offending fellow students in this way could get him suspended or expelled.

Political biases aside, campus censors commit a fundamental error in supposing that devotion to civil rights requires shielding traditionally subordinated groups from hurt feelings by suppressing the civil liberties of others. As Kors has put it, "No one who tells people that they are too weak to live with freedom, legal equality, the Bill of Rights, or academic freedom is their friend."

Stuart Taylor Jr. is a senior writer for National Journal magazine, where "Opening Argument" appears.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: campus; censors; freedom; speech; squelch

1 posted on 07/15/2003 6:58:11 AM PDT by bedolido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: bedolido
Universities, if they are private entities, may operate in any way they see fit.

However, like most of us, they will eventually be accountable for their actions. If they feel that they must, for instance, orient themselves entirely around a particular political philosophy, such as socialism or political correctness, then they will be known primarily, instead of "institutions of higher learning," as propagators of those philosophies
2 posted on 07/15/2003 7:20:44 AM PDT by Sam Cree (Democrats are herd animals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sam Cree
Forgot to mention that the whole thing (universities becoming institutions of leftist propaganda) really pi$$es me off.
3 posted on 07/15/2003 7:22:09 AM PDT by Sam Cree (Democrats are herd animals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: All
Hint! Hint!Hint! Hint!Hint! Hint!

4 posted on 07/15/2003 7:22:14 AM PDT by Support Free Republic (Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sam Cree
Of course, this university is *not* a private entitity so in this particular case your point is moot. Hinkle deserves the support of freepers everywhere.
5 posted on 07/15/2003 7:22:30 AM PDT by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk
"Hinkle deserves the support of freepers everywhere."

Yeah, absolutely.

My point was that universities, through their own actions, are becoming known primarily as institutions of political correctness instead of institutions of higher learning. Maybe I should have left off that first sentence.

6 posted on 07/15/2003 7:51:08 AM PDT by Sam Cree (Democrats are herd animals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Sam Cree
If a private university accepts government monies it consents to certain "rules".


The irony in this case is that the event occured in a so called "diversity" center. Universities do not care about such students. All students have a limited lifespan on campus. Even the bigest anoyance will graduate and be gone. The problem is that these universities tried to institutionalize leftist thought as the ONLY thought allowed. They have failed. (like the 60's hippies)

Can you sue a diversity Multicultural Center of a University for false advertising? Heck, can the University be sued for falsly representing they are a free market of ideas? Probably not but parents and students need to know about these universities. I for one would never hire anyone with a degree in in feminist studies.
7 posted on 07/15/2003 7:53:20 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bedolido
Stuart Taylor IS a card carrying Democrat. This article from him is like a breath of fresh air. Yep, the campus censors work not to promote a free exchange of ideas but to intimidate and bully conservatives into silence. Which is why at Cal State Poly, the campus administration sought to make an example of Steve Hinkle. You know we can't have the expression of politically incorrect ideas, like blacks leaving the liberal plantation, on campus. It might give people forbidden thoughts.
8 posted on 07/15/2003 7:56:41 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #9 Removed by Moderator

To: longtermmemmory
I agree that our universities are a real problem. I surely wisht I knew what we could do about them.
10 posted on 07/15/2003 8:05:54 AM PDT by Sam Cree (Democrats are herd animals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: bedolido
PC means "precludes cognition".
11 posted on 07/15/2003 2:16:16 PM PDT by sheik yerbouty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Black Agnes; rmlew; cardinal4; LiteKeeper; Lizard_King; Sir_Ed; TLBSHOW; BigRedQuark; yendu bwam; ..
This ping is a little late. Apologies...

*****

Leftism on Campus ping!

If you would like to be added to the Leftism on Campus ping list, please
notify me via FReep-mail.

Regards...
12 posted on 07/21/2003 12:46:30 PM PDT by Hobsonphile (We are not this story's author, who fills time and eternity with his purpose. -George W. Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hobsonphile
Thanks for pinging me. I've already sent e-mails to the officials who are handling the case at Cal Poly. I keep thinking about every country that has gone Communist and the resulting purges, assasinations and gulags. It's becoming too clear what type of mentalities run the death marches. Sickening, isn't it? .
13 posted on 07/21/2003 1:57:10 PM PDT by The Westerner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Sam Cree
I agree that our universities are a real problem. I surely wisht I knew what we could do about them.

In addition to publicizing, publicizing, and pulicizing some more what they do (look at how Daniel Pipes' website campuswatch.org has been driving them crazy), those of us who can found new, freedom-oriented (I believe the traditional term is "liberal," but that's been perverted) colleges, must do so, and the rest of us who support such principles, must support such institutions in every way that we can.

14 posted on 07/21/2003 2:12:06 PM PDT by mrustow (no tag)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: All; bedolido; Hobsonphile; mrustow
To all:
Here is a letter received through e-mail today from CalPoly:

Thank you for taking the time to contact Cal Poly regarding what you
apparently have read or heard about an alleged First Amendment issue at
the University. The University is concerned that many people are being
purposefully misled about free speech at Cal Poly. Recent Internet,
print and TV talk show publicity surrounding promotion of a speech by a
campus speaker has contained many inaccuracies, misinformation, and even
falsehoods.

Let me assure you that Cal Poly highly values the First Amendment and
free speech. They are at the core of our identity as an American
institution of higher education. The University strives to create and
maintain a campus environment that supports free speech and open inquiry
for all. This campus does not practice censorship of thought or word, or
impose bans on speech or expression. Indeed, Cal Poly places among its
top priority establishing conditions that foster open inquiry and
healthy debate for all.

We want you to know that the speaker did indeed speak at Cal Poly, and
fliers advertising the speech were posted on bulletin boards and kiosks
throughout campus. The speech took place on campus and was attended by
some 250 students, and written up afterwards in the Mustang Daily, the
campus student newspaper. You can read the article on the Mustang
Daily's web site at:
http://www.mustangdaily.calpoly.edu/archive/20021115/index.php?story=n4.

Federal privacy laws (Family and Educational Rights Privacy Act,
[FERPA], http://www.ed.gov/offices/OII/fpco/ferpa/index.html) prevent
the University from discussing student discipline cases. Although
students may consent to waive their privacy rights and allow
universities to discuss their discipline cases, the student involved in
this case has not signed a general waiver despite our request that he do
so. He has, instead, provided us with a limited waiver which allows us
to discuss his case only with staff members of FIRE (Foundation for
Individual Rights in Education), and no one else. Unless the student
signs a general waiver, the University would be unable to discuss the
discipline case more broadly and the facts associated with the case.

Without discussing the specifics of the student's case, I can tell you
that this is a case involving student conduct, not speech content. Any
characterization to the contrary is false. Cal Poly supports and
upholds freedom of speech as a Constitutional right, and the University
has policies in place to protect the rights of all parties on campus to
pursue learning and otherwise go about their business. These include
policies regarding the disruption of classes, meetings and other
University business. California State University regulations regarding
"time, place and manner" of expression implemented by Cal Poly exist to
protect open expression, not stifle it, to balance the nature of a
university as a free and ordered space.

I hope you would agree that, in general, while all of us enjoy the right
to freedom of speech, it does not include permission to disrupt
scheduled meetings or classes while doing so - in other words, to
infringe on the rights of others.

In addition to misinformation about posting of the flier by the student
involved in this case, we want to stress to you that several statements
attributed to Cal Poly officials in recent print, Internet and broadcast
publicity have been complete fabrications.

I can say with certainty that statements and quotes attributed to me are
in some cases completely false, and in others, taken so far out of
context so as to distort the meaning.

Statements attributed to Cal Poly Vice Provost for Academic Programs
David Conn are also not true. Some recent coverage has alleged Dr. Conn
has threatened to expel or suspend the student involved. This is
completely false. At no time has the student been threatened with
expulsion or suspension for this incident.

Cal Poly offers and supports many venues for freedom of expression,
including invited speakers, rallies, impromptu speeches in public areas,
and public bulletin boards throughout campus. We will continue to
encourage our students to listen to speakers with differing points of
view.

This University is a place enriched by individual differences and also
where shared purpose, commitment, relationships, and responsibility are
combined to promote a healthy and respectful community.

As for the resolution of the student judicial case, Cal Poly considers
the matter closed and will not pursue it further.

Thank you for your sharing your thoughts on this important issue. For
more information, please visit:
http://www.calpolynews.calpoly.edu/free-speech.html.

Sincerely,


Cornel N. Morton
Vice President for Student Affairs
15 posted on 07/21/2003 2:52:45 PM PDT by The Westerner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson