Campus censors in retreat

US News and World Report ^ | Feb 16, 2004 issue | John Leo

[John Jorsett]

An actual debate on the merits of racial preferences has taken place on an American campus, Utah State University. Whether the Guinness World Records book is interested in this news is not certain. I know I am. Astonishingly, the university administration did not step in to halt the proceedings on the grounds that feelings might be hurt. The debate was civil, with some booing and cheering on both sides. Some students seemed a bit testy or angry. But as one student sponsor of the debate said, "That's part of politics and discussing divisive issues." This breakthrough raises a startling question: Is it possible that other universities will begin experimenting with free speech?

Could be. The fog of censorship on campus is beginning to lift, thanks to the pressure of litigation, bad publicity, and ridicule from a new and more pugnacious generation of collegians. The litigation is being handled by groups such as the Center for Individual Rights, the Alliance Defense Fund, and--most spectacularly--by the Philadelphia-based Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), which is now a major player in the campus wars. These groups have been winning free-speech cases one after another, creating momentum that is forcing many censorship-minded administrators into a defensive crouch.

Guilty. For most of the 1990s, speech restrictions met little resistance. After the courts struck down campus speech codes, universities simply (and dishonestly) recast the speech codes as behavior and antiharassment policies, using extremely broad language to forbid expression that annoys, embarrasses, or ridicules. The language made almost every accused student guilty as charged. The mainstream press ignored the issue, and students generally held their tongues, fearing retaliation. Now the students know how to call FIRE, and FIRE knows how to call Fox News. "The difference is that students now know they can win," said Thor Halvorssen, who recently stepped down as the chief executive officer of FIRE. Sometimes the victories are astonishingly easy. When FIRE sued Citrus College in California, the college quickly yielded, lifting its policy banning all "offensive . . . expression or language" and eliminating its policy of confining student protest to three small areas on campus.

The Center for Individual Rights is working out a settlement in the case of a white student punished for "disruption" after quietly posting a flier at the multicultural center of California Polytechnic State University. There was no disruption. The black students who complained simply didn't like the flier, which promoted a speech by a black conservative author. Cal Poly's action seemed clearly unconstitutional but typical of what many colleges got away with when nobody was watching. Terry Pell of CIR says his friends, left and right, are appalled when they hear about the Cal Poly case. CIR's attorney in the case, Carol Sobel, frequently works for the American Civil Liberties Union. And Pell says that judges of all political persuasions are appalled when CIR brings them cases like this, too.

Another factor in the new atmosphere is that conservative students are now a bigger presence on campus. A Harvard poll in the fall found that 61 percent of U.S. college students supported President Bush, at a time when only 53 percent of all Americans supported him. Last fall, in the annual UCLA survey of college freshmen, 21 percent of students identified themselves as conservative, compared with 24 percent who said they were liberal--down from a peak of 38 percent liberal in 1971.

Many conservative students favor satire and ridicule as campus weapons. The best example is the bake sales on more than a dozen campuses mocking affirmative action in college admissions by selling cookies at $1 to white males and 50 cents to Latino or black males. Many of these sales were shut down by campus administrators, thus demonstrating how dumb and repressive college officials can be. (Similar "wage gap" cookie sales by feminists ran into no such trouble.) At Northwestern, the administrator who halted the sale said, "This is not a bake sale, and your permit is only for a bake sale!" At the University of Washington, the administration said that the cookie sellers had failed to apply for a food permit and that the administration did not in fact shut them down. FIRE produced official university documents contradicting both arguments. Watch for more bake sales and more anticensorship stunts. Repressive speech policies are under heavy pressure and starting to break down.

[martian_22]

It's about time. Conservative ideas, discussion and analysis have been shouted-down and lumped with "offensive" speech for 40 years.

I hope to see a generation go through higher education free from old Soviet style think tank programs. It's about time.

[jigsaw]

Many conservative students favor satire and ridicule as campus weapons.

Mini Rush Limbaughs.   Wahoo!!!!!!

[hotpotato]

After the courts struck down campus speech codes, universities simply (and dishonestly) recast the speech codes as behavior and antiharassment policies, using extremely broad language to forbid expression that annoys, embarrasses, or ridicules.

Ahead of the times, we Americans are :-) Maybe the Europeans and Canadians will progress to where Catholic priests won't be considered criminals who must do jail time when they speak of homosexuality as a sin. The above has to scare the living daylights out of any fringe group that has managed for a decade to squash dissension in order to propagate their lifestyle/beliefs or force acceptance. Tolerance is one thing, forced acceptance is completely another. I supported gay marriage until it was rammed down our collective American throats by a bunch of unelected judges in a one-vote majority ruling. According to more recent polls, it appears I'm not alone. Begs the question... what's next?

Californians: click on image for more info

[hotpotato]

I just hope we won't lower ourselves to the level of college administrators by shouting down those we disagree with.

I'm an independent. I've voted libertarian, democrat, republican. What I can say is that while the republicans have their Bob Dornans, there are far more Terry McAuliffs on the democratic side and it's a turn off. I'm tired of reasonable debate being shut down by loud mouths who feel the only chance they have in pushing their agenda is by silencing their opposition... a far greater problem in the democratic party than I've seen than with the republicans.

Example.... one of the judicial nominees (I forget his name) was being questioned (I should use the word accused here because that's what it was, more than a mere suggestion of intolerance on the judge's part by the democrats), about changing his plans to not take his family to Disney World during their Gay Day. He explained he had two little girls and thought it would be better to take them on their family outing another day. The implication from the democrats was that he was not fit to serve as a federal judge because he decided to not subject his little girls to the antics that have been described and filmed at these events. I mean, what kind of village people does the "village" intend to raise???

[happygrl]

You need to hand around this forum a while and learn what a FREEP is.

It is Not shouting people down.

It is about drawing attention to their dangerous ideas, in an amusing way, involving placards, costumes and other activities.

Freepers do NOT try to shout down people, but do carry the message of the little people to those who think they are "entitled".

[Huber]

Thank you for posting this. FIRE continues to do excellent work on behalf of free speech. What both liberals and conservatives understand is that free speech is necessary to to assess and evaluate alternative approaches to government, education, society or virtually anything else that you can think of. It allows assertions to be tested and turned over in the public consciousness and ultimately takes us closer to an understanding of the truth.

It is therefore revealing that Conservatives seek to increase free speech, while liberal socialists seek to restrict it in the name of political correctness, for as goes free speech, so also goes truth!

For the record, Liberals are always being disingenous when they claim not to understand this.

[Hobsonphile]

Leftism on Campus ping!

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

Warning: During the school year in particular, this can be a high volume ping list.

Regards...