Always something funny going on at the Blue and Gold.
I was notified of this case by Fire yesterday (everyone here should get on Fire's regular newsletter). You can read Fire's report here: http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/7396.html
The following is my letter sent to the President of Marquette.
President Robert A. Wild, S.J.
Marquette University
O’Hara Hall, 101/102
P.O. Box 1881
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201-1881
Dear President Wild:
I am writing in regard to your recent abridgement of the "free speech" rights and academic freedom of a Ph.D. student of yours, one Stuart Ditsler.
According to the reports that I have read, you removed a flier from the door of Mr. Stuart's office; a flier containing a quote from Dave Barry that said: “As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful, and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government.”
I have read that you claim: (1) you had complaints about the quotation, and (2) your action was based on the requirement that the flier in question could not contain material that was "patently offensive" and it must have "obvious academic import" or "university sanction".
Mr. Ditsler claims that "other professors and graduate students in his corridor have posted materials on their office doors in the past, such as a cartoon critical of the Bush administration and an article criticizing “family values” voters in the 2004 presidential election."
As a Catholic institution, one would assume - given the Church's position on things like abortion, marriage and same-sex relationships - that it is favorable to "family values"; yet, if reports are true it was apparently not "patently offensive" for some people to use their office doors to publicly criticize "family values" voters in 2004. Are we mistaken in believing that when that criticism was posted the fliers were in a designated "free speech" zone on the campus, and those same doors are no longer in that zone?
Or, are we to make the "patently" obvious connection that the mere existence of a complaint from a big-government liberal makes something "patently offensive", in today's liberal orthodoxy that prevails in academia?
Meanwhile, one thing is "patently" clear. We can make the patently obvious connection that while Mr. Stuart may have thought the fliers on the doors of some other professors and graduate students were "offensive" to him, personally, he still had more respect for their academic freedom and their "free speech" rights than either they or you are willing grant to him.
In your actions towards Mr. Stuart you have exercised the new academic "McCarthyism" of our era - some expressions, particularly those from the left, have more "academic freedom" than do others.
In case you still confuse current political correctness for something "patently offensive", here are a few other quotes in support of the sentiments of Dave Barry.
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." James Madison
"Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of oppression." --James Madison
"The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security." James Madison
"Repeal that [welfare] law, and you will soon see a change in their manners. Six days shalt thou labor, though one of the old commandments long treated as out of date, will again be looked upon as a respectable precept; industry will increase, and with it plenty among the lower people; their circumstances will mend, and more will be done for their happiness by inuring them to provide for themselves, than could be done by dividing all your estates among them." Benjamin Franklin
"Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition." --Thomas Jefferson
"Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty." (Ronald Reagan)
"Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives." (Ronald Reagan)
In conclusion, President Wild, I humbly suggest you quit allowing some to proclaim their views as an orthodoxy beyond which anything else is presumed to be "patently offensive". Your actions were patently offensive to academic freedom.
Respectfully
We had a debate over stuff like this at my first college. Very liberal women's school. The pro-abort group started putting posters for a rally all over the doors and halls. Some of the pro-life students complained that they had to look at this propaganda every day. Led to an interesting discussion about common living space.
I was notified of this case by Fire yesterday (everyone here should get on Fire's regular newsletter). You can read Fire's report here: http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/7396.html
The following is my letter sent to the President of Marquette.
President Robert A. Wild, S.J.
Marquette University
O’Hara Hall, 101/102
P.O. Box 1881
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201-1881
Dear President Wild:
I am writing in regard to your recent abridgement of the "free speech" rights and academic freedom of a Ph.D. student of yours, one Stuart Ditsler.
According to the reports that I have read, you removed a flier from the door of Mr. Stuart's office; a flier containing a quote from Dave Barry that said: “As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful, and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government.”
I have read that you claim: (1) you had complaints about the quotation, and (2) your action was based on the requirement that the flier in question could not contain material that was "patently offensive" and it must have "obvious academic import" or "university sanction".
Mr. Ditsler claims that "other professors and graduate students in his corridor have posted materials on their office doors in the past, such as a cartoon critical of the Bush administration and an article criticizing “family values” voters in the 2004 presidential election."
As a Catholic institution, one would assume - given the Church's position on things like abortion, marriage and same-sex relationships - that it is favorable to "family values"; yet, if reports are true it was apparently not "patently offensive" for some people to use their office doors to publicly criticize "family values" voters in 2004. Are we mistaken in believing that when that criticism was posted the fliers were in a designated "free speech" zone on the campus, and those same doors are no longer in that zone?
Or, are we to make the "patently" obvious connection that the mere existence of a complaint from a big-government liberal makes something "patently offensive", in today's liberal orthodoxy that prevails in academia?
Meanwhile, one thing is "patently" clear. We can make the patently obvious connection that while Mr. Stuart may have thought the fliers on the doors of some other professors and graduate students were "offensive" to him, personally, he still had more respect for their academic freedom and their "free speech" rights than either they or you are willing grant to him.
In your actions towards Mr. Stuart you have exercised the new academic "McCarthyism" of our era - some expressions, particularly those from the left, have more "academic freedom" than do others.
In case you still confuse current political correctness for something "patently offensive", here are a few other quotes in support of the sentiments of Dave Barry.
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." James Madison
"Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of oppression." --James Madison
"The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security." James Madison
"Repeal that [welfare] law, and you will soon see a change in their manners. Six days shalt thou labor, though one of the old commandments long treated as out of date, will again be looked upon as a respectable precept; industry will increase, and with it plenty among the lower people; their circumstances will mend, and more will be done for their happiness by inuring them to provide for themselves, than could be done by dividing all your estates among them." Benjamin Franklin
"Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition." --Thomas Jefferson
"Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty." (Ronald Reagan)
"Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives." (Ronald Reagan)
In conclusion, President Wild, I humbly suggest you quit allowing some to proclaim their views as an orthodoxy beyond which anything else is presumed to be "patently offensive". Your actions were patently offensive to academic freedom.
Respectfully
I realize Marquette is a private university, but it is bound by its own rules. Concerning academic freedom, the institution's position is:
"Academic freedom is prized as essential to Marquette University and to its living growth as a university."
Those who associate themselves with this institution do so expecting it to comport with this rule, and in fact have a contractual right to this rule.
Now, there are some restrictions on speech and behavior attendent to the "privileged" position of a scholar. A scholar must have integrity, show respect for others, etc., all kinds of things that we conservatives are happy with, but which radicals oppose (as when they shout down guest speakers, or allege that those who disagree with them are evil, things which actually are offensive and should be suppressed by the institution in the interest of academic freedom).
So far, so good, the question now is, what about the expression of a distrust of government by a PhD candidate in philosophy? And, further, what about the use of humor in this expression?
Well, it seems pretty obvious to me that people in philosophy are going to have and express opinions concerning the goodness of government. And, by this, I think just about anybody on a college campus would count as a person engaged in philosophy as, the letters PhD stand for "Doctor of Philosophy."
I mean, does Marquette propose that John Locke as his dictum "power tends to curropt and absolute power currops absolutely" be removed from the university because some of their power-lusting socialist faculty are offended?
(Maybe they could have a book burning to rid their campus of such offensive material.)
Or, is it the humorous way that this person expressed himself on the subject of the goodness of government that gets under the skin of their socialist faculty? I mean, isn't it offensive to have it rubbed in your face that you don't have a sense of humor?
Obviously, being a private university, if Marquette just wanted to say that people who do not bow down and worship at the altars of Babylon are not welcome, they're free to do so. But, they should be made to refund the tuition and the donations of those whom they've attempted to defraud by publishing their so-called commitment to academic freedom.
Your office is not private property, its a place of business.. obey your bosses rules or be fired.
The most terrifying words in the English language are: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
Ronald Reagan
I once had an apartment manager take down a sign on the outside of my door that faced an interior hallway and put the sign on the floor. Thinking it fell off, I reapplied it. Found it on the floor again. So I called the manager and asked what was going on. Another tenant had complained about it and the managers (Mormons) said I had to keep the sign off my door or move out.
The offensive wording?
"He died for me, therefore I will live for Him."
I was furious, had never heard of such a thing; it wasn't addressed in the rental agreement. But they wouldn't budge. I seriously wondered if they really had the right to squelch free speech; to me it's the same thing as taking down a "Merry Christmas" sign or a Christmas wreath on your door, all activities the managers indulged in.
"I'm afraid that hallways and office doors are not 'free-speech zones.'"
That's true, you have to keep your beliefs private so that you're not run out of the university by left-wing totalitarians.
In America we have "zones" for free speech?
Only a true liberal would declare criticism of the federal government "patently offensive".