Free speech--but only for our enemies (David Frum: social fascism on campus)

Free speech--but only for our enemies

David Frum, National Post
Published: Saturday, March 17, 2007

You can criticize Hezbollah even in Saudi Arabia. You can attack Hamas even in Kuwait. But don't think of doing either at San Francisco State University (SFSU).

On Oct. 17, 2006, the tiny beleaguered local band of College Republicans organized an anti-terrorism rally. The students had made paper copies of Hamas and Hezbollah flags. At the rally, they trampled the flags underfoot.

And why not? Under American law, a publicly funded university like SFSU is considered a branch of the government. It must respect all the rights and freedoms protected by the U.S. Constitution and its local state constitution. The courts have repeatedly held that the constitutional right of free speech protects protest activities like the burning of the American flag. So if it's legal to burn the American flag, surely it must be legal to trample the flags of murderous terrorist organizations, right? Right? Right??

But that's not how modern universities act. To them, Old Glory may be barbecue starter, but a terrorist flag is a sacred symbol.

Prodded by the local Palestinian student group, SFSU's student government voted to condemn the College Republicans. The university then charged the College Republicans with "attempts to incite violence," "creating a hostile environment" and "acts of incivility." It set up a special committee to judge the charge -- including two of the student council members who had already voted to condemn the College Republicans.

On March 15, the university held a formal hearing on the charges. If it finds against the College Republicans, they could face financial penalties or potentially the dissolution of their organization.

You might wonder: What on earth does the university think it is doing? Why is it according greater respect to the flags of Hamas and Hezbollah than it could (or would!) to the American flag?

The University explains that the two trampled flags contained the Arabic word, "Allah." According to university spokeswoman Ellen Griffin, "I don't believe that the complaint is about the desecration of the flag. I believe that the complaint is about the desecration of Allah." Oh really?

Imagine, for example, that the local Palestinian students association were to burn a Union Jack, as they regularly burn U.S. and Israeli flags. The Union Jack features a Christian cross. Four Christian crosses actually. Does anybody seriously imagine that the San Francisco State University would penalize them?

That's not exactly a rhetorical question.

Over the past half dozen years, campus radicalism in the United States has taken on an increasingly sectarian and anti-Semitic tone -- and SFSU has been the scene of some of the worst offenses.

In April, 2002, Muslim students organized a pro-Palestinian rally on the SFSU campus. To advertise their event, they distributed a flyer with a picture of a dead baby alongside the words: "Canned Palestinian children meat -- slaughtered according to Jewish rites under American license."

No disciplinary action was taken against the students: The groups that had printed the flyer did not even lose their university subsidy. The university president, Robert Corrigan, did send a letter of protest to the student groups, but if you read it (it's posted at www.sfsu.edu/~news/response/nohate.htm), you will I think be struck by its strangely apologetic, excuse-making tone:

"In speaking as strongly as I have in this letter, I am doing no more than you asked -- working to eliminate discrimination and combat racism. And this is just as much a protection for Muslims, Arabs, and Palestinians as it is for Jews and Israelis. I recognize that these are times of great anguish, as well as anger, and I know that one moment, one flier, does not define this group or its individual members."

The next month, Jewish students at SFSU organized a pro-Israel rally. After the rally ended, a small group of volunteers lingered to clean up. Suddenly they were swarmed by a much larger group of pro-Palestinian students. According to an eyewitness, the pro-Palestinian students shoved the Jewish students against the wall of the rally area and screamed anti- Semitic slogans. The Palestinian students demanded the lowering of an Israeli flag flying from a university building -- and university officials hastened to comply. Again, no discipline was imposed.

There is obviously something profoundly wrong on American campuses -- and not only American campuses, as the unhappy history of Canada's Concordia University reminds us. Apologists for terrorism receive maximum protection for the most vicious bigotry, for menace and intimidation, and even outright violence. Yet that zeal for free speech vanishes altogether when opponents of terrorism engage in much, much milder forms of protest.

This goes beyond double standards. It is a moral collapse.

The SFSU College Republicans will prevail in the end. Even if the university sanctions them, those sanctions will be appealed to federal court and swiftly overturned. It is the universities for whom we should worry. They lack the courage to defend the freedom without which they cannot live.

DFrum@aei.org

Writer David Frum is a good guy, a former WH speech writer for W. But, being a Canadian, he may not be all that familiar with American jurisprudence these days.

The SFSU College Republicans will prevail in the end. Even if the university samctions them, those sanctions will be appealed to federal court and swiftly overturned.

That's Frum's sanguine expectation and it would only be just if such a scenario unfolded. However, this assumes at the least that the College Republicans have the financial wherewithall and access to legal savvy to pursue such litigation. Even in that event, the case would probably go to the infamous Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (known to Rush Limbaugh listeners as the "Ninth Circus") which has issued some very bizarre constitutional rulings in recent years. So legally overturning the expected adverse university ruling against the College Republicans would be both expensive and far from certain.

If only the deceased former SFSU president Hayikawa (sp?) would be in charge of that campus now, the College Republicans would be in much better shape!

"... being a Canadian, he may not be all that familiar with American jurisprudence these days."

Frum remains primarily Stateside based as indicated by his American Enterprise Institute "AEI" e-address above & on-going regular contributions to the National Review.

Plus, it's tough to question the perceptiveness of someone who apparently coined the term "axis of evil".

As for being Canadian, throughout history & as was the case in Roman times, citizens of countries beyond "great powers", for mostly pragmatic reasons, generally do have a better knowledge of their inner workings than their's have of the numerous lesser lands beyond their own borders.
(e.g. smart money says I know more about the magnificent U.S. Constitution than you do about Canada's horrid Charter)

As for the College Republicans lacking the deep pockets required to rightly pursue the matter, perhaps Frum is aware of them having some friends who do? If so, the 9th would only amount to an unfortunate & temporary stumbling block on the way to the higher Court in Washington.

I took College_Libertarian's comment somewhat differently than you apparently did.
While "creating controversy" perhaps wasn't the clearest choice of words, I agree we should much more often 'fight fire with fire' & 'call a spade a spade'.

Enough of these vermin calling us, racists, sexists, etc. when, based upon their belief in so-called 'affirmative action' alone, they're plainly the ones opportunistically & hypocritically wallowing in these human failings.

I'm disgusted by - not 'phobic' about - sexual deviancy, can't see how logically multiculturalism isn't merely tribalism coupled with racism and haven't a doubt in my mind that feminism amounts to applied sexism & gender bigotry.

Plus, forget the phony notion of 'separation', when it's about time religious freedom was properly protected from attacks against it by the state.

You win your bet. I confess I know nothing about Canada's Charter.

So Frum is still in Washington, eh, though writing for a Canadian publication? AEI is a good think tank for free enterprisers.

As to the Supreme Court and the "Ninth Circus," the SCOTUS (with very few exceptions which don't apply here) has the prerogative to decide which cases from the federal circuit courts it wishes to review. In practice, the SCOTUS decides to review approximately one percent of cases in which the losing party in the lower court petitions the SCOTUS for certiorori. That is, if you lose a case in any of the circuit courts, chances are very much against you that the SCOTUS will allow you to even bother them with your grief and you're likely stuck with the circuit court's adverse decision. On the positive side, though, the SCOTUS has been reversing decisions by the Ninth Circus at significantly higher rate than those of other circuits.

"You win your bet."

Thanks for so readily conceding the point. Sometimes it's a tough case to make without (definitely not in a negative sense) referring to America as an 'imperial power' & then watching all Hell break loose.

Objectively, there's little reason for any American - unless for commercial, diplomatic or military cause or as a selected field of academic study - to possess in depth familiarity with any particular nation beyond their own borders.
In fact, for U.S. citizens a general knowledge of the world as a whole is doubtless preferable.

On the other hand, Canada likely leads the pack of limited exceptions based upon our geographic proximity, being America's largest trading partner, having a somewhat similar history & more-so-same culture & there being literally countless families with branches on both sides of the border as well as numerous additional friendly social ties.

So, probably the average Yank knows more about Canada than, say, he does about Peru but then, we've no reason to be on top of matters Peruvian either.
Not surprisingly many Kanuckistani FReepers have developed a real intolerance when it comes to often ill-informed Stateside pontifications with respect to Canada & related disparaging generalizations about ALL Canadians.
As example, I've never once heard a conservative up here tar the vast majority of decent Americans with the same brush as the vile Clintons but, when it comes to our similarly morally bankrupt Liberal Party gangsters ...

Getting back to David Frum, both his sister Linda Frum & wife Danielle Crittenden (sp?) also enjoy successful cross-border literary careers but without quite his level of renown.
BTW, if you didn't already know, David's late mother Barbara Frum is a bit of a Canadian icon for her years as a highly principled (although, albeit, generally left-of-center) journalist with the CBC while his father-in-law (Danille's long-time step-dad) is Peter Worthington: Korean War Vet, founding Editor of the Toronto Sun & still a well known conservative pundit in his own right.

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.