Red Alert List

FIRE has begun its
Red Alert List with two notably difficult adversaries: Tufts University and Johns Hopkins University. Those who know about FIRE understand that its mission is to respond to student complaints about the abrogation of their free speech rights by colleges and universities.

The two universities noted above earned their place on the Red Alert List because of their repeated, notable, and arguably unconstitutional restrictions on free speech. They do this primarily through vague terminology and unusually stern consequence.

For instance, Johns Hopkins University now bans speech that is “tasteless” or that breaches standards of “civility” according to the
December 11, 2006 issue of The JHU Gazette. Who is the arbiter of "tasteless" or "standards of civility"? The reasonable person? The highly sensitive person? The person with an opposing viewpoint? The person with "pull" at the university? Who?

Also, Tufts University has repeatedly stated that it honors free speech and protects it, but, according to Greg Lukianoff, "redefined harassment to include even factually accurate statements if some students find them unflattering." The example in this case is one presented in the
April 11, 2007 issue of "The Primary Source."

I understand being upset that other people have a right to say and print what they want (with the exception of liable and slander). That freedom does NOT only extend to those with whom we agree. If we cannot protect the right of others to say/write what they want, then we cannot defend our own right to say/write what we want. Even if it is rude or uncivil (again, who defines those terms?).

Thank goodness for FIRE.