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.

College Republicans Do Not Have to Lie

The Student Senate of the University of Rhode Island (URI)did the right thing. They refused to accept a proposal to derecognize the College Republicans. Further, the College Republicans do not have to apologize for their farcical satire that advertised "scholarships" for white, heterosexual, American males.

Hurray for Freedom of Speech. No compelled speech (forced apology) at URI.

Of course, the SOARC, otherwise known as the Student Organizations Advisory and Review Committee were likely upset, as this oversight committee had directed the College Republicans to either publically apologize (to whom? and for what) or face derecognition.

See FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) for more, including the letters that went back and forth.

HIgh School Student Wants to Exercise Free Speech Between Classes

I have been working on a motion for leave to appeal, and forgot entirely about posting on my blog!

The administration says that the student can hand out information, but the high school is worried about the content of the material as well as the places that the information will be shared.

If the subject of homosexuality is discussed at all at the school, they why not allow opposing viewpoints? Many school districts include homosexual instruction from early in their elementary school curriculum. I do no know if that is the case in the school district in question.

The student in question wants to hold a fairly widespread presentation on the "Day of Truth." The "Day of Truth" is a day where Christians attempt to present their idea that homosexual behavior is immoral. Period.

Unfortunately, it appears that the students who wish to have the "Day of Silence" do not have to jump through all the procedural hoops as those who wish to have a "Day of Truth." This is sometimes the case when one viewpoint is considered "harmful" for people to have to hear or see.

I remember that sort of thing from my own high school days. We could not talk about the Viet Nam War unless it was pro-war at my high school. Also, we could not put information regarding any drug treatment centers in our high school newspaper. So, things have not really changed. Free speech exists only for the "politically correct" viewpoint. In my own high school, I suspect that the reasoning for censorship was that the school should support what the parents wanted their kids to know - and protect the kids from "knowledge beyond their years." Or something like that.

What is the Day of Silence? A day at high schools that is designed by students to inform other students that gay students need support. OK. That is a reasonable exercise of free speech. Note: the students are "speaking" all day long - by their silence. And everyone is supposed to receive that message, no matter whether in class, on the quad, at lunch, between classes, etc.

The Superintendent of the school district indicated that the officials were in no way trying to stop the student and that the event is on the schedule.

There appears to be a disagreement over that fact. The student claims that the school always makes him write a whole lot of letters and asks for meetings with his parents every time he tries to have an event. And, he asserts that has happened this time, too.

Oh, the student in question is the president of the Christian club at his high school.

As an aside, the high school has a really cool logo.

Central Michigan University Students May Discriminate on the Basis of Politics

On a few occasions during the past four years, I have noted that a ploy to destroy some college student organizations comes from within. What? You ask? Well, if a person is an "outsider" to any given organization, and really, really dislikes the message/dogma/political message, etc. of that organization, the "outsider" can join the organization and try to change things from the inside.

I first heard of this type of tactic way back in 1974 from a man I was dating at the time. Apparently, it is an effective technique.

Yesterday, Central Michigan University revised its policy that banned ideological and political groups from discriminating (via membership) on the basis of political persuasion." How this works: a libertarian group can now require that its members be libertarians. Or, perhaps more importantly, the board of the campus Republican club can now insist that its members be Republicans, not Democrats, or Green Party, or whatever.

However, I could not find any mention of this decision on the University's website.

Tracking Citizen Communication with Executive Branch Officials

Well, Congress may be doing it again. They are trying to interfere with the free exchange of information and opinions. Of course, it all depends on the definition of the term "significant contact." There is a current cry about all individual citizens and their comments to the government being tracked because all citizens will be defined as lobbyists. Actually, upon reading the text of the proposed legislation, it is citizens who contact the executive branch, not legislative, that will be tracked.

I see this is a way to build more employment opportunity in the executive branch and the Office of Government ethics. Their respective reporting and reviewing duties will grow as a result of this legislation. More taxpayer funds might go "down the tube" to see what individual citizens, oh, yeah, lobbyists, are saying to the Executive branch.

So, what is the definition of "significant contact"? And why, only, the Executive Branch? Is there not some influence peddling in the Legislative Branch?