Table of Contents
Penn State: Pulling the Wool over Your Eyes
Today, in The Chronicle of Higher Education, Penn State attempted to play damage control after significantly altering two patently unconstitutional policies. In what is probably the lamest justification for doing so, the Penn State tried to claim that, “These changes do appear to match up well with the interests of the plaintiff…but the revision would have been made in this manner regardless of any legal action.”
So the fact that Penn State was sued in federal court had absolutely nothing to do with an abrupt alteration in policies? Next time, Penn State might want to make sure that the revision history of AD29 and AD42 matches their story. The truth is that these polices have been around, in substantially the same form, since the early 1990s. This makes it extraordinarily hard to believe that the changes were merely routine revisions; if so, why did it take more then a decade to change the policies? It isn’t very hard to see through Penn State’s apparent ruse.
Would it really be so difficult for Penn State to just say, “We recognize that we have a legal and moral right to ensure a free exchange of ideas on campus, so we altered the policies accordingly”?
Recent Articles
FIRE’s award-winning Newsdesk covers the free speech news you need to stay informed.
LAWSUIT: Historian fights back after Pennsylvania state senator sues him for criticizing book
Sen. Doug Mastriano’s lawsuit is a textbook “SLAPP” case, in which powerful individuals sue their critics into silence through long, costly litigation.
FIRE statement on California’s Defending Democracy from Deepfake Deception Act
AB 2655 threatens Californians’ right to speak freely about politics in their state.
House passes historic legislation protecting free speech on college campuses
Public colleges must do more to protect the First Amendment rights of students and faculty on campus, according to a new bill in the House.
Kamala Harris comedy roast denied funding by University of South Carolina student senate
Despite pushback, the student senate denied funding to the student group Uncensored America for the event in a blatant example of viewpoint discrimination.