Last week, FIRE kicked off the school year with the placement of a full-page advertisement in the current "America's Best Colleges" edition of U.S. News and World Report, which helped generate record traffic to our website and introduce parents, students, and faculty around the country to FIRE's work. The ad continues to generate buzz for FIRE, and we have every hope that the ad helps usher in our most successful year ever.
This week, as students around the country are settling into the new semester, a number of student journalists have written about FIRE's work on America's campuses. Cornell University student Mike Wacker, in his first editorial column of the year at the Cornell Daily Sun, takes aim at the numerous free-speech double standards in place at the university. Wacker, a self-described conservative, has been called "racist" for running afoul of such double standards in his columns. He similarly cites some controversial articles written by members of The Cornell Review. He adds:
[A]s Cornell's history has shown, it is acceptable to express one's disagreements with The Cornell Review by stealing and burning a bunch of copies of the newspaper. It is also acceptable to have speech-limiting codes which have received a rating of Red from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.
Elsewhere, Adam was quoted in an article in The Northerner, the student newspaper of Northern Kentucky University (NKU), where he defended the constitutional rights of NKU Student Senator Dennis Chaney, Jr. Chaney, attending a freshman orientation session, was instructed by an administrator "not to pass out condoms as per the Student Orientation Guidelines." While he was later arrested for allegedly disturbing the event by loudly protesting the actions of administrators and the campus police as they confronted him, Adam defended Chaney's right to distribute condoms to symbolize his antiwar message. About NKU's speech policy for the event, Adam said, "[t]here's no reasonable reason to restrict sexual innuendo for prospective adult students." The article concludes by noting NKU's current red-light rating from FIRE, which this incident certainly did nothing to help.
Finally, as Brandon noted earlier in the week, FIRE's work was discussed at length in an astute column in The Claremont Independent by Claremont McKenna College student (and CFN member) Charles Johnson. Since Brandon has already written a nice treatment of the article this week, I'll merely point you to his post and advise you to give Johnson's article the thorough read it deserves.
I would be remiss, however, not to point you to the Claremont Conservative news blog, to which Johnson contributes, and which also features his article. There you'll find Claremont McKenna's Speech Code Widget, as well as the widgets for Harvey Mudd College, Pomona College, and Scripps College. (Pitzer College, the fifth of the Claremont Colleges, is not rated.) Since posting the widgets on the Claremont Conservative, views on the colleges' Spotlight pages have increased dramatically, a testament to the widgets' ability to raise awareness of America's college speech codes. Other students would do well to follow the Claremont Conservative's lead.
Posted by Peter Bonilla on September 5, 2008, at 04:40 p.m.
Last year, we wrote about the case of University of Delaware student Maciej Murakowski, who was barred from his classes and his dormitory pending a psychiatric examination because of material on his website that another student found offensive and which university officials found "racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, and homophobic." Murakowski soon was suspended and banned from campus altogether. Yesterday, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware granted summary judgment to Murakowski on his free speech claim.
Murakowksi had suffered under Delaware's wildly unconstitutional zero-tolerance speech code, which required immediate notification of the authorities, day or night, on account of "[a]ny instance that is perceived by those involved as being racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, homophobic, or otherwise oppressive." The Office of Residence Life considered such instances as emergencies equal to fire, suicide attempts, and alcohol overdoses. After FIRE brought attention to the policy, the speech code was revised in part. The new version still puts "significant bias related acts" on the same emergency level as fire and rape, but only when such incidents "have the potential to create a significant disturbance to the community." The "zero tolerance for hate" policy, though, remains active: "Those who engage in acts of hatred and bias-motivated threats and behavior will be confronted, prosecuted and expelled from our community."
Not only did the court rule in Murakowski's favor on the free speech claim—granting summary judgment—but it also made clear that Murakowski's language was protected speech even if it included website postings that were, as the court declared they were, "racist, sexist, homophobic, insensitive, degrading and contain graphic descriptions of violent behavior, and promote such behavior." Such expression, offensive though it may be, simply does not justify banning someone from campus and forcing him to undergo a psychiatric examination before he is allowed to return.
The court also noted that speech is constitutionally protected when it does not cause a substantial disruption on campus—even if an individual student feels so upset by the speech that she feels threatened by it, and even if university administrators strongly dislike what is being said. That is, the complaining student's reaction, together with the administrative trouble involved in dealing with the situation, was not enough to show a substantial disruption requiring punishment for Murakowski's protected speech.
With such strong standards as these in place, FIRE's case at Colorado College seems all the more ludicrous. In that case, two male students were found guilty of violence for posting flyers that clearly were a parody of a feminist group's flyers. Neither the male students' flyer nor Murakowski's website was a true threat, and neither caused substantial disruption on campus.
Both the University of Delaware and Colorado College invoked the truly horrific shootings at Virginia Tech in order to lend justification to their serious violations of free expression. But as Greg has written before, "we've seen a serious spike in cases where an imaginary threat of 'violence' is the pretext used to punish speech that offends some students or administrators." Invoking Virginia Tech only belittles the real suffering due to truly violent acts. Speech codes lose in court, time after time, and by now, administrators should know better.
The University of Delaware has a "yellow-light" rating from FIRE in our speech codes database for its ongoing threats to freedom of speech. For extensive information about other violations of student rights by Delaware's Office of Residence Life, go here.
Posted by Adam Kissel on September 5, 2008, at 03:52 p.m.
It's fall, and students are returning to classes and planning their extracurricular activities for the semester. FIRE understands how busy life can be for student activists in the oft-thankless task of making the world a better place. That is why the Campus Freedom Network is proud to introduce its Incentive Program for student members.
Here's how it works: whenever a CFN member engages in liberty-minded activism including publishing op-eds on FIRE cases and related issues, hosting FIRE speakers, and recruiting new members—he or she earns points. These points accumulate to earn prizes such as FIRE Nalgenes, gift certificates, and books including Don Downs' Restoring Free Speech and Liberty on Campus, KC Johnson's and Stuart Taylor's Until Proven Innocent, and Alan Charles Kors' and Harvey Silverglate's The Shadow University. Students with the highest point totals will be inducted into the CFN's Prometheus Society, and gain guaranteed acceptance to the 2009 CFN Summer Conference.
The CFN member most active in reforming his or her campus for liberty and earning the highest point total throughout the fall semester will receive a $2,500 scholarship or a technology bundle including a 42" widescreen, flat-panel HDTV, a library of FIRE DVDs, a MacBook with a 2.1GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor and a 13" screen, an 160GB iPod classic fully loaded with FIRE videos and podcast library, and an 8.0MP Canon PowerShot Digital Camera. The second place will receive the choice of the HDTV or the Macbook and the third place will receive the choice of the iPod or the digital camera.
Students, don't miss out on the opportunity to participate in this rewarding program. Here's another incentive: we'll send you a free FIRE t-shirt just for joining. Sign up today!
Posted by Luke Sheahan on September 5, 2008, at 10:31 a.m.
CFN member Charles Johnson wrote an excellent article yesterday in The Claremont Independent, where he serves as assistant editor. Johnson is a sophomore at Claremont McKenna College, one of five undergraduate colleges (along with Pomona College, Scripps College, Harvey Mudd College and Pitzer College) that make up The Claremont Colleges. The article, entitled "FIRE and Free Speech on Campus: Are the Claremont Colleges Violating the California Constitution?" explores the state of free speech in the Claremont College system.
Johnson begins by describing the case of Peter Musurlian, an independent filmmaker who posted a YouTube video critical of a lecture hosted by the Claremont Graduate University. Torch readers will remember Luke's blog post about this very subject where Luke pointed out that "real harassment is a serious crime, and every time it is misused by a college or university it cheapens the experience of those who are true victims of harassing behavior."
From there, Johnson takes his readers through a number of free speech cases on campus. This section, which he titled, "A History of Censorship on Claremont's Campuses" covers a number of interesting cases, including those described in FIRE's letter to the Claremont University Consortium earlier this spring.
In his article, Johnson describes yet another troubling episode:
But this belief that the intent doesn't matter - only the feelings of the aggrieved—is a mockery of justice, as several Pomona football players know well. These students were called into the office of Marcelle Holmes, Acting Associate Dean of Students and Dean of Women, after someone reported their breakfast conversation. The gentlemen were talking about an alleged hate crime—the QRC "attack"—and they were giving their opinion. It wasn't a hate crime, they said, but a bunch of students drinking in Walton Commons.
As they were leaving Frary, they were greeted by a campus safety officer and Dean Holmes. According to two of the boys, who asked that their names be kept out of any articles, Holmes said that someone overhearing their conversation had reported them for "hateful language." She argued that in the wake of Virginia Tech, they had to check all suspicious behavior before it became a threat; further, they said that the boys were "identifiable white males" so they could understand why "some people" would feel threatened.
Not only is this a misapplication of harassment policies, it is an upsetting evocation of Virginia Tech as a rationale, something Greg has written about before.
Johnson ends his article by suggesting that other "bias incidents"—including the destruction and defacement of a presidential campaign materials displayed by a student on his door—have not been taken as seriously by the administration, suggesting a double standard.
As he writes: "Contrary to the many supposed bias-incidents that occur on campus that can be easily cleaned up or erased off white boards, this one resulted in real damage of property. And yet this most serious of offenses went unnoticed by the Pomona community. No campus-wide email went out to the five college campuses." FIRE will continue to monitor that situation.
Readers interested in the full text of Johnson's article can find it here.
Stanley Fish has an interesting but flawed article on academic freedom in the Chronicle of Higher Education. Fish starts with the false premise that academic freedom is either a "guild concept" or is tied to larger concept of freedom, and he misses the fact that it is actually both.
After setting up his either/or premise, Fish concludes academic freedom is only a guild concept, writing, "Academic freedom is not a subset of freedom in general.... academic freedom is not a general freedom like the freedoms guaranteed you by the Constitution and the First Amendment; it is task-specific and task-limited."
Fish emphasizes that academic freedom is only the "freedom to do the job" and thinking otherwise "carries with it the danger of thinking that we are doing something noble and even vaguely religious..." Fish accordingly rejects the Supreme Court's long-established view that academic freedom is protected by the First Amendment, and insists that the only legal protection for academic freedom in our society comes from contracts.
Fish is certainly correct that academic freedom is a guild concept governing the job of academics. However, his assertion that it is either a guild concept or a broader moral concept is peculiar, given that professional tasks are usually governed by broader moral concepts. A judge's task, for example, arises out of justice; a doctor's task arises out of healing; a policeman's task arises out of protecting the innocent. The ethical canons governing those professions accordingly contain those broader moral concepts within their guild rules.
The task of academics, despite Fish's claim to the contrary, is no exception, and it is indeed a "noble" pursuit. The academic task is the pursuit of truth. This task requires freedom of thought and freedom of speech, which is why academic freedom refers to both the regulation of the profession and the broader moral concepts. When the Supreme Court says that the First Amendment protects the marketplace of ideas, and that the university is peculiarly the marketplace of ideas, that is precisely what the Court means: The government is precluded from suppressing speech in all of society, but attempts to suppress the speech of academics is particularly heinous because the whole point of the academic endeavor is to pursue ideas freely.
Fish acknowledges the academy must be free from external restraint, but he characterizes this as merely the freedom to engage in the "academic enterprise," which he defines as "pursuing a line of inquiry to whatever conclusion it brings you." He explicitly says this is not "freedom of thought," but "pursing a line of inquiry to whatever conclusion it brings" sounds suspiciously just like the freedom of thought. Indeed, it is hard to come up with a description of the academic enterprise that will not entail the freedom to think and speak, as both freedoms are necessary to the pursuit of knowledge.
Fish is correct in pointing out that academic freedom does not mean a freedom for any purpose. It means freedom to pursue and define knowledge, which is why the profession can only be entered after great efforts to produce a contribution to a particular discipline's understanding of knowledge. Faculties can and do refuse tenure to a professor who is, in their judgment, not capable of contributing to their discipline's understanding. State legislators are prevented from making the same judgment—whether or not to tenure a professor—because the academic enterprise requires experts in the pursuit and understanding of knowledge to determine whether to let a new member into the profession. If the state legislator substitutes her judgment for the schools, the pursuit and understanding of knowledge is endangered because the state legislator is not an expert in that pursuit, nor is she as likely to be motivated by it.
Academic freedom requires that both educational institutions as a whole and individual members of those enjoy freedom of thought and speech. Tenure contractually guarantees the freedom of thought and speech to individual professors so that they may each pursue their understanding of knowledge freely, regardless of whether the governing faculty later comes to see the individual professor as headed down a false path.
Fish's characterization of academic freedom as "only a guild concept" hinges on his attempt to characterize the academic enterprise as "only a job." Yet Fish fails in that attempt as he fails to provide a description of the academic enterprise that frees it from its particular and noble purpose: pursuing the truth. And this is a purpose that requires freedom of speech and thought: broad moral concepts that underlie the academy in particular and our free society in general.
Posted by Kelly Sarabyn on September 4, 2008, at 10:30 a.m.
The Sierra Club has released its second annual list of "cool schools" that promote environmental initiatives on their campuses. As a counterpoint, the Sierra Club also includes a list of schools that conspicuously fail to encourage—or even inhibit—environmental initiatives. And, interestingly enough, who should we find on that latter list but one of FIRE's Red Alert schools, the infamous Valdosta State University?
As regular Torch readers will no doubt recall, Valdosta State first came to FIRE's attention when former VSU President Ronald Zaccari expelled student Hayden Barnes for posting a collage on Facebook.com protesting Zaccari's plans to build a parking garage. Only after eight months of relentless pressure from FIRE and Hayden's attorney did the Board of Regents for the University System of Georgia reinstate Hayden. A lawsuit against Ronald Zaccari is currently pending in federal court.
During this ordeal, FIRE discovered Valdosta State's incredible "free expression area" policy, which restricts freedom of expression to a twelve-foot stage on VSU's 168 acre campus. While universities can implement time, place and manner restrictions for freedom of expression, the restrictions are required to be reasonable—and there's nothing reasonable about Valdosta State's free speech zone. To allot only 144 square feet for free expression on an approximately 7,318,080 square foot campus is ridiculous in itself, but Valdosta also requires that students get permission from the university 48 hours in advance and that they only use the free speech zone for only two hours a day, 12:00 - 1:00 PM and 5:00 - 6:00 PM.
VSU's blatant disregard for the First Amendment rights of not only Hayden Barnes, but its entire student body is documented in the short film FIRE in Action: Valdosta State University. It's not hard to see why Valdosta State's free speech zone policy was named FIRE's March 2008 Speech Code of the Month. In fact, VSU's free speech zone earned the university a place on FIRE's Red Alert list as one of five schools that we consider the worst-of-the-worst when it comes to student rights.
So what got VSU a place on the Sierra Club's black list? Actually, it was the same thing that got Valdosta State on FIRE's Red Alert list. The Sierra Club writes:
Want to protest your school's less-than-green projects? If you attend VSU, schedule an appointment with the administration first. Campus protests can occur only with administrative approval in a "free-expression area" during two nonconsecutive hours each day.
VSU's ridiculous free speech zone has gotten the condemnation it deserves not only from free speech advocates like FIRE, but also from those who simply want students to be able to speak freely on the issues of the day.
All Valdosta State has to do to get off FIRE's Red Alert list is to abolish its free speech zone. Doing so will also probably keep VSU off next year's Sierra Club list of uncool schools. Come on, VSU; it's not often that doing the right thing will get so many of your critics off your back.
Posted by Luke Sheahan on September 3, 2008, at 05:00 p.m.
As students head back to school at colleges and universities across the country, they should be aware of their rights and know how to defend them. FIRE's acclaimed Guides to Student Rights on Campus are a series of five handbooks that provide a thorough overview of student rights relating to free speech, religious liberty, due process, student fees and funding, and first year orientation and thought reform. The Guides provide information about the rights students enjoy and how to preserve them, as well as an introductory education in the foundational principles of a free society.
FIRE's Guide to First-Year Orientation and Thought Reform is especially important as students head back to school. Torch readers who followed FIRE's case at the University of Delaware are aware of the extent to which universities will go to mandate beliefs. Students shouldn't go back to school without this important primer on freedom of conscience. A number of enterprising students are passing out this Guide through Students for Liberty, a national student organization dedicated to spreading ideas about liberty. Students interested in passing out Guides or otherwise educating their fellow students about their rights should e-mail cfn@thefire.org.
All of FIRE's Guides can be downloaded free from FIRE's website. Hard copies are available free upon request to students and faculty members.
Posted by Luke Sheahan on September 3, 2008, at 12:21 p.m.
This summer's issue of The FIRE Quarterly includes a strong message from FIRE President Greg Lukianoff on understanding the sheer size of the college industry—and provides simple but effective ways in which FIRE supporters can make a big impact on protecting individual rights on campus. As Greg writes:
While FIRE's record of success is unparalleled, it is important that people understand the scale of the problem that remains before us. FIRE's small staff regularly takes on the Academy, an industry with estimated yearly expenditures exceeding $300 billion and total assets approaching half a trillion dollars. Every bit of support—no matter how big or small—is essential, and every new supporter contributes a meaningful step towards university reform.
Here are a few small steps FIRE supporters can take that will make a very big difference:
1. Follow up FIRE press releases with questions for top university administrators:
FIRE includes contact information for the top administrators at the end of each press release so that the people responsible for protecting fundamental rights on their campuses can be held personally accountable when they fail to do so. This approach has been remarkably successful over the years, as administrators often cannot defend in public what they do in private. A simple, well-reasoned, follow-up e-mail asking the university administration how it can defend its actions can make a crucial difference in a FIRE case.
2. Post FIRE's widgets on your website:
To help FIRE fight speech codes, place our "Speech Code" and "Speech Code of the Month" widgets on your website. Simply copying and pasting the HTML code provided here allows anyone to add either one or both of these widgets to his or her own personal blog or website. The widget is an easy way to express displeasure with speech restrictions at a given school.
3. Send FIRE Guides to students, faculty, and administrators:
FIRE's Guides to Student Rights on Campus are a series of books that educate students about basic rights on campus, from free speech to due process to religious liberty, and even what to expect at first-year orientation. We are happy to send free copies of our Guides to any college student who sends us a request.
4. Join the Campus Freedom Network (CFN):
Students and faculty are encouraged to sign up for the CFN, where you will have access to the CFN website that allows members to share resources, discuss plans, post multimedia documentation of their successes, workshop editorial columns, form alliances, and work from within to fight for individual rights on campus with an exciting new level of proficiency. With FIRE's new CFN Incentive Program, student members have the opportunity to win great prizes ranging from gift cards and free books to digital cameras, laptops, and even college scholarships just by bringing FIRE to their campus and signing up their friends.
As Greg wrote: " I believe FIRE's work is the best hope for positive change on campus, I believe we are the hardest-working nonprofit out there, and I believe there is no better way to spend your charitable dollar if you wish to see basic rights preserved on America's campuses."
Posted by Erin Royce on September 2, 2008, at 02:20 p.m.
FIRE announces its Speech Code of the Month for September 2008: Pennsylvania State University.
Penn State owes this undesirable distinction to the Penn State Principles, a set of behavioral guidelines that "[i]t is understood that members of the Penn State community agree to abide by...to ensure that Penn State is a thriving environment for living and learning." One of the principles states that "I will respect the dignity of all individuals within the Penn State community," and provides that
Actions motivated by hate, prejudice, or intolerance violate this principle. I will not engage in any behaviors that compromise or demean the dignity of individuals or groups, including intimidation, stalking, harassment, discrimination, taunting, ridiculing, insulting, or acts of violence. [Emphasis added.]
The problems with this policy are so patently obvious that I am not going to launch into a discussion of why they violate both the First Amendment and Penn State's own statement that it "is committed to the protection and preservation of the free search for truth; the freedom of thought, inquiry, and speech." What I am going to launch into a discussion of is how crazy Penn State—in particular—is to maintain this policy.
First, Penn State has already had to settle one lawsuit regarding several speech codes it used to maintain (it revised those policies as part of the settlement). Second, Penn State is a public university in the Third Circuit, where there are now two decisions clearly establishing the unconstitutionality of campus speech codes. In 2001, the Third Circuit struck down a public high school's harassment policy on First Amendment grounds because it conditioned the permissibility of speech on subjective listener reaction. The policy at issue defined harassment as "verbal or physical conduct based on one's actual or perceived race, religion, color, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or other personal characteristics, and which has the purpose or effect of substantially interfering with a student's educational performance or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment." The court found the policy unconstitutional because it did not "require any threshold showing of severity or pervasiveness," and thus "it could conceivably be applied to cover any speech about some enumerated personal characteristics the content of which offends someone." The court emphasized that "it is certainly not enough that the speech is merely offensive to some listener." Saxe v. State College Area School District, 240 F.3d 200 (3d Cir. 2001).
And just last month, in DeJohn v. Temple University, the Third Circuit held that a sexual harassment policy at Temple University was facially unconstitutional. Temple's former policy prohibited "all forms of sexual harassment" including "expressive, visual or physical conduct of a sexual or gender-motivated nature" whenever that conduct "has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work, educational purpose or status" or "creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment." In finding the policy unconstitutional, the court wrote that
[T]he policy's use of "hostile," "offensive," and "gender-motivated" is, on its face, sufficiently broad and subjective that they "could conceivably be applied to cover any speech" of a "gender-motivated" nature "the content of which offends someone." This could include "core" political and religious speech, such as gender politics and sexual morality.
Crucially, the court also pointed out that college administrators "are granted less leeway in regulating student speech than elementary and high school administrators"—which means the court's earlier decision in Saxe is yet more important on the college campus.
In light of all this, Penn State is playing with fire (no pun intended??) by maintaining a policy that so clearly violates what the Third Circuit has said—on multiple occasions—about the extent to which schools may restrict student speech in the name of preventing harassment. For this reason, Penn State is our September 2008 Speech Code of the Month. If you believe that your college or university should be a Speech Code of the Month, please email speechcodes@thefire.org with a link to the policy and a brief description of why you think attention should be drawn to this code. And if you would like to help fight abuses at universities nationwide, add FIRE's Speech Code of the Month Widget to your blog or website and help shed some much-needed sunlight on these repressive policies.
Posted by Samantha Harris on September 2, 2008, at 12:25 p.m.
With the publication of our U.S. News advertisement calling out FIRE's five Red Alert schools, FIRE has rung in the new school year with authority, and people are taking notice. With the help of Eugene Volokh, Phi Beta Cons, a slewof otherbloggers, and exceptional word of mouth, FIRE's ad has increased traffic to our website five to ten times above the normal volume. FIRE's well-placed ad is bringing welcome attention to the abuses of liberty on our nation's campuses, as well as a lot of first-time visitors to our site. Be sure to check out our special promo page to learn more about what makes the Red Alert Schools the "worst of the worst" when it comes to protecting liberty on campus, and be sure to read FIRE's posts on how Brandeis University, Colorado College, Johns Hopkins University, Tufts University, and Valdosta State University can get themselves off FIRE's Red Alert list and restore the commitments to freedom of speech and individual liberties they profess to hold so dear.
Elsewhere, FIRE Co-founder and Board Chairman Harvey Silverglate's Boston Phoenix article of July 30 ("Parody Flunks Out," which I blogged briefly a few weeks ago), was given a lengthy treatment by David Giacalone on the Harvard Law School-hosted blog f/k/a. Giacalone's post gives a thorough analysis of the article, which in Harvey's words "provoked more of a response than any of my columns in recent memory." Giacalone notes a highly critical blog authored by Philadelphia lawyer Max Kennerly which harshly criticizes Harvey's piece. Particularly, Kennerly attacks Silverglate's contention that political correctness and chilling speech regulations have dampened the content of the Harvard Law Review's parody issue and the Harvard Law School Drama Society's annual parody stage production, arguing that "there is nothing political about the show, and it contains no social commentary: it's harassment, pure and simple."
Giacalone may agree with Kennerly that the parodies have at best questionable social value, but sides with Harvey in arguing that calling such parodies "harassment" is a misuse and diminution of the word. Responding to Kennerly's contention that Silverglate's defense seeks to validate attacks on "women and minorities," Giacalone points him to FIRE's website and Guides as proof that FIRE stands for the protection of all groups, everywhere.
In an addendum to the post, Giacalone notes another blog critical of Harvey's positions, written by Elie Mystal, a 2003 Harvard Law graduate and three-year alumnus of the HLS parody production. For his part, Harvey noted his appreciation for the thorough treatment his work was given by commenting on Giacalone's blog. Quipped Harvey: "Most people excerpt a single sentence and then proceed to attack me!"
Posted by Peter Bonilla on August 29, 2008, at 04:45 p.m.
In case you haven't noticed, FIRE's comprehensive website is constantly being updated—sometimes even hourly. Unless you check back on a regular basis, it's easy to miss some important news from the front lines of the battle for free speech on campus. For supporters who wish to receive their FIRE news directly to their inbox, we encourage you to sign up for our email notification lists. We will send you periodic e-mail updates regarding current cases, FIRE events, and issues of note as well as links to recent media coverage. The "FIRE Update" e-newsletter—sent out two to 3 times a month—highlights recent and upcoming FIRE events, media coverage of FIRE's work, and new posts from FIRE's blog, The Torch. You can also sign up to receive FIRE's press releases, which report breaking news about FIRE's cases before they hit the media.
To join a list, please choose your subscription option and submit the requested information via this form. You can always choose to unsubscribe at a later date if you so wish. Once you're on the email lists, feel free to forward and distribute the news you receive—and thank you for your help in promoting and defending liberty on campus.
Posted by Erin Royce on August 29, 2008, at 02:50 p.m.
Hopkins earned its Red Alert designation by suspending eighteen-year-old junior Justin Park for posting an "offensive" Halloween party invitation online at Facebook.com. Because some found the invitation racially offensive, Park was charged with and found guilty of "harassment," "intimidation," and "failing to respect the rights of others." Park's original punishment included suspension from the university for a year; completion of 300 hours of community service; an assignment to read twelve books and to write a reflection paper on each; and mandatory attendance at a workshop on diversity and race relations. It took public pressure for the punishment even to be reduced.
FIRE wrote to Hopkins President William Brody to emphasize that the university's severe treatment of Park was inconsistent with its Undergraduate Student Conduct Code requirement that students must "protect the university as a forum for the free expression of ideas." Hopkins responded, arguing in effect that the university values things such as "mutual respect" over freedom of speech. Since private schools are free to set their own values and speech restrictions, we replied that Hopkins must at least adhere to truth-in-advertising. Hopkins has both a moral and a legal obligation to uphold the right to free expression that it has promised to its students. Hopkins remains free to publicly disavow its stated commitment to free speech. Instead, Hopkins wants to have it both ways: to pretend that speech is free at Hopkins when its treatment of cases like Justin Park's proves just the opposite.
The sad truth is that Hopkins continues to maintain the charade, and speech has become even less free since Justin Park's time. In April 2007, we again wrote President Brody, who had noted that Hopkins had revised its "Principles for Ensuring Equity, Civility and Respect for All" because of Park's case. The result was an even more restrictive expression policy in the name of building "a stronger community." The Principles provide, in relevant part, that:
The Johns Hopkins University is an environment in which all people behave in a manner that engenders mutual respect, treating each other with courtesy and civility regardless of position or status in the academy. Rude, disrespectful behavior is unwelcome and will not be tolerated.
Our community is one where we demonstrate respect for each other; we accept our individual differences; and we provide opportunities for everyone to maximize his or her potential. Every member of our community will be held accountable for creating a welcoming workplace for all. [Boldface and italics in original.]
This remarkable code seems to come right out of Victorian propriety regulations. The code, by its very breadth, turns common student interaction into actionable campus offenses. Such a code is impossible to enforce uniformly, for virtually everyone is guilty of being "disrespectful" at some point, so the only option is for Hopkins to enforce this code selectively, whenever officials decide that speech has been, for example, rude enough. The code therefore virtually guarantees arbitrary punishments and viewpoint discrimination.
Why would parents wish to send their child to a college that maintains policies that mean their son or daughter may be punished at any time for normal behavior that simply isn't deemed "welcoming" enough? Why would any students wish to attend a university where their academic careers are so loosely protected? Hopkins is on FIRE's Red Alert list because students should think twice about attending such a school that promises free expression but takes away that freedom at the same time—and has no qualms about defending its self-contradictory policy.
Indeed, Hopkins responded to our concerns simply by stating that Hopkins promotes "important University values" that include "respect for individual differences, freedom of expression, diversity, mutual respect and non-discrimination." But students have been left with no way to understand how Hopkins can respect their freedom of expression and simultaneously reserve the right to punish them for exercising that freedom whenever some administrator or conduct committee deems the student too rude or too disrespectful. Furthermore, since December 2006, Hopkins students have labored under Brody's own published statement that speech that is "tasteless" or that breaches standards of "civility" will not be allowed.
The "Principles for Ensuring Equity, Civility and Respect for All" are self-contradictory and are so vague that they chill speech on Hopkins's campus. So long as a Hopkins student cannot be sure whether he or she will be the next Justin Park, those who engage in vigorous discourse and debate will be at risk. Hopkins appears completely unwilling to tell its students, alumni, and staff that they do not have the same free speech rights as they would at any of Maryland's public colleges and universities. So, to get off FIRE's Red Alert list, Hopkins must either repeal the ridiculous speech code banning "disrespectful" expression or make it 100% clear that this statement has no force as a rule and may never be used to punish protected speech. Without such action, Hopkins' claims to respect freedom of speech are simply farcical.
To continue our series on how the five Red Alert schools named in our U.S. News advertisement can get themselves off the list, today we discuss the situation at Tufts University (we have blogged about how Colorado College, Brandeis University, and Valdosta State University). As you can see, Tufts University is a repeat offender against the principles of liberty on campus, with no less than four separate FIRE cases to its name, including three between 2000 and 2001, when FIRE was still new. Unfortunately, during the intervening years between 2001 and 2006, when the first hint arose of the controversy that would ultimately add Tufts to our list of the "worst of the worst" schools for liberty in America, Tufts appears to have learned very little about the value of freedom of expression that it claims to value.
Tufts' most recent descent into censorship began in December 2006, when a conservative campus newspaper called The Primary Source (TPS) published a satirical Christmas carol entitled "Oh Come All Ye Black Folk." The piece sparked controversy on campus for its biting parody of race-based admissions. In response, TPS published an apology on December 6, 2006. Four months later, in April 2007, TPS r
