SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the when-the-First-Amendment-isn't-clear-enough dept.
On college campuses, outrage over provocative speakers sometimes turns violent.
It's becoming a pattern on campuses around the country. A speaker is invited, often by a conservative student group. Other students oppose the speaker, and maybe they protest. If the speech happens, the speaker is heckled. Sometimes there's violence.
In other cases — as with conservative commentator Ann Coulter at the University of California, Berkeley last week — the event is called off.
Now, a handful of states, including Illinois, Tennessee, Colorado and Arizona, have passed or introduced legislation designed to prevent these incidents from happening. The bills differ from state to state, but they're generally based on a model written by the Goldwater Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Arizona.
The model bill would require public universities to remain neutral on political issues, prevent them from disinviting speakers, and impose penalties for students and others who interfere with these speakers.
The author of the model bill argues that the neutrality stipulation is necessary for public institutions funded by tax dollars, "who shouldn't be forced to subsidize speech that they disagree with." In response to the legislation, a Democratic North Carolina legislator criticized the bill as an unnecessary "regulation of a constitutional right." The story also mentions that "Critics say this kind of legislation could hinder a university's ability to regulate hate speech on campus," but the bill author responds that hate speech is "not well-defined in the law."
Although the proposed legislation varies by state, the model bill linked above recommends a number of initiatives, from clear campus policies on protecting free speech to severe disciplinary actions for students who interfere with that right. Perhaps the strongest section of the model bill would require that "Any student who has twice been found responsible for infringing the expressive rights of others will be suspended for a minimum of one year, or expelled" (Section 1.9).
In other free speech news, USA Today reports that the FCC is launching an investigation into an "obscene" joke by Stephen Colbert concerning Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, which caused a Twitter firestorm and led to a trending #FireColbert hashtag. While the joke was sexually explicit, the offensive word was bleeped in broadcast. CNN has argued that the FCC is merely doing its job in investigating "a number" of complaints, but Slate notes the high legal threshold that would be necessary for a fine in this case, given the late hour of the broadcast and the three-pronged test for obscenity.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday May 08 2017, @12:43PM (2 children)
I get your point. But I also disagree somewhat with your implicit assertion that it's somehow wrong to require that an external individual have some sort of "official invitation" to use the private property of the university. Now most of this is talking about state/public universities, but there's public property and then there's "public property." To take an extreme example, a dorm room at a public university may ultimately be owned by the state, but I think we can all recognize that it's NOT a "public space" for use by the public at will.
Similarly, buildings, auditoriums, lecture halls, and other facilities of the university are subject to the control of the administration. A lot of the issues are buried in your qualifier "If a student can book a hall..." Isn't that really the question here? Under what circumstances should a student be allowed to book a university facility and for what purposes? If the university finds out that you've booked the hall for something antithetical to the university's mission, can they not exercise some control over that? And at some point, allowing outsiders a role on college campuses WILL be considered as a tacit endorsement of those outsiders.
Say the University of Northern Podunk adopts your policy. Say there's a handful of Flat-Earthers among the student body. The students start inviting speakers every weekend to promote Flat-Earth theory. Then they start organizing "conferences," inviting various "scholars" of Flat-Earthdom. Those scholars start advertising themselves after their visit: "My research has been presented at a conference at the University of Northern Podunk..." Eventually, the University of Northern Podunk becomes known for Flat-Earth beliefs, even if the administration, faculty, and vast majority of the student body think it's BS.
Now imagine whatever issue you think is complete nonsense on one side (but where there's a set of fringe folks who'd love to speak on it) and have this play out at a prominent public university. And if you think I'm making up such concerns, there have been cases where anti-science groups (or whatever) have booked halls on university campuses and then hosted conferences there or whatever. This is not a theoretical concern. At some point the disinformation that could be spread by providing even facilities to host events can become a concern. And at some point, we may need to actually exercise "viewpoint discrimination," for not all viewpoints are equal. Flat Earth theory simply is NOT a matter that should be put up for constant debate at a university.
It's always a balancing act, and I'll agree that some university administrations have made some poor decisions. But I think state legislatures trying to micromanage college administration decisions may not be the best way to address this.
(Score: 2) by slinches on Monday May 08 2017, @04:15PM
I don't really disagree with anything you've said specifically. It's true the legal definitions are vague, but it's going to be up to the courts to interpret those. Although, I don't necessarily disagree with the law either as long as there isn't something that unfairly targets one political ideology.
The intent seems pretty reasonable overall. If a student group invites a speaker, they shouldn't be shouldn't shouted down or threatened with violence and differences in the political leanings of the administration should not be cause to bar them from speaking. The question I have is whether it treats private institutions differently from public ones. The same protections should be afforded an atheist speaker invited to talk at a religious school as a conservative one at a liberal leaning college.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Tuesday May 09 2017, @04:50AM
You are right, though the purpose of college education is debating, questioning and living in an atmosphere of dissent. Otherwise it would be just another school.
This is a legal loophole, something probably a trademark litigation should resolve. It is still not a university's place to pick sides on political spectrum though. Flat-earthers getting traction is just a political reality of our world - a part of bigger problem of 'power' trumping 'knowledge', if you will - a much bigger problem. Keeping universities out of this game is only in interest of humanity.