Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Friday August 11 2017, @11:04AM   Printer-friendly
from the not-in-my-safe-space dept.

Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard

With Governor Roy Cooper (D) taking no action on the bill, the state of North Carolina has enacted the Restore Campus Free Speech Act, the first comprehensive campus free-speech legislation based on the Goldwater proposal. That proposal, which I [Stanley Kurtz (Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center)] co-authored along with Jim Manley and Jonathan Butcher of Arizona's Goldwater Institute, was released on January 31 and is now under consideration in several states. It's fitting that North Carolina should be the first state to enact a Goldwater-inspired law.

[...] The North Carolina Restore Campus Free Speech Act achieves most of what the Goldwater proposal sets out to do. It ensures that University of North Carolina policy will strongly affirm the importance of free expression. It prevents administrators from disinviting speakers whom members of the campus community wish to hear from. It establishes a system of disciplinary sanctions for students and anyone else who interferes with the free-speech rights of others, and ensures that students will be informed of those sanctions at freshman orientation. It reaffirms the principle that universities, at the official institutional level, ought to remain neutral on issues of public controversy to encourage the widest possible range of opinion and dialogue within the university itself. And it authorizes a special committee created by the Board of Regents to issue a yearly report to the public, the regents, the governor, and the legislature on the administrative handling of free-speech issues.

Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/450027/north-carolina-campus-free-speech-act-goldwater-proposal


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 12 2017, @04:29PM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 12 2017, @04:29PM (#552888)

    Lol, university speakers are not often "for CS majors only".

  • (Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Saturday August 12 2017, @10:07PM (3 children)

    by FakeBeldin (3360) on Saturday August 12 2017, @10:07PM (#552991) Journal

    Every committee / group recognised by the university has been recognised as providing a function within/for the university (and, therefore, in line with the university's mission).
    What I was suggesting was that each group sticks to its function.
    Thus: the CS department invites speakers with relations to CS, legal invites speakers with relation to legal, etc.

    This means that any group that the university recognises and evaluates as a group with a function that will contribute to its mission, can get university support (facilities) for speakers in line with that function.
    If your group is not recognised, or your planned event deviates from the claimed function, then the university has no reason to support you.

    Note that this is a typical CS solution to a legal problem :)
    All the conundrums can now be resolved in some formalism, yet in real life it'll never work out this way.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday August 13 2017, @11:36AM (2 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday August 13 2017, @11:36AM (#553187) Journal

      What I was suggesting was that each group sticks to its function.

      I disagree. Most groups don't actually have a function. If a group of 20+ students, to use the above criteria wants to invite someone, what's the function of the group? Why should it have a function? It's just another way for selective bias to enter into the system. It also prevents simple quid pro quo like the CS department invites our speaker because they still have some money in the budget for speakers, and we'll do something for them later to pay them back.

      • (Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Sunday August 13 2017, @05:32PM (1 child)

        by FakeBeldin (3360) on Sunday August 13 2017, @05:32PM (#553310) Journal

        Why should it have a function?

        To prevent the complete arbitrarily spending of (public) money at the whim of whoever is holding the purse strings.

        It also prevents simple quid pro quo ...

        In your hypothetical example, if the speaker's talk has some relevance to the CS department, then it is within the CS department's purview. No problem there.
        If it doesn't... then why should the CS department be allowed to use university funds and facilities to this end? Why should the university sponsor such things? If there's general interest, book a room, charge admission, reimburse speaker, all off-campus.

        No need and no reason to use university funds and facilities for non-university business.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday August 14 2017, @03:27AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 14 2017, @03:27AM (#553455) Journal

          No need and no reason to use university funds and facilities for non-university business.

          What makes you think it's not university business?