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This discussion has been archived.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 Friday August 11 2017, @07:20PM (12 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @07:20PM (#552518)

    I agree with your sentiment, but this isn't about rolling out the red carpet. If some group of students invite a speaker to their university then they should be able to hear them and schedule use of an appropriate venue. You won't get random groups being able to force their way in and get a venue, they must be invited by students.

    This is critical, we can't allow people to shutdown legal events just because they do not like the content. It cuts both ways, freedom include freedom for ignorant fools.

  • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday August 11 2017, @08:12PM (10 children)

    by Grishnakh (2831) on Friday August 11 2017, @08:12PM (#552549)

    If some group of students invite a speaker to their university then they should be able to hear them and schedule use of an appropriate venue.

    Sorry, I disagree. How large is this "some group of students"? Two? On any decent-sized university campus, you can always find some extremists who'd be willing to invite anyone. That doesn't mean it's a good idea. Why should students get all this power?

    If a large enough fraction of the student body agrees to a speaker, that sounds fine. But some random little extremist student group shouldn't be able to force an extremely provocative and controversial speaker on everyone.

    This is critical, we can't allow people to shutdown legal events just because they do not like the content.

    Why not? It would be perfectly legal for me to invite KKK members to my house to have a party (a "legal event"), but I'm not going to because I have no interest in associating with those fools. That doesn't mean I'm "shutting down a legal event", it means I'm just not having one. The same goes here. I don't see how a University is obligated to host a speaker just because some dumb students want it. That'd be like me being required to host some jerk at my house just because my teenage kid wanted them over.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @09:43PM (6 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @09:43PM (#552601)

      You can't compare your home to a university. Also, it is up to each institution to develop their own criteria. I imagine they would want a student group of 20+ at least in order to reserve a venue for some speaker. I don't think it is a good precedent to allow universities to have such subjective rules as you propose. Some well defined limits and requirements for speakers must be created so that there is no subective bias that comes into play.

      • (Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Saturday August 12 2017, @09:35AM (5 children)

        by FakeBeldin (3360) on Saturday August 12 2017, @09:35AM (#552810) Journal

        I'd imagine that they would want some relevance to the mission or the fields of study of the university. No anti-vaxxers at the CS department, no spiritual healers for the law department, etc. The university has no duty to provide a platform outside of furthering their mission.

        • (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?

    • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Saturday August 12 2017, @03:16AM (2 children)

      by jmorris (4844) on Saturday August 12 2017, @03:16AM (#552711)

      Dude, have you ever read what you write? It is frightening in the lack of awareness.

      How large is this "some group of students"? Two?

      So? Then a couple of students are chatting with some visitor in some common area somewhere. Explain the possible harm or reason why anyone should care? A school as a variety of places than can be booked for events of all sizes, from a meeting room for a dozen up the the sportsball stadiums that can seat thousands. The only requirement is a student organization books one appropriate to the audience.

      You are forgetting something. This argument is not about the speaker, it is about the students. The school decided they were worthwhile admissions, they decided a particular speaker would be a good idea for whatever organization they are members of.

      But some random little extremist student group shouldn't be able to force an extremely provocative and controversial speaker on everyone.

      That is entirely on the snowflakes who get all butthurt and "simply can't" at the idea somebody they disagree is going to be within a mile of them. If it is a mandatory program that all students must attend then you would have a point. That is never the case except when Proggies bring in a speaker to a "must attend" event like graduation. One of the lessons schools should be teaching is how to be a f*cking human in a pluralistic society, and that includes accepting the fact that there are people who disagree with you, and those people are talking, lecturing and otherwise engaged in the life of the mind that is the reason the institution they attend exists. If they can't accept that THEY should be expelled on the grounds of being unfit receptacles for an advanced education.

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 12 2017, @04:34PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 12 2017, @04:34PM (#552889)

        Says the human shaped pile of shit who wants to literally murder people he doesn't like. Hypocritical garbage bin.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday August 13 2017, @11:16AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday August 13 2017, @11:16AM (#553183) Journal

          Says the human shaped pile of shit who wants to literally murder people he doesn't like. Hypocritical garbage bin.

          And yet jmorris is right. Such is the power of ad hominem attacks.

  • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday August 12 2017, @12:01AM

    by aristarchus (2645) on Saturday August 12 2017, @12:01AM (#552645) Journal

    If some group of students invite a speaker to their university then they should be able to hear them and schedule use of an appropriate venue.

    Some group of Nazi students? Some group of Christian Fundie Westboro students? Some group of Milo Man-Boy Love students? Some group of Young Republican/Cannibal/Karl Rove students? And if said student group is just a front, completely funded and controlled by some off-campus anti-intellectual organization, like D'nesh D'Souza? And what if, just if, an airline makes Ann Coulter change her seat? [soylentnews.org] Is this not free speech in the service of treachery and rebel insurrection?