What I see here is the common Fox/Right Wing narrative of a single instance used as a broad brush example to promote the meme that “all college professors are lefty nuts”.
Well done, Ditka, for carrying the water and forwarding the talking point! Do you guys get badges or something for this?
The professor was in the wrong, and sounds like an unrepentant dick with his reverse-sour-grapes “I agreed to the seminar because I love hearing others’ thoughts and opinions” shit. I think the ADF spokesman overstates the magnitude of the offense, though; if this dope is in a “league of his own” when it comes to quashing free speech, the First Amendment must be on really solid ground everywhere else, so that’s reassuring.
I am curious about what the other messages were, as the one example cited by Fox News, “You Can Be Pregnant and Successful,” is uncontroversial to the point of blandness.
The Khmer Rouge called that “re-education”. 
Is a professor at a public university really a representative of the government? Isn’t that kind of like saying that every parking meter reader, every parks and rec program director and every police officer is a representative of the government? The people in my examples all have authority of one kind or another in some instances, but that doesn’t make them government representatives, and their issuing orders don’t constitute denial of freedom of speech. Heck, a professor in their classroom, telling their students not to talk during class isn’t a denial of freedom of speech.
Yes, a professor at a public university acting in such manner is acting as a representative of government. And police officers, meter maids, and parks and rec directors are representatives of government when acting in their professional capacity.
The professor acted within his professional capacity by encouraging students to take action to erase the pro-life protesters’ chalked messages. And he further acted in his capacity when he made statements interpreting university policy regarding a free speech area.
A professor may limit talking in class as a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction of the sort that has been repeatedly upheld by the courts.
Such restrictions must be reasonable and neutrally applied. So a university could try to prohibit all chalking of sidewalks, but applying that to protesters would be undercut if the university does not police the matter uniformly without regard to content. Or a university could try to prohibit only chalking of sidewalks with a pro-life message but a court might note that is not content neutral application and thus a first amendment violation.
Yeah, this guy gives good causes a bad name. Trying to rub the chalk off the sidewalk is stupid enough, but pushing his own students to engage in this sort of behavior is idiotic, and a complete abrogation of his duties as a public university academic.
I will add, however, as a general principle that is not specific to any particular message: i don’t see what the problem is with erasing someone else’s chalked sidewalk message. The sidewalk is a public space, and the reason that only chalk is allowed on sidewalks is precisely because it does not create a permanent mark on the concrete. If i have a right to place chalk on a public thoroughfare, don’t you have the right to douse that same sidewalk with water, or scrape your shoes over the top of it? It is, by definition, a place where people walk. The fact that someone has erased your chalk does not deprive you of free-speech rights.
I’m not arguing that it’s a good idea, or that it’s an intelligent way to deal with differences of opinion, but i’m also not sure that it’s something that should be the subject of legal action.
It also occurred to me to wonder whether the chalking itself was in line with university rules. The campus where i teach allows chalking, but the design has to be submitted for approval beforehand, and can only be left in place for one week. After that, facilities services will clean it off, and the organization will be charged for the cleaning cost. Chalking is only allowed on “plain cement walkways,” because of the risk of permanent marking on surfaces like marble, ceramic tiles, brick walls, etc.
I went and found the CSU Fresno Student Club and Organization Handbook (PDF), and found this:
This is a content-neutral rule, designed to prevent the university from being perennially covered with unsightly chalk messages all over the sidewalks. The fact that the students might have been breaking a rule doesn’t make the professor’s actions any more professional or admirable, of course.
Quoted in the first reply: “Tasy insisted they had permission from the university.”
Who is promoting the meme that “all college professors are lefty nuts” in your eyes? Personally, I don’t know anyone that thinks every single one of them are. It’s certainly not a claim I’ve made in this thread.
In light of FSU’s chalking rules, cited by mhendo, it sounds like the good Professor was engaging in some vigilante justice there, taking the law into his own hands. That almost certainly suggests that his objection was specifically over the political content, and not merely over the breaking of the chalk rules.
Add to that, he engaged a troupe of his students to join him. That demonstrates all the more clearly that he’s not only engaging in political content vigilantism, but suborning his students to do likewise. That’s not good.
Add to that Tasy’s claim that they had approval. We need a bit more detail about that. I would assume that any such approval would have to be given in writing. Did Tasy have that? If so, then the good Professor certainly needs some re-education — not just about Free Speech matters, but also about taking the law into your own hands.
Professor, re-educate thyself!
While the professor is off in the gulag getting re-educated, the school might also want to bring in some guest lecturers to speak to his class. After this event, the students might need some re-educating too.
Disclaimer: I am a nearly-but-not-quite-flaming liberal and I object to anti-abortion messages. But what was that thing Voltaire supposedly said about opinions he disagreed with?
Thanks for pointing out to me something i’ve already read.
But a claim from a student, without the university confirming the permission, does not put the matter to rest, as far as i’m concerned. Especially when the chalking appears to violate a written university policy that was, according to the document i linked, updated as recently as last month. And a look back at previous policies on this issue, from 2015 and 2012, show that the ban on using chalk on university sidewalks has been around at Fresno State for at least five years.
I concede the possibility that the students did, in fact, have permission from the university, but none of the stories linked so far confirm this. And if they did have such permission, i’d also be interested to know who gave the permission, considering that it appears to violate the university’s own clearly-stated rules regarding the use of chalk on campus sidewalks.
The professor who thinks college campuses are not free speech areas deserves censure and mockery.
Though I wouldn’t want to have to look at anyone’s dumbass chalk graffiti. These intrepid anti-abortophobes (and other activists) need to get past the chalk and crayon stage and start carrying signs, marching, streaking, preparing savory barbecue meals to taunt hunger strikers, and participating in other mature activities.
Fresno needs to preserve it’s image as a city of incomparable beauty, after all! 
Did you watch the video? The student that is filming said she got permission from “Plant Ops & Student Involvement”. If you really want to know, here is their webpage, with a phone number and email address. You could contact them directly and find out for yourself. If you wanted to go the extra mile, you could even report your findings back to us here.
And here is the page for their Facilities Manangement division, which includes the Plant Ops department, and a phone number to contact them too.
Read my last post, because not a single thing you have written changes it.
The ONLY evidence we have so far for university permission is the student’s own claim. I’m not arguing that the students didn’t have permission; i’m simply suggesting that i’ll need more information to convince me, especially since what they were doing directly contravenes the actual university policies, evidence of which i have posted in this thread.
None of this changes the fact that the faculty member acted like an idiot, and rightly got his ass handed to him. I’m simply curious as to why the students were doing something that is expressly forbidden in the university’s written policies. And if they did get permission, why was that permission given in contradiction of those written policies?
As for contacting the university and reporting back to you, thanks, but i’ve got belly-button lint that needs seeing to.
Your curiosity has an obvious answer: because they got permission from the university to do so, just like Tasy explained in the video. AFAIK, no one is even claiming she didn’t have permission. Why do you have a hard time believing this?
Read my posts. The answer to your question is right there. If you have any trouble understanding anything i’ve written, please ask, and i’ll do my best to explain it to you.
Any “professor” that thinks that “erasing” some other persons “speech” is “free speech” is IMO a stupid jackass.
Bet that stupid fucker would not greet my airhorn blaring over his class lecture with a “hey man…free speech…fuck yeah” attitude.
God damn moron.
I actually find this quite concerning for freedom of speech. If these kids did indeed have special permission, then why does it appear to be only for one side? I would find it quite disturbing that one side in a political argument got permission that a professor didn’t even know about to specially violate existing rules on the subject.
If they did not have permission, then the professor very much should have been allowed to remove it. Your freedom of speech is not violated if you didn’t have the right to use the venue or media in the first place. Yes, the professor was factually incorrect that he has the same freedom as the students, since he can be seen as acting for the school. But the actual erasing would be perfectly acceptable if there was no permission.
So this sort of thing would perpetuate the myth that freedom of speech means the freedom to vandalize, which is wrong, too. It’s just like how it doesn’t include the freedom to trespass, which is something the right is all het up about.
The message made by the students isn’t remotely important to me. If you have the freedom to say pro-life things, then I have the freedom to point out the problems with that stance (basically that it’s completely arbitrary and not historically or religiously sound).
Well, first, we don’t know that they had “special permission.” It seems to me, regarding permission, that there are a few possibilities here.
One is that the student was lying, and they did not actually have permission at all. I doubt that this is the case, but i would still be interested to know from the university whether they had granted permission. If they did, i’d also be interested to know why, given the written policies.
If the students DID have permission, then it could simply be that, despite the written policies i’ve found, the university will generally grant student groups permission to chalk the sidewalks, as long as they ask first. That’s the practice on the campus of the CSU where i teach. To assert special treatment, you would have to show not only that the university granted permission, but that it had refused permission to other groups, and that its decisions were being made based on the content of the speech. We have nowhere near enough information to make this sort of claim.
And finally, even if the students did NOT have permission, you are absolutely incorrect about the role of the professor here. On a university campus like this, professors’ power over students is largely limited to their interactions with the students in classrooms and other areas where official university business is taking place. Those of us on the faculty have basically no authority over the general behavior of students on the campus.
In my classes, i can determine the syllabus, the workload, the assignments, the exams, and stuff like that. I can require students to undertake certain tasks, and i can require them to participate in certain activities, and i can even require them to be silent at certain times. If a student is disruptive to the learning environment and to the other students, i can require the student to leave the class, and call campus police if they don’t comply.
But outside my classroom, i can’t do jack. If a student drops a piece of litter on the ground, or parks in a faculty parking space, or ride a skateboard in defiance of campus rules, i have no special authority, as a faculty member, to stop them or punish them. I can, like any other person, tell them that they’re acting like a jackass or that they’re breaking the rules, and i can, like any other person, notify the appropriate authorities. But i don’t get to play cop just because i’m a faculty member.
If the students in this case were indeed breaking campus rules, what the professor should have done is inform them of this, and then, if they ignored him, he should have notified the appropriate campus authorities, which would most likely include the Plant Operations or the Facilities Management people, as well as the campus police. He could also have informed the Dean of Students, who is the person who often deals with disciplinary actions related to campus rules violations. And he definitely should NOT have encouraged his own students to confront the other students and start erasing their chalk. This sort of pitting students against one another is not something that we, as faculty members, are supposed to be doing.
Why do you think it is only for one side? I have no reason to believe similar permission wouldn’t be granted to a pro-choice group.
Genuinely curious: what are you referring to here?