Maybe. I don’t think it’s perfectly analogous because I don’t think many people would make the leap of calling it an anti-Christian act.
If a group engaged in some act that was intended to be an offensive attack on a Christian symbol, they might well be in violation of a code of conduct.
That’s a good question. Personally harrassing a specific person does not (I think, but correct me if I’m wrong) fall under constitutionally-protected speech. Protesting a group for political reasons is not the same thing, even if individuals of the same ethnicity/religion/political persuasion as the group being protested find it offensive.
That’s what’s being decided. I don’t have an opinion on whether this particular case was harrassment or not, I’m just defending the principle that a state university has an interest in preventing harrassment and that it’s not a 1st Amendment issue. If you have the right to work at the Post Office without being harrassed or disprespected by coworkers based on your race, religion, etc. then you have a right to attend a state U without being subjected to it by other students.
This one is close - because it involves harrassing others. On the one hand, yes they have that right, because they are not preventing the views being held, just expressed in a certain fashion. However, I am wary about the constitutionality of restrictions that depend on the effect on another person. Defining what is harrassment is very difficult without straying into unconstitutionally vague territories. Is wearing a t-shirt with an Israeli flag on it harrassment to a Palestinian student, for example. Or a t-shirt with a Union Flag harrasment to an Irish student? It depends so much on how the message is received whether it is harrassment.
I don’t like such codes, but courts have found them constitutional I believe when tightly tailored. They have to be content neutral, though, to the extent that you cannot protect Muslims from harrassment, and not Jews, for example. My own belief is that it is beneficial to know who the enemy is, and if they want to identify themselves, so much the better.
That one is easier. The DMV is allowed to put in a dress code, as long as it is not specifically content based - you couldn’t ban wearing Vote Democrat shirts but allow Vote Republican ones. It would be a lot harder for them to ban you wearing a swastika on a chain inside your shirt, however.
Yes and no. They can require a code of conduct, but what can be in the code of conduct is limited. I would much rather see it worded as “No student group, on pain of losing its funding, may cause a breach of the peace on campus” rather than “No student group, on pain of losing its funding, may disrespect another student group.”
It doesn’t matter what was burned or what it looked like. So long as they didn’t harm or threaten to harm any person or another’s property, they should be allowed to do as they wish. If the atheists on campus burned a crucifix on campus would they have been censured? I should hope not.
There actually isn’t any issue of whether they should be “allowed” to do it. No one would stop them from doing it again tomorrow. The only question is whether they violated the terms of the agreement which allows them to receive public money. If the state is going to fund a student group, is there anything unconstitutional about setting conditions for it? Would the state be obligated to keep funding a student group which put on Klan robes and burned a cross on campus every saturday night.
Some people are acting like these guys are having their speech actively curtailed, when all that’s going on is they might not get any more free money. That doesn’t mean they can’t keep stomping on Muslim symbols if they want to. They just won’t get paid for it any more.
They should be just as entitled to the funding as the crucifix burning atheists.
Well, the university is simply responding (pandering?) to public pressure with an investigation.
The group that has actually already made rude comments about the Republican group and threatened them with a loss of funding is the Associated Students Inc., which, while claiming to be the student government, is, I notice, an incorporated entity of its own, not the actual college or its administration or board of governors. I have no idea how that plays out under California Law, but it certainly sets the idiots on one side of the debate at least one step removed from an actual government entity.
That is not what the story said. It claimed that the student group held an anti-terrorism rally in which observers became agitated and some unidentified party desecrated the images of flags painted on butcher paper (without actually providing a timeline regarding whether the “incivil” behavior originated among the rally members or the observers).
I think the ASI is being stupid by deciding whose rights to be offended they should tolerate.
If I were an SFSU student, I would be protesting their involvement in what was clearly not a deliberate act of violence.
I think that condemnations of the university are premature, although i also think that the university is being pretty much wimps for not simply dismissing the complaints. (I wonder whether they are hoping to drag out the “investigation” long enough to publish the results over the summer when there will be less chance of backlash from either side?)
Crucifix burning atheists get funding? Cite?
We need a word that indicates a statement that goes beyond simply being disingenous.
Removing funding from a group for exercising their constitutional rights in a way this is deemed unpopular is a pretty effective way to silence an organization. Given that the ASI took no action against a pro-Palestinian group that loudly interrupted the end of a pro-Israel rally in 2002, any actions taken against the Republicansin this event would be pretty much base hypocrisy.
Yes, but that might only mean the Palestinian group should have been de-funded as well.
In principle, though, do you think it’s unconstitutional to require student groups to follow agreed upon codes of conduct as a condition of their funding (and can we all agree that this case has NOTHING to do with flag desecration)?
I do not think that it is necessarily* unconstitutional for schools to impose restrictions on the activities of groups, even if such activities would be legal under the Constitution for individuals. Just as schools may impose curfews or sex-divided dorms in ways that hotels could not.
However, having moved past vague principles, there is nothing in the reports of this incident that justify anything more than some administrator acting in loco parentis and admonishing both sides to act as though they were adults and stop embarrasing themselves.
I’d rather have a cite for the existence of crucifix burning atheists in general, funded or otherwise. Burning a crucifix (well, a cross, but once it’s going, I don’t think you could easily tell the difference) has a pretty well fixed meaning in American culture, and it sure as hell isn’t associated with atheism.
Quite frankly, I am not certain what to think about this. Obviously, the College Republicans should be treated the same as any other group regardless of their political views, but I’m not sure that simply because certain conduct is protected by the First Amendment that the university (or the student union) must support any organization that engages in questionable behavior.
My main question is whether student unions are legally required to provide funds and a charter to every organization which engages in speech protected by the First Amendment. For example, would State U. have to provide funds and a charter to a group that peacefully sponsored hate speech? I can be wrong, but something tells me no. Would State U. have to support a group that held mainstream views but advocated their agenda in a way that could incite disorder or even violence? Like, must the university tolerate a group that demands the purchase of more books by holding a beer bash for adult students at what is normally a dry school?
I don’t have a problem with College Republicans advocating their views, but it seems to me that it is not necessarily fair to expect university funding if the group engages in provocative or even confrontational acts, even if it is in the strictest sense protected speech. The issue to me is one of discretion over how the university subsidizes groups, rather than the ability of groups to speak their minds.
God forbid we have provocative or confronational speech on college campuses. It might break the spirits of the poor little students.
Good idea. Let’s ban all such things, and make sure no student ever encounters anything that might upset them or challenge their world view in any way.
Stipulating for a moment that the student code meets constitutional muster, it would still be idiotic to punish the Republicans for their actions. If they were wanting to offend Muslims or insult Allah, why on earth would they choose Hezbollah flags to do this? I know a hateful anti-Muslim on another messageboard who delights in offending Muslims; he does it with obscene pictures of Mohammad and imbecilic sig files IN ENGLISH mocking Muslims. What anti-Muslim is going to go so far to hide their hatred of Islam that they’ll find a terrorist flag with the Arabic script for God and burn that, rather than just drawing a picture of Mohammad taking a crap? The anti-Republican accusations simply don’t hold water.
Daniel
Were you the President of the Straw Man Student Association at your alma mater? Surely all those protests in Berkeley in the 1960s were not dependent on student activities fees collected by the University of California. I mean, seriously, did you even attempt to read what I wrote?
The question is, does the student union have the responsibility to provide funding all groups that engage in protected activities? I’m not sure what the answer is to that. It’s a tough call. Surely at some point a student union should draw a line – I hardly think that the student union has a constitutional obligation to give funding to, say, the Al Qaeda Study Group or the KKK on Kampus. That does not mean that those groups are outlawed, it just means that the student body is not compelled to pay for their activities.
But, looping it back around to this specific incident, I’m conflicted as to whether the College Republicans crossed the line. It’s a tough call and I’ve changed my mind at least three times in the past 20 minutes.
But how about a Gay Rights organization, or a Muslim student organization, or an Atheist organization, or some other unpopular group.
We agree that even if some people object to homosexuality, a policy that excludes unpopular organizations can’t help but be unfair.
There’s a difference between funding an unpopular group and funding a group that targets other groups with patently offensive or harrassing speech. An atheist organization in and of itself – no problem. An atheist group which intentionally engages in provacative expressions of hate against theists – maybe a problem.
To me it looks like this particular College Republicans group probably did NOT intend for their actions to be insulting to all Muslims. I’m sure they saw it as a symbolic act of defiance against those terrorist groups and that it probably never crossed their minds that any of the symbols or Arabic words might be seen as sacred to all Muslims all by themselves. I would not endorse them losing their funding without some strong evidence that they knew what they were doing.
Still, a university has a right, even a practical obligation, to set SOME parameters, doesn’t it? Do they have to fund a Neo-Nazi group? How about a “Friends of al Qaeda” group?
Sure. I think that’s right.
I don’t think it is too much to ask, though, that if you have organizations, that they all be treated the same according to some well established rules and some sort of process for enforcing them.
As I mentioned before, other students who have done far worse things at SFSU have not been punished at all. If the Republicans were punished severely, it would create a sense that some groups were being singled out for selective enforcement of the rules.
We’ll just see how this all plays out, I guess.