I don’t think anybody should be subjected to control of their speech. That’s not really the issue in this thread. There is a question of whether the student group in this case violated an agreement they signed as a condition to receive funding (I think they probably did NOT in this case), and there is a broader question of whether the university has a right to set those conditions at all or whether they should be obligated to fund all student groups regardless of their conduct or speech as long as they don’t break any laws (e.g, does the school have to fund a KKK group?). There really is no issue of free speech in this case. Nobody is getting arrested or punished. They just might stop getting free money IF the university determines that they violated the terms of the agreement they signed in order to get it.
Oh my God.
I don’t know what the school should do, but the Republican Party ought to be disavowing any association with these mofos and quick.
Of course they can’t, for various political reasons.
But they should.
-FrL-
This is the feeling I’m getting as well.
And wasn’t the event where she called somone a “faggot” also basically a Young Republicans type thing?
And wasn’t it the same event a year ago where she talked about “ragheads?”
If this is what the young republicans are like, I can only hope the party ends up not surviving the next ten or fifteen years or so. :mad:
-FrL-
(Should have previewed… this is a response to Dio, sorry for not quoting…)
I’ve mentioned this multiple times, but you seem to be ignoring the unconstitutional conditions doctrine. Violations of free speech can occur without a ban on the speech. The government or government agencies cannot attach conditions to the receipt of benefits that are violative of the constitution. Just as the government cannot require people to attend church, it also cannot pay people to attend church, for example.
Now, to show why I think the question is relevant, we are talking here about restrictions on student groups - in order to get funding from the university, they may not engage in behavior that harrasses/intimidates/insults other groups. Now it honestly doesn’t matter whether we call that “control of speech” or not for the sake of this part of the argument. My question is whether it is relevant what the group that is harrassed, intimidated, or insulted is? In particular, does that group has to have those generally identifiable as a member of that group?
I should correct this again because my characterization in that post was partially erroneous. It was ostensibly a protest against terrorism, not against Islam. They made some copies of the flags used by Hezbollah and Hamas and stomped on them. It seems that one (or both?) of those flags contained the name for God written in Arabic script (which incensed other Muslim students) but the student froup claims they didn’t know what the Arabic said when they stomped it. That sounds believable to me. I think it was probably intended to be a symbolic act of defiance against terrorism that became an accidental insult to other Muslim students at the school.
Cite (except for the church thing)? They attach conditions to benefits all the time. They set restrictions behavior (and speech) in government workplaces. Where does the Constitition say that citizensa are not allowed to enter into voluntary contracts with the state in order to receive money? Ever heard of the military? lots of restrictions there.
Do YOU think the university should be forced to fund a KKK group on campus?
Whatever “matters” or is “relevant” depends on the specific text of whatever agreement they signed, not some external, universal standard.
When I was in school, I reached the conclusion that the university should not fund any student groups at all. We had a student activities fee (that one could opt out of paying if desired), and there was a student-run board that decided what groups would receive funds from the pool. A friend of mine was on the board, and she told me that she automatically voted against funding any group that she disagreed with politically. I thought this was pretty abhorrent. On the other hand, I’m not sure I would want my student activity fee going towards the KKK, either. I think that, from an ethical standpoint, it is not right to fund some groups and not others. But from an ethical standpoint, individuals certainly have the right not to fund groups they don’t agree with. Easier & more fair to do away with the whole thing, and make the groups raise the funds on their own.
It’s hard to argue with this solution. Sounds good to me. I see no reason to fund any of them.
Try this. Not for the argument as such but for a very long list of cases, both SCOTUS and Courts of Appeal that use this doctrine. Note I am not making any comment as to the quality of the analysis, but the list of cases certainly includes those I remember as being central to this, and it is a lot easier than typing them out myself.
http://www.rbs2.com/duc.pdf (PDF warning)
The bottom line is that there must be an essential nexus between the benefit received and the restriction imposed in order to get a pass on this. Hence you can require that a prison officer not wear a swastika armband at work, but you cannot require he not wear one at home. You can certainly argue the restrictions in the military are part of an essential nexus, but to be honest, and I know this sounds like a horrible cop out (and it really is from the courts) the standard constitutional rules just aren’t held by the courts to apply to the military.
Now, it might well be arguable that there is an essential nexus between not engaging in “hate speech” and receiving university funding. I am not sure I agree there is, but I would be willing to consider the argument. But the point is that it isn’t as simple as saying you can be required to “voluntarily” sign away constitutionally protected rights to receive a benefit from the government.
Its a tough one, certainly. I have a problem with universities picking who to fund based upon the content of their speech. I’m not really sure I see a place for university funding for political groups in general. That runs into a problem with my view, though, that all speech is political (and hence protected) in it might have to lead me logically to opposing all university funding for student groups. It is a genuinely tough question, I’ll agree on that.
That’s not the case though. The agreement signed might be unconstitutional. For example, an agreement by a university that you could not engage in hate speech against Christians and Jews, but you are free to rip on Muslims as much as you want, wouldn’t pass muster, however voluntarily it was entered into. It just couldn’t pass the essential nexus test. Nor, obviously, would a state university be allowed to require that student organizations ban their members from interracial dating in order to receive funding.
Then the student group can tell it to a judge.
Hmmm okay, sorry I missed that before.
I’ll give them the B to the D.
-FrL-
tomndebb has already pointed out the inconsistency in this framing of the issue.
And if they fund the gay rights group or the Black Student Union but not the Republicans, then that is content-based censorship.
So the question has already been answered - if they pay for one, they have to pay for them all. If they don’t pay for one, they can’t pay for any.
And the Republicans were expressing their disagreement with terrorists, and did not intend to intimidate Muslims. Which I see you have corrected in a subsequent post, which does you credit.
Again, as I pointed out, they have every right in the world to stomp on the Arabic name for God. So it is not an issue.
Regards,
Shodan
It’s not censorship. They’re not stopping anyone from expressing themselves however they want. It might be discriminatory in its funding, but unless you’re going to require universities to fund any and all forms of expression, then some kind of discrimination in funding is unavoidable (plus this really wasn’t about political content but about a possible violation of an agreed upon code of conduct).
Says who? This is an opinion, not a statement of Constitutional law.
Do YOU think universities should be forced to fund KKK groups?
No one says they don’t have the right. The only question is whether the university has to pay them for it.
Ah yes, that incident where the group that was found to be the instigators was sanctioned, losing funding for a year, losing their web-site, along with the threat of future sanctions if they didn’t behave..
Aren’t you glad that that’s not an issue after all?
I honestly wasn’t aware that the Palestinian student group had been sanctioned. This wasn’t easy to track down.
NO! I refuse to believe that such a thing could be possible!
I seriously doubt that many, if any at all, American Christians would feel that way. For one thing, there are plenty of touristy places with those machines that destroy an American coin to make a cute little metal symbol of the touristy place.
And as far as the flag goes, positively huge numbers of Americans currently act as though the flag itself is just one half-step short of deity anyway.
This is another distinction without a difference. The part where they are being discriminatory in their funding is what makes it censorship - if you discriminate against a group based on the content of their opinions, that is content-based censorship.
To put it another way, there is no rule against calling people “trolls” in Great Debates. The mods aren’t stopping anyone from doing it; they just ban you if you do. The consequences are what makes it censorship.
Sure, if there is enough student interest, and if the university funds other groups with an agenda, and the KKK does not interfere with the rights of other students*. Do YOU think universities should be forced to fund black groups?
Regards,
Shodan
*There is no right not to be offended.
It turns out they aren’t being discriminatory in their funding.
That’s not censorship. The Dope isn’t the government, and you agre to the rules when you register.
You’re comparing black student groups to the KKK?
I don’t think universities should be forced to fund anybody, but if they do, there’s nothing unconstitutional about setting conditions of conduct.
In thinking more about this, I am wondering whether GUPS (sp?) was really objecting to the desecration of the Hezbollah flag itself, and if that wasn’t really the point of the Republicans’ action. It would not surprise me at all to find out that many members of GUPS were supporters of Hamas and Hezbollah; as folks have said, many college students lack anything resembling nuance in their beliefs.
Daniel