OK, I didn’t read your earlier post closely enough.
Hmm, I would have thought that my use of the phrase “the College Republicans’ lawsuit against SFSU’s speech codes, which AFAICT was settled in 2008” would have clearly indicated the fact that a lawsuit was involved.
So, SFSU has, in fact, banned the College Republican organization?
I appreciate your informing me, by the way; I hadn’t heard of this and I’m skeptical as to whether the CR group did anything wrong. Nevertheless, I see nothing that makes a comparison to Liberty’s action a valid comparison.
Yes. And a watchdog group is apparently filling an official complaint with the IRS to have that status reviewed.
Certainly they can be compared. Wrong is wrong - and if it is wrong to even contemplate disciplining students for exercising free speech it is wrong to actually do it. Not to mention the fact that the school has effectively suspended outdoor rallies for all students - which pretty clearly flies in the face of the First Amendment.
Err…I never thought Free Speech extended to allowing you to stand on my property and spew whatever was on your mind. My property, I can tell you to shove off. Your free speech rights do not prevent me from doing that.
It is University property. They are free to restrict its use and particularly since they are not playing favorites in that restriction…no one can have rallies. Seems about as even handed as you can get.
Looks like they do:
Uh, no. Public university, public space.
By banning all rallies, there is a clear First Amendment issue.
Huh…well, there are lots of public spaces around where I live and if I want to hold a rally I need a permit which can be denied.
Three words:
“The existence of free speech zones is based on U.S. court decisions stipulating that the government may regulate the time, place, and manner—but not content—of expression.”
The government may kindly fuck off. It is none of the government’s business when or where or how I tell it or any other entity to fuck off. “Free speech zones” are an abomination.
Hmm…
Maybe any group at all can tell the University to stuff their rules and just do their thing anyway:
Would be fun to see someone have a go at that.
I agree completely but it seems to be the way of things these days.
“Abomination” is a good word for this.
(Cold War era joke…)
So this Russian guy and American guy were talkling, and the American asserted the advantage of Free Speech…
“Why, I can stand in the center of Washington, D.C., and give a speech denouncing American policy!”
“Is same in Russia! I can stand in the Kremlin and give a speech denouncing American policy!”
Uh huh. What if the scope of such regulation is such that expression may take place at no time, in no place, and in no manner?
I am not an zealot - I recognize that all rights are subject to reasonable regulation. The question here is whether this regulation is reasonable. I don’t think it is, and I don’t see a lot of support for it from other posters.
I am pretty zealous about free speech.
As I noted in post #51 it seems the courts have decided university parks and sidewalks and such are public forums and cannot be restricted but use of other facilities may be.
It looks to me like the case at SFSU is an example of the civil legal system working the way it should. The university was acting in a way that was harming the conservative club, the conservative club sued the university over it, and the outcome of the court case was that the university stopped harming the conservative club. I don’t see any grave injustice here: The club was right to sue, and it was right that they won. Likewise, it would be perfectly fair and reasonable for Liberty U’s Democrat club to sue the school, and I hope they win, too.
About these ‘free speech zones’; how much of this is thought police cracking down on crimethink, and how much of it is a logistical thing (protests tying up foot traffic, bullhorns in areas adjacent to classrooms)? That question sounds loaded, so I’ll backtrack; obviously the examples linked to earlier were hella shady, and if the administration only enforced the rules when a certain viewpoint was being espoused, that would also be a clear reason to sue somebody’s ass. But it seems to me, building off what Moto said, that people can be free to speak without restrictions while their right to be a nuisance may be curtailed.
Apropos of nothing, did anyone else giggle at the fact that Liberty’s seal is a book being burned? ‘Knowledge Aflame’ indeed.
in reference to
Because it is the purpose of a residential 4 year college to educate and expose students to a diversity of thoughts through formal education and through extracurricular activities and environment. This isn’t saying that the administration is approving all of the rhetoric and stances of every student group (it would be impossible since the Baptist Student Union and the Gay Lesbian Transgender Club are never going to have consensus on certain issues) but that so long as the student groups act within reasonable and responsible clearly defined “don’t be a bunch of dicks” guidelines" they are allowed to be an official extracurricular presence on campus.
Online education, which is fast gaining on conventional colleges in terms of revenue, works just as well according to most studies in the amount of information it imparts but most students who have the option greatly prefer the brick/mortar version precisely for the social exposure. College is also the time that millions of students first explore and experiment and are exposed to new ideas (or old ideas that are new to them) and learn to network with others of like mind and of diverse mind as, ideally, part of the preparation for their careers. For this reason I believe it is important to have the Baptist Student Union, Catholic Students Association, Young Democrats, College Republicans, GLBT groups, Black/Asian/other minority groups, etc., because the students are probably going to exist in a world with all of these people and it’s a good time to become familiar with them, to explore them if they are curious (though admittedly there’s no overabundance of curiosity among most conservatives- almost a defining trait in fact) or debate them if they are against them (hard to have a debate team when both sides are arguing against abortion) and have dialogue.
If Liberty wants to be a private institution like Bob Jones and say “we permit no dissent from this political and religious agenda and all students must dress as bunny rabbits each Easter and eat only olives on odd numbered Tuesdays” I have no problem with it, but when they accept public monies in the form of government sponsored/guaranteed loans, tax exemption, infrastructure, etc., they should abide by certain non-discriminatory guidelines. I would never insist that they form a Democrat or GLBT organization, but if a nationally chartered college group is formed it should be allowed to operate without discouragement or discrimination from the administration.
I would say exactly the same thing if an anti-abortion or pro-Iraq war or Baptist group wished to open a chapter at Brandeis or one of the other “most liberal” colleges. The fact that liberal colleges have discriminated against conservative groups is blatant hypocrisy, but tu quoque does not a good argument make. (Not saying that you personally have made it, but it has been made in the thread.)
Federal loans? Sure. Giving money to colleges via students should come with some pretty tight regulations. We don’t allow single-sex schools to take federal loans, I don’t see a reason why we should allow single-political viewpoint institutions to take them either.
But accreditation is supposed to be a mark that the school has a certain level of academic standing. There are certain on-line programs and commuter schools that don’t offer any sort of social atmosphere for its students, but retain accreditation, because a social atmosphere doesn’t have anything to do with academic standards.
Um, cite? My wife went to a women’s college, and I don’t recall that she had any problem getting subsidized student loans.
Also, I’m wondering about this tu quoque thing. I’m not defending Liberty here, and have no desire to. Catholics tend not to dig the Falwell empire much.
The fact is that this has been a problem for quite awhile now, and groups of various kinds have suffered. Not only have conservative clubs frequently been a target, but fraternities and sororities all over the country are facing massive crackdowns. There are numberless other cases spanning the ideological and non-ideological spectrum - the thing they have in common is the fact that crossing the school administration or a supercilious student government can leave a group or individual with few options save a lawsuit, which most will not pursue.