# Univeristy of Wisconsin System: Disruptively Protest 3 Times, Get Expelled **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 10, 2017, 7:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/univeristy-of-wisconsin-system-disruptively-protest-3-times-get-expelled/798446 "2017-10-10T07:42:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 7:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/univeristy-of-wisconsin-system-disruptively-protest-3-times-get-expelled/798446/1 "2017-10-10T07:42:53Z")
> **[As speaker interruptions continue, controversial policy is adopted in Wisconsin](https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/10/09/speaker-interruptions-continue-controversial-policy-adopted-wisconsin)** > > University of Oregon is third institution in two weeks where speakers have had talks disrupted. Wisconsin board adopts controversial measure that can threaten students who disrupt speakers with expulsion. The same day, however, the University of Wisconsin System Board of Regents passed a Republican-backed policy aimed at punishing students who disrupt campus speakers. Although the policy at the University of Wisconsin is aimed more at shielding outside speakers invited to campus, rather than university addresses, it’s an escalation in the students-versus-administration battles of free speech that have dominated media coverage of higher education for the last year. The policy at Wisconsin leaves no doubt that the board there wants to see significant punishments for students who disrupt speeches: students found to be “disrupting the expressive rights of others” twice are to be suspended, and those who are found to have disrupted a speech a third time are to be expelled. Offending students are those who engage in “violent or other disorderly misconduct that materially and substantially disrupts the free expression of others.” I’m not going to lie, I like this policy a lot. _In theory_. It’s reasonably gracious with its three-strikes policy, and it cracks down on something which has been happening a lot and which is extremely caustic for public discourse. Particularly in the wake of the disruptive protests against the ACLU recently, it’s clear that _something_ is wrong on campus, and this aims to address that without pushing too hard against the people who would protest peacefully. In practice, whether this is good or not depends on both the precise wording of the policy (which I haven’t found) and how it’s applied. There’s a big difference between chanting with bullhorns to drown out a speaker, and sitting in the front row with your back turned and a T-shirt with “Fuck This Speaker” written on it. But colleges having some recourse against something [like this](https://lawnewz.com/video/black-lives-matter-protesters-shut-down-aclu-freedom-of-speech-event-watch/) is long overdue. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 7:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/univeristy-of-wisconsin-system-disruptively-protest-3-times-get-expelled/798446/2 "2017-10-10T07:47:45Z")
I will see you in court will be the answer. There are many thing on many sides for this to be a absolute policy. The right for a person to free speech does not exclude another’s right to free speech. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 8:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/univeristy-of-wisconsin-system-disruptively-protest-3-times-get-expelled/798446/3 "2017-10-10T08:03:22Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > I will see you in court will be the answer. There are many thing on many sides for this to be a absolute policy. The right for a person to free speech does not exclude another’s right to free speech. Yeah, there’s definitely gonna be a legal challenge to this. That said, I think it stands a chance of surviving it, as [this reddit poster points out](https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/74up3r/culture_war_roundup_for_the_week_following/do5iew3/). The board isn’t providing a new definition for ‘disorderly’. As written, their rule is threatening to suspend students for breaking Wisconsin law. It should survive an initial challenge. ---
**Author:** ![Urbanredneck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ea5d25/32.png) [@Urbanredneck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urbanredneck)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 9:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/univeristy-of-wisconsin-system-disruptively-protest-3-times-get-expelled/798446/4 "2017-10-10T09:48:34Z")
The University has to gain control when a situation calls for it. They warn, suspend, and then expel students all the time for things like theft or cheating. Why not this? ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 9:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/univeristy-of-wisconsin-system-disruptively-protest-3-times-get-expelled/798446/5 "2017-10-10T09:52:48Z")
This accomplishes nothing good. Protesting is a good thing. It is attacking the very concept of freedom of speech by attacking the ability to protest. I would hope the ACLU would have enough integrity to challenge these attacks on freedom of speech, and not be spiteful because people are arguing against them. Do they really believe in freedom of speech? Because that means being able to argue that the ACLU is doing bad, or that freedom of speech is a code word for racism. People talk of moving to other countries if stuff happens. I know I can’t realistically do that. But I would disavow myself as an American. I would not mourn the death of anyone involved in this evil. Freedom of speech includes the freedom to use your speech to stop people from speaking. It does not include writing laws to stop people from speaking. Republicans are the ones stopping this speech. They don’t like that their speech is less popular, so they are trying to silence the opposition. Stop falling for their claims of “freedom of speech” when they are flat out violating it at a fundamental level. Fuck this authoritarian nonsense. I do not want to live in the fascist US that silences the foundational form of freedom of speech: the political protest. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 10:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/univeristy-of-wisconsin-system-disruptively-protest-3-times-get-expelled/798446/6 "2017-10-10T10:41:03Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > This accomplishes nothing good. Protesting is a good thing. It is attacking the very concept of freedom of speech by attacking the ability to protest. This conflates two very different things, as I pointed out in the OP. There’s a difference between a protest in the sense of “We’re going to stand outside the venue and wave flags and distribute pamphlets” and a protest in the sense of “[That fucker had better run, 'cuz we’re coming for him](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/middlebury-free-speech-violence/518667/)!” Or, in the more general sense, “We’re going to protest this speech, but let them speak,” and “We’re not going to let them speak, we’re going to stifle their free speech in a sphere they were explicitly invited to speak in.” Protesting is a good thing. Protests that stifle free speech, even abhorrent speech, are not. Then again, there’s a reason I pointed out the ACLU as my go-to example in the OP - their speech is about as far from abhorrent as you can get, and they still got deplatformed by radical morons. > [@](#): > > I would hope the ACLU would have enough integrity to challenge these attacks on freedom of speech, and not be spiteful because people are arguing against them. Do they really believe in freedom of speech? Because that means being able to argue that the ACLU is doing bad, or that freedom of speech is a code word for racism. Yes! Let’s have that argument! Just not, you know, via loud, disruptive chanting at a speaking engagement that has nothing to do with it. Is it ever not okay to deplatform someone? Is it ever a violation of someone’s free speech to shout over them and prevent others from hearing them, even at a private or booked venue? > [@](#): > > Freedom of speech includes the freedom to use your speech to stop people from speaking. So it would be okay if I followed you around 24/7, and every time you opened your mouth, I used an airhorn? This is _absurd_. If I cannot speak, my freedom of speech is effectively moot. > [@](#): > > Republicans are the ones stopping this speech. They don’t like that their speech is less popular, so they are trying to silence the opposition. Oh, is that what this does? Citation needed. I missed that part. Last I checked, even with this rule, there’s nothing stopping you from protesting peacefully and in a way that does not disrupt the presentations. > [@](#): > > Fuck this authoritarian nonsense. I do not want to live in the fascist US that silences the foundational form of freedom of speech: the political protest. You’re blowing this way the fuck out of proportion. This is punishing students for legitimately antisocial behavior. Nothing in this will prevent or even threaten students who decide to protest in ways that allow for free speech. It exists to have tools to strike back against the assholes who decide that their right to free speech extends to where they can shut down the free speech of others. Because it doesn’t. It’s not okay to barge in on a presentation you didn’t organize and you’re not hosting and shut the whole thing down. It’s not okay to drown out an invited speaker, or force them off the stage, or trash the venue. That’s not a reasonable application of free speech, and it has _got to stop_. For god’s sake, people are literally driving the ACLU out. The ACLU! At what point is it fair to say, “Okay, maybe we should do something about radicals deplatforming invited speakers”? At the point where there’s literally no point in inviting speakers, because any speaker is likely to be deplatformed? This is stupid. Your right to free speech does not extend to where you are literally keeping me from speaking at an event I was paid to speak at! ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/univeristy-of-wisconsin-system-disruptively-protest-3-times-get-expelled/798446/7 "2017-10-10T12:12:33Z")
I don’t see a problem with it. It’s not like they’re threatening to convict someone of a felony for laughing during congressional testimony. I can understand that it might feel like it’s going in the direction of authoritarianism, but quite honestly, what passes for some activism in terms of college campus protests isn’t constructive; it’s obstructionism and I don’t like it just because they claim to represent my values. I think the problem with these kinds of wild forms of demonstration is that they are themselves a form of oppression, and they lack any sort of communication. It’s a message based on force and intimidation, and we absolutely do not want to go down that road. Because two can play that game, and they will find that once they go past the boundaries of the safe spaces of academia, the tables can be turned against them. Student demonstrators need to set an example as intellectuals on how to win with ideas, not intimidation tactics. ---
**Author:** ![Channing\_Idaho\_Banks](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/channing_idaho_banks/32/250_2.png) [@Channing\_Idaho\_Banks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Channing_Idaho_Banks)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/univeristy-of-wisconsin-system-disruptively-protest-3-times-get-expelled/798446/8 "2017-10-10T12:21:53Z")
You just organize non students to do the rough sruff. They can’t be expelled. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/univeristy-of-wisconsin-system-disruptively-protest-3-times-get-expelled/798446/9 "2017-10-10T12:27:19Z")
My ideal policy would involve requiring student disrupters/harassers of speakers to first complete a course (with credit, in addition to their usual course load) on the history of free speech and the First Amendment, with attention to all the groups who’ve suffered from having their speech curtailed (including antiwar protesters, civil rights groups, unions and so on). Then, depending on the severity of the next violation, suspend or expel them. Physically harming or threatening speakers with violence should be grounds for expulsion on the first occasion. ---
**Author:** ![Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/qadgop_the_mercotan/32/83_2.png) [@Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qadgop_the_Mercotan)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/univeristy-of-wisconsin-system-disruptively-protest-3-times-get-expelled/798446/10 "2017-10-10T12:47:46Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Freedom of speech includes the freedom to use your speech to stop people from speaking. Got a cite for that? It flies in the face of all free speech rulings of which I am aware. And it sounds like the doublespeak of 1984. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/univeristy-of-wisconsin-system-disruptively-protest-3-times-get-expelled/798446/11 "2017-10-10T12:53:43Z")
I look forward to **BigT** ’s cites for the number of times he has supported people for disrupting BLM rallies and shouting down the ACLU. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/univeristy-of-wisconsin-system-disruptively-protest-3-times-get-expelled/798446/12 "2017-10-10T13:14:02Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > The right for a person to free speech does not exclude another’s right to free speech. It does when it prevents free speech. You don’t have the right to prevent someone from being heard. As for any physical altercations on campus that should be grounds for immediate expulsion. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/univeristy-of-wisconsin-system-disruptively-protest-3-times-get-expelled/798446/13 "2017-10-10T13:20:50Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > … Freedom of speech includes the freedom to use your speech to stop people from speaking. … Where in the world did you get this utterly bass-ackwards idea from? ---
**Author:** ![Hellestal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3ab097/32.png) [@Hellestal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hellestal)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/univeristy-of-wisconsin-system-disruptively-protest-3-times-get-expelled/798446/14 "2017-10-10T13:23:31Z")
Freedom of life includes the freedom to use your life to stop other people from living. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/univeristy-of-wisconsin-system-disruptively-protest-3-times-get-expelled/798446/15 "2017-10-10T13:36:42Z")
This policy is backward-looking. We clearly have too much free speech in this country, and I, for one, welcome our new speech-restricting overlords. I’m sure the Trump administration will use the utmost care and wise judgment in enforcing the new restrictions on free speech. ---
**Author:** ![Urbanredneck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ea5d25/32.png) [@Urbanredneck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urbanredneck)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/univeristy-of-wisconsin-system-disruptively-protest-3-times-get-expelled/798446/16 "2017-10-10T13:59:24Z")
> [@Channing\_Idaho\_Banks](#): > > You just organize non students to do the rough sruff. They can’t be expelled. I remember once that happening at KState. Their was this conservative speaker and a bunch of idiots decided to start protesting. They cleared the auditorium and ONLY students with a valid, current KState id could enter. Some reason their were no more protests. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/univeristy-of-wisconsin-system-disruptively-protest-3-times-get-expelled/798446/17 "2017-10-10T14:03:40Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > This policy is backward-looking. We clearly have too much free speech in this country, and I, for one, welcome our new speech-restricting overlords. I’m sure the Trump administration will use the utmost care and wise judgment in enforcing the new restrictions on free speech. None of this has anything to do with Trump. He didn’t write the policy, and he won’t be involved in any enforcement decisions. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/univeristy-of-wisconsin-system-disruptively-protest-3-times-get-expelled/798446/18 "2017-10-10T14:05:30Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > This policy is backward-looking. We clearly have too much free speech in this country, and I, for one, welcome our new speech-restricting overlords. I’m sure the Trump administration will use the utmost care and wise judgment in enforcing the new restrictions on free speech. Again, this seems hyperbolic. The restriction is on disruptive protests that stifle the speech of others, something which have been and continue to be a problem on campus. It’s also a local prohibition, meaning we can watch it very carefully to see how it’s used. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/univeristy-of-wisconsin-system-disruptively-protest-3-times-get-expelled/798446/19 "2017-10-10T14:36:52Z")
Sure, disruptive students are a problem - but they don’t seem to have been a problem in Wisconsin. This seems like a common sense policy, but this is one of the rare instances where the identity of the proponents has to be taken into consideration when discussing the merits of the policy. It’s apparently the Wisconsin GOP’s baby, which means it’s likely a disguised attempt to stop college kids from voting for Democrats. Still, if it’s enforced evenhandedly, it’s hard to argue that it’s unreasonable. > [@Urbanredneck](#): > > The University has to gain control when a situation calls for it. They warn, suspend, and then expel students all the time for things like theft or cheating. Why not this? Last month, you didn’t want colleges suspending or expelling students for rape. It’s somewhat surprising to see you standing up for colleges’ right to suspend or expel for “disruptive behavior.” > [@Should colleges get rid of on campus housing?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-colleges-get-rid-of-on-campus-housing/796656/24): > > According to the article I quoted above, its not so much false accusations its just that a student on a campus can accuse someone with sexual assault in a broader sense than what would be touched by a regular prosecuting attorney. So a student can be expelled for much less evidence or reason. Yes, they can sue the school and take the matter to another court but who pays for that and how long will it take? > > Now I perfectly understand why a university should be held responsible for the safety of its students in say the science building. > > BUT, how can they be held responsible for what happens at a fraternity party or in a dorm where students are already drinking and having sex? ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/univeristy-of-wisconsin-system-disruptively-protest-3-times-get-expelled/798446/20 "2017-10-10T14:51:50Z")
Why do they get a warning after the first one? If they are breaking campus rules they should be suspended after the first infraction. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/univeristy-of-wisconsin-system-disruptively-protest-3-times-get-expelled/798446.md?page=2)