I attended the University of Wisconsin-Madison in the 1980s. Protests on campus were a part of the culture there; every few weeks, there was a different topic being protested.
They were rarely big protests, usually a couple of dozen people. After a while, I came to recognize that they were largely the same people at every protest – and I suspected that most of them were probably not actually UW students (at least, not anymore). Most of them were in their late 20s or older, and just hung around campus. They were clearly very liberal, interested in activism, and they probably stuck around in Madison because it was an environment in which they were comfortable.
How would suspending or expelling students for repeatedly ruining events “stop [them] from voting for Democrats”? The policy has nothing to do with voting at all.
Why? Can’t we just be happy that we all agree on something for once (well, except for BigT perhaps) and allow that occasionally even the GOP lands on a policy position that isn’t half bad. Personally, I’m delighted to be on the same side of a debate as Budget Player Cadet for once.
What happens when 5000 students go to protest in an area and their numbers are so great that they block easy access to doors and sidewalks and traffic gets snarled… DISRUPTIVE PROTEST! ARREST THEM ALL! GET VIDEO AND IDENTIFY PEOPLE! EXPEL THEM ALL!
If someone turns their back to a speaker and they pause to read the nifty slogan on the back of their shirt, is that disruptive? What is the legal definition of “disruptive”?
How big a problem is this on Wisconsin’s college campuses? How many “disruptive protests” were there for each of the last, say, 4 years on Wisconsin campuses?
Sure. Deliberately blocking access to the event is one of the favored techniques by the disruptive protesters.
BPC pointed out earlier in the thread that the policy apparently uses the word “disorderly” which has a definition in Wisconsin law:
I can’t see how turning your back would qualify, but blasting air horns / screaming whenever the speaker attempts to speak almost certainly would.
If the answer is zero, and this policy never comes into play then it should be a non-issue, right?
It HAS become a problem on some college campuses. It’s not unreasonable for a university to recognize this trend and prepare for it ahead of time rather than waiting until after it’s already happened.
Maybe I’m not seeing it clearly but this looks to me as if this is a policy designed to shore up support for the school among Wisconsin Republicans rather than actually being useful on campus. William & Mary already had a recourse for dealing with the disruptive protesters. They could have called security and had them removed. I’m guessing they didn’t do so because they are aware of the optics of shutting down free speech during a free speech event. Removing and then expelling or threatening to expel the students wouldn’t make the optics better. It would make them worse.
And here is tough pill to swallow for some of you Dopers . Trump won…barely. One could make the argument that the left trying to block access to Trump rallies (and even a road at some point) motivated just enough Trump voters to actually go out and vote that it put him over the top numbers wise.
Sure would have also been interesting had somebody died because an ambulance couldn’t get through the road block. Wonder how many manslaughter convictions they could have racked up…
Some of you around here thought all this was funny and right. No so funny now ehhh?
My point was that the number is what is disruptive, not the people. Will arrests be made in that case?
“other disorderly conduct”; what is the legal definition of this?
Dunno; merely trying to ascertain if this is addressing a current problem on Wisconsin campuses. Is it?
I didn’t say it was reasonable or unreasonable; I can’t even begin to approach that without knowing why the policy was enacted. Was it in response to a problem on Wisconsin campuses?
I don’t know, but probably not if they’re not deliberately trying to impede would-be attendees.
I don’t know, but I’m sure there are a bunch of court cases that have fleshed out a bunch of the details. Perhaps Antifa will give them an excuse to flesh out a few more.
So what gives them the right to go on a campus and cause so much trouble?
Frankly along with the above ordinance, I would add in a law that anyone from outside the campus who disrupts anyone or causes problems should be immediately arrested and charged.
I did not. I read that part as well. I just didn’t understand why you feel that “… 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.”
I think we all agree (again, excepting BigT) that it’s a reasonable policy. Why the need to insert this suspicion of the source? Why is this “one of the rare instances”? Is it just because it came from the GOP? Do you consider every time the GOP proposes a policy to be “one of the rare instances”? Or is this policy unique from their other proposals and that uniqueness indicates we should take the identity of the proponents into consideration in this case, but not in other cases where the GOP supports a policy?
I think it’s entirely reasonable given prior experience to see “proposed by republicans” as a major knock against any given bill, in the same way one might see “proposed by Andrew Wakefield” as a major knock against a hypothesis.
Campus buildings are, by and large, public spaces. At least at the time that I attended the UW (and I have to believe that it’s still the case today), there was no requirement to present a current student ID to enter a campus building (dormitories might be different).
And, most of those protests, IIRC, weren’t even inside of buildings, but out on the sidewalks in front of those buildings.
Time, place, and manner restrictions on speech are constitutional. Perhaps a university believes that no speech can be heard when the opposition speakers are always drown out by protesters.
What is wrong with saying that on October 1, Group A’s speaker will be heard and Group B must remain respectfully silent and allow the speech. On October 2, Group B’s speaker will be heard and Group A must remain respectfully silent and allow the speech?
By allowing both October 1 and October 2 to turn into shitshow free for alls where mobs show up and both speakers have to be escorted off campus by police, we hear no free speech.