|
In the Samizdat Tradition of Writing against the Machine |
|
One important indicator of the denial that results in an academic environment bereft of accountability (an environment in which therefore almost everything is permitted) is the failure to generate statistical accounts of existing malpractice. My inquiries to the American Association of University professors, the Carnegie Foundation for the advancement of Teaching, the Chronicle of Higher Education, and the Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA in 1991-1992 yielded but one unfortunate conclusion: No publicly available statistics exist detailing the extent of professorial misconduct in American colleges and universities. While some might argue the failure to generate these statistics means that the problem of professorial misconduct is negligible, I believe the failure to do so strongly suggests the denial I discuss here. —Michael Lewis, Poisoning the Ivy
Corporate-inspired notions of
professionalism now shift the emphasis from the quality of academic work to a
crude emphasis on quantity, from creativity and critical dialogue in the
classroom to standardization and rote learning, from supporting full-time
tenured positions to constructing an increasing army of contract workers, and
from emphasizing rigorous scholarship and engagement with public issues to the
push for grant writing and external funding.
In Academe, corruption of the ideals of democracy (truth, free speech, and vigorous debate) has become widespread. Far too many of the nation's colleges and universities imitate the business model of strict hierarchy, profit, numbers, PR, clientele, and growth. That model has put the ideals of democracy on the backburner. Diversity and multiculturalism have become the academic mantra, not truth. And what difference if a department is all white and intellectually cowardly or diverse and intellectually cowardly? None! Academics in severe denial regarding these things need to examine the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (www.thefire.org), which presents case-by-case examples, including highly regarded institutions Harvard University, Tufts University, University of Massachusetts, and Brandeis University. Brief descriptions of over 50 such cases follow below. As a professor and even highschool teacher, I've had the sad opportunity to witness just how indifferent most professors and teachers tend to be regarding democracy (e.g., free speech and vigorous debate). For my disturbing experiences, consult Elmira College (Elmira, NY), Fitchburg State College (Fitchburg, MA), Bennett College (Greensboro, NC), Davenport University (Grand Rapids, MI), Grambling State University (Grambling, LA), and Martha's Vineyard Regional High School (Oaks Bluff, MA). Also, consult The American Dissident BLOG for various experiments in free speech and democracy performed by the editor on institutions of higher education across the country, including Tufts University, University of Massachusetts, Yale University, Williams College, Boston University, Iowa State University, Carnegie Mellon University and Virginia Tech. Once upon a time I even wrote a column for Maincampus.com, which unfortunately croaked. Read my old articles at "Blacklisted Professor." In America, the problem with colleges and universities is their self containment, as if fiefdoms with little kings and queens, chamberlains and courtesans. Many of them, usually out of astounding ignorance, violate the law and even the Constitution. Periodically egregious cases present themselves. Consider, for example, the following as reported by FIRE lawyer Adam Kissel (11/09):
Besides First-Amendment violations, colleges and universities have and continue to have their share of other forms of institutional corruption. After all, colleges and universities have become, more than anything else, money-generating businesses today... and where there is money, there is ample opportunity for fraud and, especially, shielding from discovery.
Finally, for examples of
the kind of innocuous fluff articles and columns published by The Chronicle of Higher Education and InsideHigherEd.com,
including columns by Mama PhD and Ms. Mentor, consult
AcademeArticles.
Over 50 Case Examples of Academic Violations of Free Speech
Victory for Freedom of Conscience as University of Minnesota Backs Away from Ideological Screening for Ed Students
MINNEAPOLIS, December 23, 2009—In response to sustained pressure from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), the University of Minnesota–Twin Cities has backed away from its plans to enforce a political litmus test for future teachers. The plans from its College of Education and Human Development (CEHD) involved redesigning admissions and the curriculum to enforce an ideology centered on a narrow view of “cultural competence.” Those with the “wrong” views were to receive remedial re-education, be weeded out, or be denied admission altogether. In a letter to FIRE, however, the university’s top lawyer has now promised that the university will never “mandate any particular beliefs, or screen out people with ‘wrong beliefs’ from the University.”
“We are relieved that the University of Minnesota has finally committed itself to upholding the freedom of conscience of its students,” FIRE President Greg Lukianoff said. “Prospective teachers will keep the right to have their own thoughts, values, and beliefs. FIRE will continue to monitor the situation to make sure that the university does not define ‘cultural competence’ or ‘dispositions’ requirements in a way that interferes with individual rights.”
The proposal, initiated by the college’s Race, Culture, Class, and Gender Task Group, sought to require each future teacher to accept theories of “white privilege, hegemonic masculinity, heteronormativity, and internalized oppression”; “develop a positive sense of racial/cultural identity”; and “recognize that schools are socially constructed systems that are susceptible to racism … but are also critical sites for social and cultural transformation.” They were to be judged by their scores on the Intercultural Development Inventory, a test of “Intercultural Sensitivity.” In one assignment, they were to reveal a “pervasive stereotype” they personally held and then demonstrate how their experiences had “challenged” it. They also were to be assessed regarding “the extent to which they find intrinsic satisfaction” in being in “culturally diverse situations.”
FIRE wrote University of Minnesota President Robert H. Bruininks about these plans on November 25. In response, General Counsel Mark B. Rotenberg promised that “[n]o University policy or practice ever will mandate any particular beliefs, or screen out people with ‘wrong beliefs’ from the University.”
“The next version of the college’s plans must reflect this promise,” said Adam Kissel, Director of FIRE’s Individual Rights Defense Program. “To learn about other cultures is one thing, but the college may not demand that future teachers hold certain moral and political ‘dispositions’ or specific views about pedagogy. Not all great teachers have the same views about politics or education.”
FIRE is a nonprofit educational foundation that unites civil rights and civil liberties leaders, scholars, journalists, and public intellectuals from across the political and ideological spectrum on behalf of individual rights, due process, freedom of expression, academic freedom, and rights of conscience at our nation’s colleges and universities. FIRE’s efforts to preserve liberty on campuses across America can be viewed at www.thefire.org.
FIRE announces its Speech Code of the Month for November 2009: Keene State College in New Hampshire. Keene State's "Statement on Sexist Language" states that the college "will not tolerate language that is sexist and promotes negative stereotypes and demeans members of our community." Yet there are many serious and legitimate expressions of opinion that some would say are sexist and promote negative stereotypes; for instance, recall former Harvard University President Larry Summers' speech suggesting that differences in aptitude might be a factor in women's underrepresentation at the highest levels of math and science. The expression of different and controversial views is an essential element of a university education. Keene State's policy, which chills debate by threatening to punish any expression that might be deemed "sexist," is not only unconstitutional but also runs contrary to what a university should be.
FIRE announces its Speech Code of the Month for October 2009: James Madison University. JMU's policy on "Obscene Conduct" provides that "[n]o student shall engage in lewd, indecent or obscene conduct or expression, regardless of proximity to campus." Because "lewd" and "indecent" have no defined legal meaning, they could be interpreted to include almost any crude or vulgar language that someone found offensive, most of which would nonetheless be constitutionally protected. Worse yet, the policy allows for punishment of lewd and indecent expression on or off campus, so virtually everything that students say or write is fair game. When questioned, the JMU administration stated that the only purpose of the policy is to punish already illegal conduct such as public urination and masturbation. To do this, however, the policy only needs to address conduct, not expression. Despite numerous statements of concern from FIRE and JMU students, the university has not changed the language of the policy to apply only to conduct, and has instead resorted to verbal chicanery to argue that the phrase "conduct or expression" does not really mean what it says. This development should be of great concern to anyone who cares about student rights.
In the University of Idaho's residence halls, "Actions and/or communication that are discriminatory, harassing or insensitive are not permitted." (Emphasis added.) This policy prohibits a staggering amount of constitutionally protected speech. In fact, this policy prohibits precisely the speech that the First Amendment exists to protect, since people typically do not seek to censor sensitive, respectful expression. Moving beyond the legal issues, speech codes like this one infantilize college students by assuming they cannot cope with any sort of offense. Do we really want to teach our students that they are entitled to seek punishment for others' insensitivity? Perhaps in a small city like Moscow, Idaho, students don't have to deal with much insensitivity on a daily basis, but should they choose to expand their horizons (say, to Philadelphia, for example), they would encounter plenty. And I think it's safe to say a Philly cop would have a good, long laugh if you asked him or her to arrest a fellow Philadelphian for hurting your feelings. In addition to showing grave disrespect for its students' expressive rights, the University of Idaho also risks a First Amendment lawsuit by maintaining this policy. Speech codes have been successfully challenged elsewhere in the Ninth Circuit (at San Francisco State University last year and the Los Angeles Community College District just this summer), and to say that Idaho's policy is laughably unconstitutional is an understatement. For these reasons, the University of Idaho is our September 2009 Speech Code of the Month.
FIRE announces its Speech Code of the Month for August 2009: Northern Illinois University (NIU). In the NIU Student Code of Conduct, "harassment" is defined as the "Intentional and wrongful use of words, gestures and actions to annoy, alarm, abuse, embarrass, coerce, intimidate or threaten another person." (Emphasis added.) NIU is a public university, which means it is legally obligated to protect its students' First Amendment rights, and this policy fails miserably. While the university may legitimately prevent students from threatening and intimidating one another, it most certainly cannot prohibit students from annoying and embarrassing one another, even intentionally. In fact, satire and parody-which are entitled to particularly strong constitutional protection-are frequently profoundly embarrassing and annoying to their targets. This policy is representative of the prevailing culture on so many college campuses nowadays, in which there is a presumed "right not to be offended"-a "right" that undermines the whole notion of a university as a "marketplace of ideas" where students learn by exposure to a variety of different opinions expressed in a variety of different ways-including opinions and forms of expression that may be offensive.
July 2009: Rhode Island College
FIRE announces
its Speech Code of the Month for July 2009: Rhode Island College. Rhode Island
College, a public college, maintains a Code of Social Responsibility for its
residence halls that provides that "[T]he Office of Residential Life & Housing
will strongly support the Rhode Island College Sexual/Racial Harassment
policies, and will not tolerate actions or attitudes that threaten the welfare
of any of its members." (Emphasis added.) The policy also contains a list of
"proscribed behaviors," including "racially biased comments or racist humor." By
prohibiting not only actions but also attitudes, this policy directly infringes
on students' right to freedom of conscience—that is, their right to hold their
own thoughts and beliefs free from governmental intrusion. The policy also
explicitly threatens core political expression, since many would consider
certain opinions about important issues like affirmative action and illegal
immigration to be "racially biased," or political cartoons on these subjects to
be "racist humor." June 2009: New York University
FIRE announces
its Speech Code of the Month for June 2009: New York University. NYU’s
Anti-Harassment Policy explicitly prohibits “insulting,” “teasing,” and even
“inappropriate jokes” when they are based on a legally protected status such as
race, gender, or religion. This prohibition of protected speech is a clear
violation of NYU’s policy stating that “Free inquiry, free expression, and free
association are indispensable to the purposes of the University, and must be
protected as a matter of academic freedom within the University….” How is free
expression possible when students face punishment for any speech perceived by
another as insulting, degrading, or even merely inappropriate? There are many
important conversations to be had on matters such as race, religion and gender
that will likely—in a truly open debate—lead to feelings of insult or hurt. By
subjecting students engaging in this type of unfettered free expression to
punishment, NYU is simply shutting down whole avenues of discussion. May 2009: Middlebury College
FIRE announces
its Speech Code of the Month for May 2009: Middlebury College in Vermont.
Middlebury's ironically named policy on Freedom of Inquiry and Expression
provides that "[s]tudent organizations bear full responsibility for arranging
and financing any Department of Public Safety provisions that may be necessary
in connection with controversial speakers." The problem with this policy is
twofold. First, it gives the administration great discretion to burden speech
with which it disagrees. Secondly, it also allows fellow students to exercise a
"heckler's veto" over unpopular speech by threatening disruptive protests, thus
requiring additional security and, accordingly, additional-and possibly
prohibitive-costs. At a public university, this policy would be
unconstitutional; the U.S. Supreme Court has explicitly held that it
violates the First Amendment to charge varying fees for events based on how much
police protection the event would need. Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement,
505 U.S. 123 (1992). Although Middlebury is private, its policies protect the
right to free speech, even stating that "free speech must be protected even
when the views expressed are unpopular or controversial." In light of these
promises, it is hypocritical and reprehensible for the college to financially
burden controversial speech on campus. April 2009: San Jose State University
FIRE announces
its Speech Code of the Month for April 2009: San Jose State University (SJSU).
SJSU's housing department maintains a policy on "harassment and/or assault"
which prohibits, among other things, "publicly telling offensive jokes," and
which provides—in direct violation of the law—that "the conduct is evaluated
from the complainant's perspective." SJSU is a public university, bound by the
First Amendment. What's more, it is a part of the California State University
system, several of whose speech codes have already been the subject of a
successful federal lawsuit. Thus, the fact that SJSU maintains this egregious
harassment policy is simply indefensible. March 2009: University of Tulsa
FIRE announces
its Speech Code of the Month for March 2009: the University of Tulsa. While the
University of Tulsa is a private institution, it promises its students all of
the same free speech rights they would have at a public university, so it must
not prohibit speech protected by the First Amendment. Nevertheless, it does just
that. The University of Tulsa's harassment policy is vague, overbroad, and
terribly confusing. It contains conflicting definitions of harassment as well as
a list of examples of harassment that include protected speech. The policy,
which is a mess of contradictory definitions and ambiguous wording, leaves
students vulnerable to punishment not only for protected expression but also for
core political speech, which is at the heart of what the First Amendment
protects. Southern Illinois University at Carbondale February 2009: Southern Illinois University at Carbondale
FIRE announces
its Speech Code of the Month for February 2009: Southern Illinois University at
Carbondale (SIUC). FIRE, along with the heads of the Illinois Association of
Scholars and the ACLU of Southern Illinois, recently wrote to SIUC Chancellor
Sam Goldman regarding the university's free speech zone policy. In response
Chancellor Goldman lashed out, erroneously alleging that FIRE had given SIUC its
"red light" rating because of its proposed sexual harassment policy rather than
for its many existing policies that violate the First Amendment. One of those
policies, the Policy on Non-Discrimination and Non-Harassment, prohibits (among
other things) all "objectionable epithets" and "demeaning depictions." This
policy explicitly prohibits constitutionally protected speech, since most
"demeaning depictions," such as parodies and satires, are protected by the First
Amendment. State University Of New York - University at Buffalo January 2009: University at Buffalo
FIRE announces
its Speech Code of the Month for January 2009: University at Buffalo (also known
as SUNY Buffalo). The university's Guide to Residence Hall Living contains a
Statement of Civility that requires students in the residence halls "to be
courteous and polite or, simply put, to be mannerly." The policy provides that
"[a]cts of incivility—will not be tolerated by the Residential Life community."
This policy impermissibly restricts students' right to freely express themselves
in the residence halls, which are the closest thing students have to their own
homes while attending college. Learning to live with and engage other people
outside of one's own family is often a vital part of the college experience, and
college dormitories should be a place where lively debate occurs as students
challenge one another's pre-existing ideas and conceptions. UB's policy, with
its Victorian-era requirement of "mannerly" conduct and expression at all times,
instead requires students to walk on eggshells around one another to avoid being
guilty of "incivility." A university may certainly require that student conduct
in the residence halls not interfere with other residents' ability to sleep or
study. But to require that all interaction be "courteous," "polite," and
"mannerly" is to stifle debate in one of the places that students interact most
freely and naturally—the place where they live. Speech Code of the Month: Lone Star College
FIRE announces
its Speech Code of the Month for December 2008: Lone Star College in Texas. FIRE
recently addressed the suppression of free speech at one of the colleges in the
Lone Star College System, when Lone Star College–Tomball censored a student
group for distributing a jocular flyer listing "Top Ten Gun Safety Tips." Now,
FIRE has learned that the Lone Star College System maintains speech codes that
threaten free expression at all five of the system's campuses. The most vague
and overbroad of these policies, found in the system-wide Student Code of
Conduct, prohibits any "vulgar expression" on any Lone Star College campus,
including in electronic communications. This policy is unconstitutionally vague;
students have no way of knowing what exactly is prohibited, since what is
"vulgar" depends entirely on who is hearing or viewing the expression in
question. It is also overbroad, explicitly prohibiting speech and expression
such as the kinds of "vulgar" satire, parody, and social commentary that the
Supreme Court has repeatedly held are protected by the First Amendment. Speech Code of the Month: University of the Pacific
FIRE announces
its Speech Code of the Month for November 2008: University of the Pacific. The
university's policy on Harassment, Coercion, and Discrimination prohibits any
conduct "that undermines the emotional, physical, or ethical integrity of any
community member." This includes any expression, "intentional or unintentional,"
that "has the effect of demeaning, ridiculing, defaming, stigmatizing,
intimidating, slandering or impeding the work or movement of a person or persons
or conduct that supports or parodies the oppression of others." Examples of
explicitly prohibited expression include "insults," "jokes," "teasing," and
"derogatory comments." The policy is so fraught with attacks on free speech that
it is difficult to understand how anyone even remotely aware of the First
Amendment allowed it to be implemented. (The University of the Pacific, as a
private, secular university in California, is bound by the Leonard Law, which
prohibits private institutions from maintaining regulations that at their public
counterparts would violate the First Amendment.) In fact, this policy, which
openly threatens core political speech, explicitly bans protected speech, and
leaves students at the mercy of the most sensitive members of their community,
is one of the worst speech codes FIRE has ever seen. Speech Code of the Month: University of Northern Iowa
FIRE announces
its Speech Code of the Month for October 2008: the University of Northern Iowa.
Overbroad "bias incident" policies are a problem on college campuses nationwide.
But perhaps the problem is nowhere so great as at the University of Northern
Iowa, a public university, which defines a "bias incident" as "any inappropriate
word or action directed toward an individual or group based upon actual or
perceived identity characteristics or background of a group or person and that
is contrary to law or policy." This policy is fatally flawed in many ways, most
importantly in that the prohibition on "inappropriate words" is both
unconstitutionally overbroad and vague. Students will have to guess at what will
be deemed "inappropriate," and most speech that a reasonable person would find
"inappropriate" is still wholly protected by the First Amendment. FIRE calls on
the University of Northern Iowa to immediately revise this shameful policy. Pennsylvania State University - University Park Speech Code of the Month: Pennsylvania State University
FIRE announces
its Speech Code of the Month for September 2008: Pennsylvania State University.
Penn State's "Penn State Principles" require students to agree that "I will not
engage in any behaviors that compromise or demean the dignity of individuals or
groups, including intimidation, stalking, harassment, discrimination, taunting,
ridiculing, insulting, or acts of violence." By maintaining this policy, Penn
State—as a public university in the Third Circuit—is flouting two binding court
decisions clearly holding that policies such as this one are unconstitutional on
college campuses and even in public high schools. Speech Code of the Month: Jackson State University
FIRE announces
its Speech Code of the Month for August 2008: Jackson State University in
Mississippi. Jackson State's harassment policy provides, in relevant part, that
"The scope of any form of harassment includes language to physical acts which
degrades, insult, taunt, or challenges another person by any means of
communication, verbal, so as to provoke a violent response, communication of
threat, defamation of character, use of profanity, verbal assaults, derogatory
comments or remarks, sexist remarks, racists remarks or any behavior that places
another member of the University community in a state of fear or anxiety." This
policy is so extraordinarily jumbled that it is impossible to tell exactly what
is prohibited—a sure prescription for an unlawful chilling effect on campus
speech. Moreover, although the full scope of the policy is impossible to
discern, it is clear that much of what is prohibited is constitutionally
protected expression. Jackson State's student handbook promises that "[a]s U.S.
citizens, students enjoy the same freedom of speech, peaceful assembly, and
right of petition that other citizens enjoy." But under the university's current
regulations, nothing could be farther from the truth. Speech Code of the Month: Delta State University
FIRE announces
its Speech Code of the Month for July 2008: Delta State University. Delta
State's harassment policy provides that harassment occurs when the work or
learning environment "is one that a reasonable person would objectively find
hostile or abusive or one that the particular person who is the object of the
harassment perceives to be hostile or abusive." (Emphasis added.) Defining
harassment on the basis of the perception of the allegedly harassed individual
completely eliminates any semblance of objectivity in Delta State's harassment
policy. In other words, harassment occurs when either a reasonable or an
unreasonable person finds the environment to be hostile. This means that
students at Delta State are at the mercy of the most sensitive members of the
community—if they feel harassed, they have been harassed, no matter how
unreasonable those feelings may be. Delta State's policy stands in stark
contrast to applicable First Amendment law, which Delta State—as a public
institution—is bound to uphold. Moreover, it is a moral outrage. Under this
speech code, students at Delta State must tailor their expression to avoid
offending those with the most tender sensibilities, a requirement that
undoubtedly has a powerful chilling effect on expression at the university.
Delta State's harassment policy undermines the entire purpose of a university,
turning it into a place where people walk on eggshells rather than the
marketplace of ideas it is supposed to be. Speech Code of the Month: Tufts University
FIRE announces
its Speech Code of the Month for June 2008: Tufts University. Tufts already has
the dubious distinction of a spot on FIRE's Red Alert List, which is reserved
for colleges and universities that display the utmost disregard for their
students' individual rights. Tufts earned its Red Alert status after finding
last spring that The Primary Source (TPS), a conservative student newspaper,
violated the school's harassment policy by publishing two satirical articles
mocking affirmative action and Islamic fundamentalism. It is that vague and
overbroad harassment policy that has now earned Tufts the ignominy of being
named Speech Code of the Month for June 2008. Speech Code of the Month: University of Louisville
FIRE announces
its Speech Code of the Month for May 2008: the University of Louisville. The
University of Louisville's Code of Student Conduct prohibits "[e]ngaging in
intentional conduct directed at a specific person(s) which seriously alarms or
intimidates such person(s) and which serves no legitimate purpose," but this
hopelessly vague and overbroad restriction on speech has no place at a public
university. Louisville also defines "hostile environment harassment" as
"unwelcome comments or conduct that have the purpose of... creating an
intimidating, hostile or offensive working or learning environment that a
reasonable person would find threatening or intimidating." However, this
definition fails to meet the exacting standards for peer-on-peer harassment
supplied by the Supreme Court, resulting in an impermissibly vague restriction
on expression that serves to chill speech on campus. Speech Code of the Month: Murray State University
FIRE announces
its Speech Code of the Month for April 2008: Murray State University in
Kentucky. The Women's Center at Murray State maintains a guide to sexual
harassment that provides students with numerous examples of sexual harassment,
including, among others, "telling sexual jokes or stories"; "looking a person up
and down (elevator eyes)"; and "displaying sexual and/or derogatory comments
about men/women on coffee mugs...." Unless these behaviors rise to the level of
severity and pervasiveness necessary to constitute actual harassment, however,
they are constitutionally protected expression, which Murray State—as a public
university—is obligated to protect. Speech Code of the Month: Valdosta State University
FIRE announces
its Speech Code of the Month for March 2008: Valdosta State University. Valdosta
State, a public university with over 11,000 students, maintains just one small
"Free Expression Area" on its large campus. To make matters worse, the Free
Expression Area is only available between the hours of "noon and 1 pm and/or 5
and 6 pm"—just two hours a day—and must be reserved 48 hours in advance, without
exception. This free speech zone policy—easily the worst FIRE has ever seen—is
just one more example of Valdosta State's disregard for the First Amendment: the
university already has a spot on FIRE's Red Alert list for its shameful
treatment of student Hayden Barnes, who was expelled for peacefully protesting
the construction of new parking garages on campus. Speech Code of the Month: University of Utah
FIRE announces
its Speech Code of the Month for February 2008: the University of Utah. This
public university's Department of Housing & Residential Education prohibits the
posting of "any information that is deemed to be racist, sexist, indecent,
scandalous, illegal, inciting, advertise alcohol or illegal substances, or in
any way oppressive in nature." The prohibition on posting any "scandalous"
information hearkens back to the Victorian era; it also prohibits broad swaths
of constitutionally protected speech, as do the restrictions on "racist,"
"sexist," or "oppressive" postings. Moreover, the policy gives residence life
administrators seemingly unfettered discretion to define all of those vague and
general terms. As a public university, the University of Utah is bound to uphold
its students' First Amendment rights, and this policy utterly fails to do so.
Speech Code of the Month: Texas Southern University
FIRE announces
its Speech Code of the Month for January 2008: Texas Southern University. Texas
Southern's Student Code of Conduct prohibits "intentional mental or physical
harm," which it defines as "Knowingly or recklessly causing or attempting to
cause by acts and/or threats, emotional, mental, physical or verbal harm to
another person ...This includes intimidation, emotional force, embarrassing,
degrading or damaging information, assumptions, implications, remarks, or fear
for one's safety." The policy's exceedingly vague proscriptions make it
difficult—if not impossible—for students to know what is actually prohibited,
leaving the university with unfettered discretion to punish students for
constitutionally protected speech. At a public university like Texas Southern,
this policy is both wholly unconstitutional and morally reprehensible. Speech Codes of the Year: 2007
As Torch
readers know, each month FIRE singles out a particularly egregious speech code
for our Speech Code of the Month award. While all twelve Speech Codes of the
Month for 2007 were both tragic and laughable, I would like to highlight a few
that deserve special mention as our Speech Codes of the Year: Northeastern
University in Boston. Northeastern’s Appropriate Use of Computer and Network
Resources Policy provides that no student may use Northeastern’s information
systems or facilities to “[t]ransmit or make accessible material, which in the
sole judgment of the University is offensive….” McNeese State University in
Louisiana. McNeese State maintains what is possibly the most restrictive free
speech zone policy FIRE has ever seen, with the possible exception of Texas
Tech’s infamous free speech gazebo: The “Public Forum Regulations” provide that
students may exercise their right to speak and demonstrate—a right guaranteed to
students of this public institution by the First Amendment—in just two “zones.”
Speech Code of the Month: University of Cincinnati
FIRE announces
its Speech Code of the Month for December 2007: the University of Cincinnati.
The University of Cincinnati maintains a “Free Speech Area” policy limiting free
speech to just one small area of campus and requiring that activities even in
that area be formally scheduled through the Campus Scheduling Office. The policy
also provides that “anyone violating this policy may be charged with
trespassing.” While free speech zone policies are unfortunately all too common
on college campuses, this is the first time FIRE has actually seen a public
university threaten students with criminal prosecution simply for exercising
their constitutionally protected right to free speech outside of a small
designated area or for failing to register their protest or demonstration in
advance. This is truly shameful conduct on the part of a university legally
bound to uphold its students’ First Amendment rights. Saginaw Valley State University Speech Code of the Month: Saginaw Valley State University
FIRE announces
its Speech Code of the Month for November 2007: Saginaw Valley State University
(SVSU). SVSU, a public university in Michigan, maintains a Policy on
Discrimination, Sexual Harassment and Racial Harassment that prohibits, among
other things, “degrading comments or jokes referring to an individual’s race,
religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, age, marital or familial
status, color, height, weight, handicap or disability.” “Harassment” is an
exacting legal standard; most “degrading comments or jokes” do not even approach
this standard and are wholly protected by the First Amendment. The notion that
adult college students somehow need to be protected this type of speech is
ludicrous. Speech Code of the Month: Lewis-Clark State College
FIRE announces
its Speech Code of the Month for October 2007: Lewis-Clark State College in
Idaho. Lewis-Clark’s student harassment policy provides, in relevant part, that
“Any practice by a group or an individual that…embarrasses…a member of the
College community…and which occurs on College-owned or controlled property or
while the violator is attending or participating in a College-sponsored event or
activity is prohibited.” If anything is an embarrassment to the Lewis-Clark
“College community,” it is the administration’s ignorance of the First
Amendment. This policy is both unconstitutionally overbroad—most speech that
might ‘embarrass’ another person is nonetheless entirely constitutionally
protected—and fundamentally unfair, since it could never be enforced across the
board. There is simply no way that the Lewis-Clark administration could respond
to each and every incident of “embarrassment” among the more than 3,000 students
on its campus, leaving students vulnerable to arbitrary enforcement by the
administration. FIRE is calling on Lewis-Clark State College to repeal this
unfair and unconstitutional policy. Speech Code of the Month: The Ohio State University
FIRE announces
its Speech Code of the Month for September 2007: The Ohio State University. The
Office of University Housing at Ohio State, a public university, maintains a
Diversity Statement that severely restricts what students in Ohio State’s
residence halls can and cannot say. Students are instructed: “Do not joke about
differences related to race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, ability,
socioeconomic background, etc.” It also contains the following cryptic
prohibition: “Words, actions, and behaviors that inflict or threaten infliction
of bodily or emotional harm, whether done intentionally or with reckless
disregard, are not permitted.” This policy both squelches the type of frank
expression that often characterizes college student communication and violates
students’ constitutional right to free speech. Speech Code of the Month: University of Iowa
FIRE announces
its Speech Code of the Month for August 2007: the University of Iowa. The
university maintains a website—sexualharassment.uiowa.edu—that defines sexual
harassment in a way that violates its students’ First Amendment rights.
According to the website, sexual harassment “occurs when somebody says or does
something sexually related that you don’t want them to say or do, regardless of
who it is.” Examples of such behavior include “[t]elling sexual jokes” and
“[t]alking about their sexual experiences.” This is an extremely broad
definition that includes a lot of constitutionally protected speech. Speech Code of the Month: McNeese State University
FIRE announces
its Speech Code of the Month for July 2007: McNeese State University. This
public university in Louisiana maintains a set of “Public Forum Regulations”
that quarantine free speech to just two areas of campus and place onerous
restrictions on the use of those areas. In addition, the regulations restrict
where students can speak; how frequently they can speak; how long they can
speak; and at what times of the day and week they can speak. Finally, they
require students to give at least 3 days advance notice in order to speak. There
is simply no justification for a public university to place such burdensome
restrictions on its students’ constitutionally guaranteed rights to free speech
and assembly. Not only would this policy not hold up in a court of law, but it
is also a moral outrage. Speech Code of the Month: Le Moyne College
FIRE announces
its Speech Code of the Month for June 2007: Le Moyne College in New York.
Despite prominently placed commitments to free speech and academic freedom, the
school maintains a policy threatening students with dismissal for making
“Stigmatizing or disparaging statements related to race, gender, ethnicity,
sexual orientation, religious preference, age or people with disabilities.” This
policy seriously threatens campus discourse by allowing Le Moyne to expel
students for expressing any number of controversial opinions. Considering the
chilling effect this policy has on robust debate on Le Moyne’s campus and the
school’s past record—including the 2005 dismissal of student Scott McConnell for
expressing controversial views, which was later overruled by a New York appeals
court—FIRE is asking that the school immediately revise this policy. Texas A&M University - College Station Speech Code of the Month: Texas A&M University
FIRE announces
its Speech Code of the Month for May 2007: Texas A&M University. Texas A&M’s
policy on Student Rights and Obligations prohibits students from violating the
“rights” of “respect for personal feelings” and “freedom from indignity of any
type.” This unconstitutional policy literally prohibits hurting someone’s
feelings at Texas A&M University. Legally speaking, this policy is not worth the
paper on which it is written. It is overbroad, it is vague, and it conditions
the permissibility of speech on subjective listener reaction. Time and time
again, courts have held that these types of regulations are unconstitutional.
Beyond that, it is an entirely inappropriate policy for a major state university
that, in its own words, “depends upon an uninhibited search for truth and its
open expression.” Texas A&M is the sixth largest university in the country in
terms of enrollment, with over 46,000 enrolled students living under this
repressive and unconstitutional policy. FIRE urges Texas A&M to revise this
policy immediately. Speech Code of the Month: Florida Gulf Coast University
FIRE announces
its Speech Code of the Month for April 2007: Florida Gulf Coast University (FGCU).
FGCU's “Personal Abuse” policy prohibits “lewd, indecent, racist, prejudice
[sic], obscene, or expressions deemed inappropriate.” This policy prohibits
broad categories of constitutionally protected speech, which public universities
like FGCU are legally obligated to protect. Moreover, the policy is so broad
that it gives an impermissible amount of discretion to the university to decide
what constitutes a violation (for example, what exactly is “inappropriate”
expression?). FGCU should repeal this repressive and unconstitutional policy
immediately. Speech Code of the Month: Western Michigan University
FIRE announces
its Speech Code of the Month for March 2007: Western Michigan University (WMU).
WMU’s Policy on Sexual Harassment and Sexism actually bans “sexism,” which it
defines as “the perception and treatment of any person, not as an individual,
but as a member of a category based on sex.” The policy goes on to state that
sexism, “[w]hether expressed in overt or subtle form such as sex-related jokes
or materials,” will not “be tolerated at Western Michigan University.” WMU
cannot lawfully regulate its students “perceptions.” Nor can it lawfully prevent
its students from making “sex-related jokes” or any other supposedly sexist
remarks, unless students’ speech falls into one of the very narrow categories of
speech unprotected by the First Amendment. WMU should repeal this intrusive and
unconstitutional policy immediately. Speech Code of the Month: Northeastern University
FIRE announces
its Speech Code of the Month for February 2007: Northeastern University in
Boston. Northeastern’s Appropriate Use of Computer and Network Resources Policy
prohibits students from using Northeastern’s information systems or facilities
to send any message that “in the sole judgment of the University” is
“intolerant” or “offensive.” It is disturbing that Northeastern—which promises
its students the right “to express their views” —maintains a policy that is
almost certain to discourage debate on controversial issues. This policy forces
students to guess at what the university might punish; in all likelihood, the
result is that students will refrain from a great deal of important, protected,
but controversial speech in an effort to steer clear of this exceptionally vague
policy. Speech Code of the Month: Fayetteville State University
FIRE announces
its Speech Code of the Month for January 2007: Fayetteville State University.
Fayetteville State's racial harassment policy is identical to a policy that was
explicitly declared unconstitutional by a federal court in 1989. If challenged
in court, Fayetteville State's policy would almost certainly meet with the same
fate. Speech Codes of the Year: 2006
As Torch
readers know, each month FIRE singles out a particularly egregious speech code
for our Speech Code of the Month award. While all twelve Speech Codes of the
Month for 2006 were both tragic and laughable, I would like to highlight a few
that deserve special mention as our Speech Codes of the Year: Jacksonville State
University in Alabama. The student code of conduct at Jacksonville State
provides that “No student shall threaten, offend, or degrade anyone on
University owned or operated property.” Got that? You may not offend anyone on
University property. Barnard College in New York City. The Barnard College
Posting Policy provides that “the following words cannot appear on any posted
information at Barnard—shit, piss, suck, cunt, fuck, motherfucker, cocksucker
and tits.” Speech Code of the Month: Johns Hopkins University
FIRE announces
its Speech Code of the Month for December 2006: Johns Hopkins University.
Hopkins’ brand new Principles for Ensuring Equity, Civility and Respect for All
prohibit “rude, disrespectful behavior” at the university. This policy virtually
necessitates abuse, since it is so broad that it could never be enforced across
the board, instead leaving students at the whim of the administration. No
university could possibly have the resources to prosecute every instance of
rudeness that takes place anywhere on its campus. This policy also stifles
free expression on campus, since much legitimate speech is both rude and
disrespectful. Michael Moore, anyone? Bill O’Reilly? Passionate arguments about
important issues often get heated, and this is something to be cherished in a
free society, not repressed. University of Maine - Presque Isle Speech Code of the Month: University of Maine – Presque Isle
FIRE announces
its Speech Code of the Month for November 2006: University of Maine – Presque
Isle (UMPI). UMPI's Residence Hall Guide contains a harassment policy that
states: “Even if the harassment is unintentional (e.g., an off-hand comment or
joke) it still occurs and will not be tolerated.” As a public university, UMPI
cannot prohibit speech that is protected by the First Amendment. The U.S.
Supreme Court has defined what schools may legitimately prohibit as harassment:
conduct “so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively
bars the victim’s access to an educational opportunity or benefit.” By
definition, then, an unintentional, off-hand comment or joke cannot be
harassment, making this policy legally untenable. Speech Code of the Month: University of Mississippi
FIRE announces
its Speech Code of the Month for October 2006: University of Mississippi. The
University of Mississippi’s General Telephone Policy provides that, on calls
made to and from campus telephones, “offensive language is not to be used.” As a
state-run university, Ole Miss is legally obligated to uphold the free speech
rights guaranteed by the Constitution to its students and faculty. This
policy—which is so preposterously broad that students and faculty must
necessarily censor themselves in order to comply—directly violates those rights.
Speech Code of the Month: Drexel University
FIRE announces
its Speech Code of the Month for September 2006: Drexel University. Drexel's
harassment policy, which bans “inconsiderate jokes” and “inappropriately
directed laughter,” is a resurrection of an old University of Connecticut speech
code that epitomizes the excesses of political correctness. At Drexel, not only
won’t they let you tell certain types of jokes, they will even punish you for
finding them funny. This is Orwellian thought policing at its worst, and if
Drexel cares about the free speech rights of its students and faculty, it should
revoke this policy. Speech Code of the Month: Colorado State University
FIRE announces
its Speech Code of the Month for August 2006: Colorado State University.
Colorado State's Residence Hall Handbook prohibits "expressions of hostility
against a person or property because of a person's race, color, ancestry,
national origin, religion, ability, age, gender, socio-economic status,
ethnicity, or sexual orientation." This policy is a clear violation of students'
First Amendment rights, which Colorado State—a public university—is
legally obligated to uphold. Speech Code of the Month: Macalester College
Macalester
College’s Student Handbook promises Macalester students the rights to “free
expression” and “free inquiry,” and provides that “[s]tudents and student
organizations are free to examine and discuss all questions of interest to them
and to express opinions publicly and privately.” Several pages later, however,
that same Handbook prohibits “speech acts which are intended to insult or
stigmatize an individual or group of individuals on the basis of their race or
color, or speech that makes use of inappropriate words or non-verbals.” This
policy is a clear violation of Macalester students’ rights to free expression
and free inquiry, rights promised in a Student Handbook that explicitly
establishes a contractual relationship between the college and its students. Speech Code of the Month: Coast Community College District
The Coast
Community College District consists of three California community colleges with
a total enrollment of more than 60,000 students: Coastline Community College,
Golden West College, and Orange Coast College. The District maintains a Student
Code of Conduct—applicable to students at all three colleges—that is a laundry
list of First Amendment violations. Speech Code of the Month: University of Miami
The University
of Miami’s “Harassment or Harm to Others” policy appears to prohibit almost
anything that (even unintentionally) hurts anyone’s feelings. It is sad that the
university treats its college students—mostly adults—as little children whose
feelings need to be protected at the expense of others’ free speech rights.
College is supposed to be a place where you step outside of your comfort zone,
not a place where you can be punished for expressing controversial opinions
simply because they make someone uncomfortable. Speech Code of the Month: Barnard College
Barnard
College’s Posting Policy deserves special recognition because it accomplishes
the unique feat of violating itself. The speech code prohibits any of George
Carlin’s famous “Seven Dirty Words” from appearing on any posted information at
Barnard. The actual policy lists each of those words; therefore, posting a copy
of the Policy anywhere on Barnard’s campus would itself be a violation of the
Policy! Although Barnard is a private institution, it advertises itself as a
place where students “are encouraged to openly express their views and
opinions.” Sometimes, however, people express strong opinions in strong terms.
If Barnard is truly the center of higher learning that it claims to be, it
shouldn’t be afraid of a few dirty words. Speech Code of the Month: Davidson College
Davidson
College’s Sexual Harassment Policy prohibits the use of “patronizing remarks”
such as “referring to an adult as ‘girl,’ ‘boy,’ ‘hunk,’ ‘doll,’ ‘honey,’” or
“sweetie” and further prohibits “comments or inquiries about dating.” This
policy explicitly bans so much speech and expression that students must watch
everything they say or do to make sure they do not run afoul of it. That results
in an unacceptable “chilling effect” on speech. Speech Code of the Month: Jacksonville State University
Jacksonville
State University in Alabama maintains one of the most illegally overbroad—not to
mention simply inane—speech codes that we have ever seen. The student code of
conduct provides that “No student shall threaten, offend, or degrade anyone on
University owned or operated property.” The only way for students to ensure they
are in compliance with this policy is to remain in complete silence. The
university is treading on very thin ice with this flagrantly unconstitutional
policy. Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts Speech Code of the Month: Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts
The Student
Handbook at the Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts, a public institution
bound by the First Amendment, contains a Picketing Policy that is both absurd
and unconstitutional. The policy could easily be used to suppress almost any
student demonstration. Stevens Institute of Technology Speech Code of the Month: Stevens Institute of Technology
Although the
Stevens Institute of Technology is a private institution, it promises its
students “[t]he constitutional rights of freedom of expression and assembly” and
“the right of freedom to hear and participate in dialogue and to examine diverse
views and ideas.” Unfortunately, Stevens maintains a sexual harassment policy
that strips students of the very rights it promises. Speech Code of the Month: Lincoln University
Lincoln
University defines sexual harassment as “unwelcome and unsolicited sexual
advances, request for sexual favors or other verbal, visual or physical conduct
or communication with sexual overtones that the victim deems offensive”
(emphasis added). This policy shamelessly violates clearly established Supreme
Court precedent regarding harassment. Speech Code of the Month: Northern Arizona University
Northern
Arizona University, a public institution, maintains a Safe Working and Learning
Environment Policy that not only explicitly prohibits constitutionally protected
speech, but also contains a gross misstatement of the law. Speech Code of the Month: University of Nevada at Reno
The University
of Nevada at Reno is a public institution, legally bound to uphold the
constitutional rights of its students. Yet the university maintains a blatantly
unconstitutional speech code for its residence halls, prohibiting, among other
things, “offensive language.” Richard Stockton College of New Jersey Speech Code of the Month: Richard Stockton College of New Jersey
As a public
institution, the Richard Stockton College of New Jersey is legally bound by the
U.S. Constitution. Its anti-harassment policy, however, infringes upon protected
speech and is particularly outrageous because it explicitly infringes upon the
free exchange of ideas in the classroom. Speech Code of the Month: Albertson College of Idaho
The Albertson
College Student Handbook’s harassment policy states that “[a]ny comments or
conduct relating to a person’s race, gender, religion, disability, age or ethnic
background that fail to respect the dignity and feelings of the individual are
unacceptable.” The Handbook also provides that “[a]ll inappropriate behaviors
may not be specifically covered in the misconduct definitions, and students will
be held accountable for behaviors considered inconsistent with the standards and
expectations described in this handbook.” These provisions are wholly
inconsistent with freedom. Speech Code of the Month: Rhodes College
The Rhodes
College Policy on Discrimination and Harassment states that “[f]reedom of
expression does not include the right to intentionally and maliciously
aggravate, intimidate, ridicule or humiliate another person.” Few colleges and
universities are bold enough to make an explicit statement about free expression
that directly contradicts U.S. Supreme Court precedent. Parody and satire—which
often intentionally and maliciously ridicule and humiliate their targets—enjoy
the strongest constitutional protection.
The American Dissident www.theamericandissident.org, a 501c3 nonprofit. |
