10 Worst Censors: 2024 | The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression – Foundation for Individual Rights in Education

Its that time of year again time for the first spring showers, a forecasting groundhog, flowers and chocolates, king cake, and an annual skewering of Americas worst censors. Each year, FIRE names and shames the worst-of-the-worst silencers, bowdlerizers, and steamrollers of free speech.

This year, weve included five free speech villains whose chilling misdeeds happened off of college campuses. Thelist belowincludes people guilty of many forms of censorshipincluding raiding a small-town newspaper, punishing a middle schooler for wearing eye black at a football game, canceling students and professors for their views on the Israel-Hamas war, and retroactively censoring famous authors without their consent. The 13th annual Lifetime Censorship Award went to Harvard University, a university as censorial as it is famous.

Read on for full descriptions, in no particular order, of these censors attempts to turn America into the land of the silenced and home of the afraid.

San Diego middle school gives itself a black eye by punishing a student for wearing eye black.

Any sports fan knows its common for athletes to wear eye black black paint or grease applied under the eyes. For some players, its functional, reducing glare from the sun or stadium lights. For others, like superstarsBryce Harper andJalen Hurts who liberally smear it on like warpaint its about the look.

Last October, a Muirlands Middle School student, whose initials are J.A., adopted that look to show school spirit at a football game. He wore eye black throughout the game without incident. But a week later, J.A.s principalsuspended him for two days and banned him from future athletic events for wearing blackface.

Wait, what?

There was noblackface. J.A.s eye black had no racial connotations he was just emulating the way many athletes generously apply it under their eyes.

Whats next? The school suspending a student for wearing a charcoal face mask in an Instagram selfie?

J.A. appealed his suspension, and FIRE sent aletter in support. The bottom line is that J.A.s face paint is constitutionally protected expression. There is no evidence it substantially disrupted school activities.

But after reviewing the play, the school district let the ruling on the field stand.

Now, with the help ofDhillon Law Group, J.A.s family issuing. But there was a simple way for the school to avoid this challenge flag in the first place: Dont violate the First Amendment by misrepresenting students expression and then punishing them for it.

Feeling threatened by a small-town newspaper and its 98-year-old co-owner, police raid the papers headquarters, attacking the First Amendment in the process.

Apolice raid against a local newspaper sounds like a story out of Putins Russia but it happened in theheart of Kansas.

The Marion, Kansas police, with the help of a magistrate judge (andmaybe even state-level officials), cobbled together a search warrant to invade the offices of the family-owned Marion County Record. Why? They didnt like that the newspaper had dirt on a political ally not to mention the papers investigations into allegations of misconduct bythe police chief himself.

They seized computers. They ripped a reporters cell phone out of her hand. They even rummaged around the home of the 98-year-old co-owner of the paper, ignoring her protests. The next day, following the shock of the raid, shepassed away.

Thats a tragedy. The raid was an assault on press freedom that would make our Founders blood boil. And it should make your blood boil too. No matter your views on the state of todays press, when public officials attack just one newspapers freedom, they show their contempt for everyones freedom.

Rightly, the Marion Countypolice chief resigned after leading this shameful attack on the First Amendment. FIRE will continue to stand up to government bullies who try to turn journalism into a crime.

Mayo Clinic College of Medical Science tells doctor to shut up or toe the party line.

Can doctors offer a second opinion? Not according to Mayo Clinic College of Medical Science, which punished medical professor Michael Joyner for sharing his expertise and research.

Joyner is arenowned academic whose commentary on COVID-19, public health, and sex differences in sports performance you can read inCNN,The New York Times, and numerous other media outlets over his 36 years at the Mayo Clinic. For speaking in his personal capacity about these issues, Mayo Clinicsuspendedhim for failing to communicate in accordance with prescribed messaging and reflecting poorly on Mayo Clinics brand and reputation.

The college alsodemanded he discuss approved topics only and stick to prescribed messaging and vet each individual media request through Public Affairs. In other words, Joyner can speak the words administrators put into his mouth or not speak at all.

Yet the collegepromises its faculty robust academic freedom and freedom of expression rights essential to medical professionals expected to share their expertise even when it is difficult or unpopular. Despite this commitment, Mayo Clinic leadership put its business interests above the freedom necessary for scientific innovation and sound medical advice, to the detriment of doctors and patients alike.

For sacrificing scientific integrity in a vain attempt to maintain its brand, Mayo Clinic rightfullyearned condemnation from the medical community. For gagging a prominent academic merely because administrators didnt like what he had to say, the collegeearned alawsuit by Joyner and a spot on this list.

Legislators and publishers bravely protect American people from dangerous childrens authors Mark Twain, Roald Dahl, and R.L. Stine.

If theres one thing the left and right can agree on, its that some books are beyond the pale.

Legislators across the country drafted a number of vague, overbroad policies to remove or limit access to books they believe are inappropriate. And whilethere are important considerations regarding what constitutes a book ban and how curation works in public versus private libraries, many of the legislative actions crossed the line into First Amendment violations.

TexasREADER Act, for example, required book vendors to rate books they sell to school libraries based on vague criteria surrounding what constitutes sexually explicit material, effectively turning booksellers into censors. Thankfully, the U.S. Court of Appealsblocked enforcement of the legislation, noting that the law was an example of unconstitutional compelled speech.

Meanwhile, other would-be censors took a different approach. In addition to the usual protests over books like To Kill a Mockingbird and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, we also saw a number of publishers memory-hole so-called problematic content from the works of authors likeRoald Dahl andR.L. Stinein new editions throughsensitivity reading. FIRE spoke out in these incidents and in the case of Roald Dahl, contributed to public pressure that made some publishersreconsider completely phasing out the authors original language.

Whatever the censors methods, the motives behind these actions are the same: to remove, revise, or restrict booksthey deem inappropriate for others to read. Both from a constitutional and a cultural standpoint, FIRE stands against such censorial behavior and when it violates the First Amendment, we respond.

While San Francisco State investigates history professor for teaching history, its students make speaker flee for her safety for talking about womanhood.

San Francisco State University administrators were busy investigating ahistory professor for displaying ahistorical image in ahistory lesson when all hell broke loose during a speaking event on campus, ending in protesters shouting, chasing down, and cornering an Olympic athlete.

Last spring, SFSUs censors dove headfirst into a months-long investigation of professor Mazair Behrooz after he displayed an image of the Prophet Muhammad in a class lesson about the history of the Islamic worldbetween 500 and 1700. FIREwrote to SFSU warning that its chilling investigationran afoul of the schools constitutional obligations.

While administrators were tied up violating Behroozs academic freedom rights, students took censorship into their own hands when former Olympic swimmer Riley Gaines came to campus to share her opinions about womens sports and gender identities. Students and protesters screamed, chanted, stomped, and interrupted her speech, then accosted her as police officers attempted to escort her out. The officers were unable to do so safely until hours later.

FIREwrote to SFSUurging it to investigate the response of the administration and police, and SFSU responded by confirming it was investigating the disruption and claiming it was committed to free speech.

The school was not so quick to backtrack with Behrooz, and it continued its investigation through the end of the summer.

For dragging out its chilling investigation and censorship of a history professor forteaching historyand allowing its students to run roughshod over each others free speech rights, SFSU handily won a place on this list.

In the wake of the Israel-Hamas conflict, hypocritical college admins enjoy a censorship frenzy.

Universities across the country havealmost as many administrators on staff as there are students on campus. What do they all do? Well, they definitely dont protect free speech.

In the wake of Hamas Oct. 7 attack on Israel, as campuses roiled with protests, demonstrations, and controversies over speech, administrators enthusiastically engaged in censorship.

The University of Southern California prohibited professorJohn Strauss from teaching on campus after he called pro-Palestinian protestors ignorant and Hamas murderers.FIRE wrote to USC calling for the university to rescind its punishment of Strauss for his speech which is protected underUSCs policies.

Brandeis University unrecognized its chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine due topro-Hamas comments made by the national SJP organization.FIRE sent a letter reminding Brandeis that denying student group recognition based on viewpoint, speech, or fear of disruption violates free speech principles. FIRE sentanother letter on November 17 escalating our concerns and calling on Brandeis to restore SJPs recognition.

This turmoil was exacerbated by thehypocritical testimony of Liz Magill, Claudine Gay, and Sally Kornbluth presidents of the University of Pennsylvania, Harvard University, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, respectively before Congress. Magill and Gay in particular made remarks that were correct but deeply unsatisfying given their respective universities terrible track records on campus speech which put them in the bottom two spots inFIREs 2024 College Free Speech Rankings.

As FIREsNico Perrinowrote in response to the controversy, administrators should defend free speech in all cases. No hypocrisy. No double standards.

California Community Colleges stamp out racism by labeling everyone racist.

No one can rightly force another person to pledge allegiance to the flag, but in California, community college professors are required to profess allegiance to state-mandated views on diversity, equity, and inclusion.

In April, California Community Colleges imposeddraconian regulations forcing more than 54,000 professors to teach and promote politicized conceptions of DEI. The mandated viewincludes the anti-racist opinion that persons that say they are not a racist are in denial or that color-blindness that is, treating individuals as equally as possible, without regard to race, culture, or ethnicity only perpetuates existing racial inequities and denies systematic racism.

Professors, who once assigned readings presenting different perspectives on racial issues to invite classroom discussion and debate are now altering their curriculum to avoid perspectives contrary to the state-mandated viewpoint. Other professors are left wondering how to incorporate DEI concepts into their chemistry curriculum to comply with the new rules.

Whether professors satisfy the states ideological requirements has real career consequences. Faculty performance and tenure are now evaluated based on professors demonstrated commitment to and promotion of the state of Californias official views.

FIREwarned California that the regulations are unconstitutional, but the state chancellor dismissed our concerns, asserting that professors lack any individual right to academic freedom to express views contrary to those mandated by the community college system.

In August, FIRE filed alawsuit on behalf of six California community college professors to halt the new regulations. That lawsuit is pending in federal district court.

TAMU admins endorse censorship by text message and ban drag.

The Texas A&M System had a chilly 2023.

When board members found out that the university was hiring Kathleen McElroy a former New York Times editor to lead its journalism program, thetext messages started flying. One board member complained that the Times was biased and progressive leaning, another said the purpose of us starting a journalism program is to get journalists with conservative values into the market. That goal bled over into a broader plan to control the liberal nature of faculty in the arts and sciences. The brouhaha ultimately saw the universitys president resign and cost the university a cool million to settle the dispute.

A similar situation emerged when professor Joy Alonzo, an expert on the opioid crisis, criticized Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick during a lecture. An offended student in the class was the daughter of a state official. Within two hours, Chancellor John Sharp wastexting with Patrick and his chief of staff, assuring them that Alonzo was placed on administrative leave pending investigation re firing her. shud [sic] be finished by end of week. That promise didnt ultimately pan out, but Alonzo was suspended for two weeks.

While Sharps fingerprints were all over the Alonzo affair, he wouldnt lift a finger tostop censorship. After an LGBTQ+ student organization planned an on-campus charity drag show, West Texas A&M University President Walter Wendler banned drag shows. Wendlerargued that drag performances are sexist, and said he would not permit them even when the law of the land appears to require it. After the studentssued, Wendler changed his tune, claiming that drag shows arent performances at all, so they arent protected by the First Amendment. Still, he stood by the ban, and FIRE will keep fighting against it.

Taylor Swift wouldnt change anything, anything, anything about New York. We disagree.

New York has a problematic pattern of censorship.

After a school shooting in 2018, the Empire State launched a crusade against the National Rifle Association by threatening companies that did business with the NRA. FIREurged the Supreme Court to hold New York accountable for its unconstitutional pressure campaign.

Shortly after another shooting in Buffalo in 2022, the state enacted a law requiringsocial media networks to address hateful speech i.e. fully protected speech that the state doesnt like. FIREsued, and the lawsuit persuaded a federal judge to prohibit the state from enforcing its law because it could have a profound chilling effect.

But in the face of yet another tragedy the recent attacks in Israel New York ignored the courts order,sending investigation letters to FIREs client Rumble and other social media networks demanding that they disclose their policies for removing speech related to the conflict. FIREfiled a motion urging the judge to enforce his preliminary injunction order.

Making matters worse, New York Gov. Katy Hochul got in on the action. She sent an ill-advisedletter to thepresidents of all colleges and universities in New York, both public and private, demanding that they discipline students for calling for the genocide of any group of people and promised aggressive enforcement action against any institution failing to do so. This would stifle political debate and blatantly violate the First Amendment.

New York must stop using tragedies as opportunities for censorship.

Florida isnt where woke goes to die its where the First Amendment goes to retire.

In Florida, officials have performative censorship down to an art whether on campus or on stage.

Take drag. As anti-drag bills became this years legislative fad, Florida joined the ranks of governments cracking down on drag performances. State officials dispatched undercover officers to monitor performances of A Drag Queen Christmas. Those undercover agentsreported in records obtained by FIRE that there were provocative outfits, but no lewd acts. That didnt stop Floridas officials from going after the theaters liquor license anyway. Not content to be left out, Floridas legislature then passed a law of its own targeting drag performances a law soonput on ice by a federal court.

The same chilling charade plays out on campus. In the wake of the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks in Israel, the chancellor of Floridas universitiesdemanded university officials ban Students for Justice in Palestine chapters, threatening adverse employment actions and suspensions for school officials. But when the university leaders, citing the possibility of personal liability for violating students First Amendment rights, balked and the student groups sued, that will to censor evaporated. Soon, Florida meeklytold a federal judge that the formal memo was little more than a suggestion an open letter and it had no real plans to follow through.

Not only did Floridas university presidents have issues with censorship in 2023, but Floridas 28 college presidents started the year by unanimouslypledging to enforce Floridas Stop WOKE Act evenafter a federal court said the positively dystopian law violated the First Amendment in higher education. FIRE ischallenging the Stop WOKE Act in court.

Harvard is Americas worst college for free speech. Its recent attempt to silence The New York Post shows why.

Harvard University came indead last on this yearsCollege Free Speech Rankings achieving a worst-ever score. When asked about Harvards abysmal ranking during her congressional testimony in December, then-Harvard President Claudine Gaysaid she didnt think the ranking was an accurate representation of Harvards respect for free speech. But all one needs to do to understand Harvardsdisrespect for free speech is look at its record of censorship.

Only a few weeks before Gays testimony, Harvard hiredself-advertised media assassins tothreaten the New York Post with a defamation lawsuit and immense damages if the paper published a story alleging Gay plagiarized some of her scholarship. So much for placing a high priority on freedom of speech or freedom of the press for that matter. Gay resigned on Jan. 2, after more than 40 allegations of plagiarism came to light.

Long before Harvard threatened news outlets with litigation for their reporting, it punished faculty and students for their speech. School administratorsdrove out lecturer Carole Hooven for arguing that biological sex is real. Itrescinded a fellowship for former Human Rights Watch Executive Director Kenneth Roth over his purported anti-Israel bias. It effectivelyfired an economics professor for an op-ed he published in India. Itcanceleda professors course on policing following student uproar. Itfired professor Ronald Sullivan from his deanship after students protested his role on Harvey Weinsteins criminal defense team. It bizarrelydemanded students take down a Nicki Minaj flag because the community could find it offensive. And the listgoes on.

Even outside speakers invited to campus arent safe from Harvards censorial glare. In 2022, feminist philosopher Devin Buckley wasdisinvited from an English department colloquium because of her views on sex and gender. Her talk was supposed to be on the separate topic of British romanticism.

Harvard students clearly feel the chill. Students report low administrative support for free speech and low comfort expressing ideas, placing the school near the bottom of FIREsCollege Free Speech Rankings in both individual categories. Unfortunately, Harvard students themselves may also contribute to the problem. If the efforts to oust Sullivan and cancel the policing class arent evidence enough, an alarming 30% of Harvard students think using violence to stop a campus speech isacceptable in at least some circumstances.

For its long track record of censorship, Harvard is receiving FIREsLifetime Censorship Award. It joins Georgetown University, Yale University, Syracuse University, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and DePaul University in receiving this honor. Its past time Harvard truly commits to its ostensible truth-seeking mission and the principles of free speech and academic freedom that make it possible. But that may be wishful thinking, the triumph of hope over experience.

View original post here:
10 Worst Censors: 2024 | The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression - Foundation for Individual Rights in Education