Category Archives: Free Speech

Georgetown adopts untrammeled free speech policy

It is not the proper role of a University to insulate individuals from ideas and opinions

In the midst of numerous campus free speech controversies, Georgetown University recently took steps to ensure that freedom of expression will remain protected and vibrant on its campus.

The universitys new free speech policy, adopted last week, affirms that the university is committed to free and open inquiry, deliberation and debate in all matters, and the untrammeled verbal and nonverbal expression of ideas. The university therefore seeks to offer the broadest possible latitude in all matters relating to free speech and free expression.

The policy admits that the ideas of different members of the University community will often and naturally conflict. However, it is not the proper role of a University to insulate individuals from ideas and opinions, even if those opinions are deeply offensive. Rather, it is up to individual members of the university community to judge the value of ideas, and act accordingly.

Georgetown community members, the policy holds, should deal with ideas and words not by seeking to suppress speech, but by openly and vigorously contesting those arguments and ideas that they oppose.

From the policy:

The freedom to debate and discuss the merits of competing ideas does not mean that individuals may say whatever they wish, wherever they wish. The University prohibits expression that violates the law, falsely defames a specific individual, constitutes a genuine threat, violates the Universitys harassment policy, or unjustifiably invades substantial privacy or confidentiality interests. In addition, the University may reasonably regulate the time, place, and manner of expression to ensure that it does not disrupt the ordinary activities of the institution. Finally, to the extent that appointment letters, confidentiality agreements or policies, professional conduct policies, or HR policies regulate conduct that may include speech and expression, they are not superseded by this policy. But these are narrow exceptions to the general principle of freedom of expression, and it is vitally important that these exceptions not be used in a manner that is inconsistent with the Universitys commitment to a free and open discussion of ideas.

As a corollary to the Universitys commitment to protect and promote free expression, members of the University community must also act in conformity with the principle of free expression. Although members of the University community are free to criticize and contest the views expressed by other members of the community, or by individuals who are invited to campus, they may not obstruct or otherwise interfere with the freedom of others to express views they reject or even loathe. To this end, the University has a solemn responsibility not only to promote a lively and fearless freedom of deliberation and debate, but also to protect that freedom when others attempt to restrict it.

Concerns about civility and mutual respect, the university declares, can never be used as a justification for closing off the discussion of ideas, no matter how offensive or disagreeable those ideas may be to some members of our community.

Read the whole policy here.

MORE:VIDEO: Georgetown clamps down on pro-life activists at Planned Parenthood presidents speech

Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter

IMAGE: Shutterstock

Link:
Georgetown adopts 'untrammeled' free speech policy - The College Fix

To the editor: Although it is correct and important to say that hate speech is legally protected, this op-ed article is misleading. (Actually, hate speech is protected speech, Opinion, June 8)

For instance, in the famous Supreme Court decision in Schenck vs. United States in 1919, the constitutional principle about not shouting fire in a crowded theater is not actually bad law as suggested. Nor is it accurate to suggest that such speech is illegal or unethical only if it is false.

A better example is from the libertarian philosopher John Stuart Mill: It is still criminal to incite mob violence or carnage at the house of a corn dealer even if the speech there is true. Another reason not to make truth or falsity the test of protected speech is that what was once thought false might turn out to be true.

There should be no doubt, however, that so much of so-called hate speech is legally protected but is nevertheless currently suppressed especially on college or university campuses (I am a philosophy professor at Cal State San Luis Obispo). Hate speech has come to mean whatever political speech one hates or finds offensive.

Despite the articles shortcomings, it is to be applauded for prompting reflections on these points.

Stephen W. Ball, San Luis Obispo

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook

See the rest here:
Is false speech free speech? - Los Angeles Times

By: Clairissa Baker

Posted: June 15, 2017 | Tags: First Amendment

Free speech controversies on college campuses nationwide show some experts that students need education about First Amendment protections earlier and often, according to a panel of academic and free speech authorities who spoke Wednesday afternoon at the Newseum.

Panelists said many American college students overwhelmingly support the First Amendment but feel campus leaders should create policies that limit or restrict offensive speech. That shows a tension over what free speech is meant to do.

"They support the First Amendment, but with significant exceptions, Newseum CEO Jeffrey Herbst, who was a panelist, said of college students.

Photo by Clairissa Baker, IRW

Panelists talk about campus press issues Wednesday at the Newseum.

A Knight Foundation study in 2016 found that 91 percent of high school students agreed people should be allowed to express unpopular opinions, but only 45 percent agreed people should be able to say what they want in public, even if it is offensive to others.

Similarly, a recent survey found college students prefer an open environment, but 69 percent say colleges should be allowed to restrict language that is intentionally offensive to certain groups, according to a Knight Foundation and Newseum Institute study on college students.

Speakers at the Knight TV Studio on Wednesday included John K. Wilson, co-editor of American Association of University Professors blog, and Catherine Ross, a George Washington University law professor. Gene Policinski, chief operating officer of the Newseum Institute, moderated the panel.

Herbst began by talking about speakers being turned down by college campuses because of political tension. But he said the college bubble in which many students find themselves is not the problem. Instead, the real problem to address is the attitude of students, Herbst said, because students arent a blank slate when they cross into college on the first day.

Incidents, such as the one in which the University of California, Berkeley disinvited Ann Coulter after threats of violence, according to reports by the Southern Poverty Law Center, have expanded debates about free speech on college campuses.

Wilson, who wrote a book on academic freedom, provided a critique of the summary of the state of free speech.

The First Amendment has always been in a terrible state, he said, and theres nothing special about millennials.

Hypocrisies are everywhere, and pretending one generation is the source, Wilson said, is misguided. Things are bad, and we need to deal with them because thats the norm.

Among those in the audience was LaMonte Summers, a media law and ethics professor at Morgan State Universitys School of Global Journalism and Communication.

Summers asked the panel if society needed to revisit how the First Amendment handles hate speech, mentioning a U.S. Supreme Court case in which a teenager burned a cross on the lawn of an African-American family.

Summers attended the event because many of his students work in media and his classes have discussions about similar issues.

I thought that critique was an excellent part of the panel, Summers said.

The panel raised concerns with students willingness to set limitations on free speech, even if it was to avoid hateful and offensive language. The way to address this issue with students, Herbst and Ross said, is to look at how society teaches the First Amendment in grades K-12.

The panel agreed teachers and students need more robust lessons on the First Amendment, but Ross said the only way to combat offensive speech was more and better speech.

If you seek change, the First Amendment is your ally, Herbst said.

Read more:
Free speech heated on campuses - Investigate reporting workshop (blog)

Earlonne Woods is serving 31 years to life for an attempted second-degree robbery. Antwaan Williams is serving a 15-year sentence for armed robbery. Theyre also terrific behind the mic as the co-hosts of the Ear Hustle podcast.

The series, which launches this week, won the first Podquest contest put on by Radiotopia to try and find new talent and diversify the network. The show had to beat 1,537 people from 53 different countries to secure the gig. This is hardly the toughest challenge the creators have had to face, though.

Ear Hustle is brought to us by a unique partnership between Woods and Williams, incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison in California, and Nigel Poor, a free woman.

Each episode has a different topic, Poor tells the Daily Dot. And what were trying to do is just cover different emotions.

Poor, a Bay Area college professor, first showed up to San Quentin Prison in 2011 as a volunteer teaching a history of photography class. After realizing the power of photography to bridge the gap between all kinds of issues and shed light on inmates lives, Poor began to explore other storytelling methods inside the prison and tapped Woods and Williams.

After an initial film project fell through, the team landed on a podcast. Poor tells the Daily Dot she didnt know what that would entail, but the genesis of the idea five years ago was to record these inmates talking. Eventually the Hustle team decided to try and create a podcast so they could experiment with form and length without having to commit to stringent radio standards.

The audience would be the listeners of a closed circuit station within San Quentin, though soon Bay Area radio station KALW heard about the project and offered to help train the group.KALWs Crosscurrents is still airing segments, though theyre unaffiliated with Ear Hustle.

For its part, Radiotopia is among the best artist colonies around. The podcast network was founded by Roman Mars of 99% Invisible and is run by the Public Radio Exchange (PRX). Its grown from a 2014 launch with seven shows to 18, and according to its website the network brings in 17 million downloads per month.

But the networks latest endeavor grapples with tricky ethics. The idea of creating Ear Hustle in the first place was meant as a kind of rehabilitation for the inmates; it would teach them a new skill set, new perspectives, theyd be able to dig deep into stories that theoretically shed light on their own situations. But these men are all in San Quentin because they are being held responsible for their crimes. There are real victims who have been hurt.

Though only one episode is available, Poor tells me that the show will deal with topics covering everything from roommates, pets, sex, race, celebrations, and other seemingly normal issues. But the show will also deal with the memory of an inmates last day on the outside, the three-strikes law, escaping from prison, and dealing with the consequences of being in a gang.

The range of topics the show covers in the first seasonthe contest winner locked in a 10-episode run for 2017shed the inmates in a human light. Listening to them deal with getting sick and going to work anyway is relatable. Even deciding to use episode 1 to discuss prison roommates (cellies) was a conscious decision to not turn off listeners by beginning with something too hard to hear.

Although Poor says the show is also meant to explorethe factthat these men did terrible things, and are dealing with the consequences.

Photo via Ear Hustle

As much as this has been a positive experience for Poor, making a podcast with two inmates at a state prison is no walk in the park. Each time the team has a new cut of the show, or any new audio in general, or a written request, they need to run through a small series of administrative gymnastics that include burning CDs, asking San Quentin Prison public information officer Lt. Sam Robinson to listen to and approve the content, and asking for permission to bring their recording gear outside.

Poor has taken to writing transcripts of the show to bring to Radiotopias consulting editor Curtis Fox, who makes his edits with a pen and paper. And when it comes to edits with Woods and Williams, if Poor wakes up in the middle of the night with an urgent or brilliant idea, she isnt able to email, text, or call her creative partners.

One of Poors goals is to bring the show to all California state prisons and play it on each closed circuit station, but those same administrative tasks apply for each of the states 33 prisons.

Radiotopias Podquest has been vital, signing the showas the network begins flexing its reach with a cross-promotion campaign. Each of the other Radiotopia shows will release an episode about doing time over the next two weeks. The show has already been as high as No. 2 on the iTunescharts.

Episode 1 was sponsored by Mail Chimp, but landing ad partners for a show with two-thirds of its cast behind bars seems like an uphill climb. Radiotopia seems unconcerned, however, telling the Dot that the high brand trust the network brings to the table supersedes the sensitive material when it comes to finding sponsors.

But Poor is concerned with making sure the show doesnt romanticize life in prison, or ignore the real-world damage caused by these men.

Someone suggested we do a story about this, and we havent yet, but what do guys think is an appropriate punishment for a crime?And how do you deal with violence in society?And how do you deal with somebody who cant respect another persons life or another persons property? How do we repent and how do we reform? says Poor. I do want to be sensitive to people who are really going to disagree with what were doing. Inevitably there are going to be people who hate this. Just hate it. And I want to be able to figure out how we can, if theyre willing to, talk to them about that.

The conversations already started, if nothing else.

Jeff Umbrohosts theWriters Who Dont Writepodcast, whichinterviews creatives about the one story theyve always struggled to tell.

See the rest here:
How the 'Ear Hustle' podcast tests the limits of free speech - The Daily Dot

In the days to follow Thursdays shooting in Alexandria, debates over whether and when political rhetoric goes too far will likely be on the table, especially after suspicions arose that shooter James T. Hodgkinson may have been politically motivated when he fired at Republicans practicing for the annual congressional baseball game.

Similar debates sparked in the aftermath of the 2011 shooting attack on Arizona Democrat Rep. Gabby Giffords and several others gathered outside a supermarket.

Sam Fisher, Associate Professor of Political Science atUniversity of South Alabama, says the free speech debate is deeply complex.

Theres no neat line that I can point to and say, Heres the point you need to stop and thats unacceptable,' Fisher said.

Fisher said hes noticed a shift in more hostile political rhetoric as political parties take more polarizing stances towards each other.

Compromise has always been seen as [not good], but its actually something that makes the system work, Fisher said. Now, we have this real increase in harsh rhetoric that I think is an outcry of My side is the only right side, and therefore I have to win. If I dont, Im going to make life miserable for everybody else.'

After instances like comedian Kathy Griffin posing with a fake severed head of President Trump and a New York public theater performing a version of Julius Caesar that features a mock execution of a Trump-like character, online debates have come alive over whether that kind of rhetoric is going too far.

See original here:
Violence in Politics: When Does Free Speech Go Too Far? | WKRG - WKRG

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

The First Amendment is the most precious of all the rights enumerated in the Constitution, and its a pity that Americans actually know so little about it. The First Amendment guarantees the right of Americans to say whatever they please, even the ugly and the irresponsible, but it does not guarantee there wont be a price to pay for saying certain things.

The government cant censor a playwright or his work, or the right of a theater to put on a performance of his work, but theres no constitutional right to require others to watch the performance or listen to the words, just as there is no right to require someone to read this editorial or a column in the newspaper. Its a distinction sometimes overlooked.

The producers of Manhattans Shakespeare in the Park learned this expensive lesson when two generous commercial sponsors, Delta Air Lines and the Bank of America, withdrew their sponsorship of Shakespeares Julius Caesar, adapted to portray the violent assassination of Donald Trump. The lesson will cost the producers millions.

There were predictable cries of censorship, but sponsors have no authority to censor anyone. Only governments can do that, either by shutting down the production or silencing it by a threat of shutdown, and that is what the First Amendment forbids. Individuals as well as institutions must defer to common standards of decency, too, where such standards have survived the trash culture, or pay the price.

Two television talking heads learned this lesson in recent days. Reza Aslan, who has hosted a semireligious program called Believer on CNN-TV, lost his gig after he called President Trump a piece of [excrement]. Mr. Aslan apologized for his rough language in expressing his shock and frustration at the presidents lack of decorum, but the network sacked him, anyway not for having such an opinion, which CNN seems to share, but for saying it out loud and on camera. CNN has sponsors to worry about, too.

Bill Maher, a comedian whose program Real Time on the HBO network is occasionally funny but usually merely a rant, offered an abject apology for saying the word nigger in a tasteless banter with Sen. Ben Sasse, a Republican of Nebraska. Friday nights are always my worst night of sleep because Im up reflecting on the things I should or shouldnt have said on my live show, Mr. Maher said, reflecting from his fainting and reflecting couch. Last night was a particularly hard night.

Mr. Mahers apology followed a similar apology from HBO, which called his use of the word, which all men and women of goodwill do not use, inexcusable and tasteless. Its a word like white trash, cracker, kike, spic, wop, pansy, rughead that decent folk do not say, at least not in public. Those who do risk paying for it, not in fines or jail time, but in the forfeiture of a good name.

Jokes and banter about assassinating the president of the United States have been off-color, too, particularly since the Secret Service never chuckles or giggles on hearing them. But lately the Trump haters on the left have been flirting with assassination fantasies.

They forget that while the First Amendment guarantees rough and even irresponsible speech, it does not require it. In a decent society, taste is the ultimate arbiter of what decent folk say to each other.

Go here to see the original:
The high price of free speech - Washington Times

The fundamental authoritarianism of the progressives has spilled over on free speech. Old liberals mostly took the I may disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it idea to heart, but no longer. The new line is Why tolerate speech that could obstruct our plans?

That intolerance was on display recently at Duke University. After one member of the Divinity School faculty sent around an e-mail urging all of her colleagues to go to one of those training sessions where there is an drumbeat for lefty beliefs on how racist America is, another, Professor Paul Griffiths responded with an e-mail urging them not to waste their time on it. His words were blunt. If you think that academic freedom still extends to blunt criticism of such progressive sacred cows as diversity training, think again.

Griffiths was promptly attacked by the Dean and the professor who had sent around the original e-mail went boo-hooing to the universitys administration with a complaint about harassment. Rather than face the torture of an investigation run by other lefties who would love taking his scalp, Griffiths has resigned.

I write about this ugly case in todays Martin Center article.

The Griffiths case is remarkably similar to that of Marquette professor John McAdams, who faces termination for having had the temerity to question a young woman on his faculty over her handling of a student who wondered why her class wasnt going to discuss same-sex marriage. Free speech and vigorous debate on college campuses? Not if it might offend a progressive who can easily take revenge by filing charges. Of course, the reverse never happens leftists can and do say anything without fear of repercussions. And thats the way it should be.

As for diversity of thought at Duke, I think its a sure bet that the replacement for Griffiths will be a true believing progressive.

See more here:
The Corner - National Review

There has been a curious turn in the free-speech wars. For a decade, Americas elite culture has been marked by a growing willingness to persecute people for private remarks and personal opinions that fall outside contemporary speech norms. The examples are numerous and familiar, many of them high-profile. The signal case is probably Brendan Eichs forced resignation from Mozilla in 2014 after it became public that he had donated $1,000 to support Proposition 8 in California. Other examples are less sympathetic: Donald Sterlings career was destroyed after tapes surfaced of racist comments he made to his mistress; Paula Deen lost publishing deals and endorsements over similar allegations that she had used racist language decades earlier. The overall pattern is that of an increased sensitivity to violations of speech norms, almost always enforced by the Left. If you give to the wrong group, if you say the wrong thing (even if only to a friend), not only do you face the general social opprobrium associated with wrongheaded or incorrect opinions, but you may be hounded out of employment, your life may be threatened you may be forced, essentially, to vacate the public sphere as a pariah.

For many on the left, this tide of censoriousness is not so much an unfortunate consequence of social media as it is a useful tactic to police American speech. The phenomenon is most evident on college campuses, where groups of outraged students regularly attempt to force professors out over even minor controversies. The latest incident: At Evergreen State College, angry students demanded that professor Bret Weinstein, who describes himself as a progressive intellectual, be fired after he called into question the idea of a day of white absence from the university.

But it has cropped up in other left-leaning spaces as well. There was widespread support on the left for Eichs firing, and much of the Left gleefully endorsed the punching of Nazis after Richard Spencer was assaulted. (Who decides what a Nazi is, you ask? I do! scream a million different voices at once). The implicit assumption always is, and always has been, that the growing liberalization of American life will ensure that the Left keeps a monopoly on this sort of sanction.

The curious turn in the free-speech wars, then, is that the Left, too, has begun to suffer casualties. A blizzard of cases over the past week suggests that the remonstrative tone in American speech has escaped the bounds of the university hall and the Twitter feed. First, Kathy Griffin lost endorsements after posting a video of her holding a representation of Donald Trumps severed head. Then, Reza Aslan was dropped by CNN after calling Trump a piece of s*** on Twitter. Most recently, Delta and Bank of America both dropped their sponsorships of Shakespeare in the Park after the productions Julius Caesar clearly analogized the Roman tyrant to, of course, Trump assassination scene and all. Corporations are starting to realize, perhaps, that about half of America voted for Trump, and liberal commentators, celebrities, and artists alike are feeling the heat. Predictably they have cried censorship in some cases, rightfully so but thus far they have failed to recognize that the cultural preconditions were laid by themselves and their liberal predecessors.

Now, then, may be a good time for disarmament. It should be clear over the past few weeks that there is no caging the beast: Companies, after all, are sensitive to financial, not intellectual, distinctions and will defer to the most easily offended every time. Now is a time when the American Right may offer an olive branch particularly with four more years of Trump looming, and with American progressives racing to outdo each other in the tactlessness of their criticism. The era is over, we could say, when the bad quip, the inartful performance, or the indiscreet donation will lose you your job, your standing, and destroy your life. Accept these terms, and criticize the administration freely you will still be subject to all the social censure and disapproval that has always enforced social norms, but your livelihood no longer will be on the line. In return, you must welcome conservatives back into the fold and re-expand the window of what is acceptable.

To some conservatives, this will seem risky a dangerous unilateral disarmament that deprives them of useful weapons in the short term without ensuring protection from those same weapons in the long term. But that view is shortsighted: Norms reinforce themselves, after all. A consensus for restraint in political dialogue, if it takes hold strongly enough, cannot be broken by any one group without political cost. And the alternative, a Hobbesian race to persecute both Left and Right, conducted by the angriest and the dumbest, in the service of the narrowest possible discourse, should be welcoming to none.

READ MORE: Kathy Griffin Cant Be Criminally Prosecuted for What She Did and Thats Great A Trump-ifiedJulius Caesar Robert De Niros Conditional Patriotism

Max Bloom is a student of mathematics and English literature at the University of Chicago.

Continue reading here:
Free Speech, Hate Speech -- Let's Call the Whole Thing Off ... - National Review

Alison Morrow, KING 7:27 PM. PDT June 13, 2017

Washington State University carnivore expert Dr. Rob Wielgus documented wolf pack and livestock movements in Ferris County. (Photo: KING)

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is investigating the first livestock death blamed on wolves in this year's grazing season.

It was found near the historic range of the Profanity Peak pack, which was monitored by a Washington State University researcher, who is now suing over free speech

A range rider found the dead calf in Ferry County near the Lambert Creek area Monday evening. It's near the Profanity Peak pack's range, the wolves killed last summer by WDFW after attacking 15 cattle 10 confirmed and five probable attacks. A female and three pups survived. No one has confirmed what pack is responsible for the most recent death.

The lethal removal further divided the state over wolf management, as protesters rallied in Olympia and cattle ranchers received death threats in the northeast corner where the majority of wolves live.

"I love these cows and I don't want to feed them to the wolves. I don't want to see them tortured," Kathy McKay said. "At least the locals, none of us need them, none of us want them. We're fine without them. They're killers. They're vicious killers."

McKay's parents built the K Diamond K Ranch in 1961. Life was good, she said, until wolves migrated back to Washington after nearly a century of being gone.

The Profanity Peak pack killed 30 times more cattle than the majority of wolf packs studied by WSU carnivore expert Dr. Rob Wielgus.

"In particular we noticed that the Profanity Peak pack last year had completely switched to livestock. They were killing a lot of livestock in that particular location," he said.

Wielgus monitored the pack last year. He found salt licks were attracting cattle near the den site, aggravating the problem. His wildlife camera video of the Colville National Forest shows cattle and wolves crossing paths.

During the study, Wielgus followed wolves and cattle to track wolf depredations, the term used to refer to injuries or deaths attributed to wolves. He found that 99 percent of ranchers in wolf occupied areas in Washington lose one out of a thousand cattle to wolves. The rancher who lost cattle to the Profanity Peak pack had a 3 percent loss rate 30 times what Wielgus observed.

WDFW authorized the lethal removal of the pack on August 5. The salt blocks were removed August 8, according to WDFW. Wielgus knew about the salt blocks June 27.

"The livestock were still on the den site. We got video monitoring of wolves trying to chase them away from the den site, but the livestock kept returning because of the salt blocks. Then the livestock started being killed by the wolves," Wielgus said.

Bill McIrvin, the rancher whose cattle were killed in the incidents, was also at the center of controversy over the lethal removal of the Wedge pack in 2014 after losing cattle.

"Last year, during a period of repeated wolf depredations to livestock by the Profanity Peak wolf pack, the Department became aware that the wolf rendezvous site overlapped with part of the normal grazing path, where livestock were concentrated with the use of salt blocks. Once that overlap was detected, the Department contacted the producer, who removed the salt blocks from the area on August 8. Some livestock continued to use the general area where the salt was, so the producer (and family members, staff, and range rider) increased human presence around the livestock to check on and move livestock as needed," WDFW Wolf Lead Donny Martorello wrote in a statement.

KING 5 also asked WDFW about steps McIrvin took to prevent conflict.

"For Producer #1, the proactive deterrence measures were 1) turned out calves at weights generally over 200 lbs., 2) met expectation for sanitation, and 3) cows birthed calves outside of occupied wolf territories. Also, after the first wolf depredation, the producers agreed to the use of regular human presence (a reactive deterrence measure) for the remainder of the grazing season. This was accomplished by hiring two additional ranch staff, using a range rider, and increasing presence on the grazing site by the producer and family members," Martorello said.

Wielgus reports the den site was common knowledge. When Wielgus told the Seattle Times what he knew last summer, he couldn't believe the response.

"I was labeled a liar and a fraud. I was told by my superiors not to talk to the press so I could not tell the full story," he said.

Rep. Joel Kretz, R-Wauconda,argued that ranchers used the same land as years past and didn't know they'd put salt near wolves.

"When they salted they had no idea a rendezvous site had moved in. They put it on the same bench they'd put it for 45 damn years. It's the same place. It's part of the rotation through the grazing season. You keep your cows moving," he said.

Martorello said the state is aware of Wielgus' video.

"The Department has seen the video, reportedly made during the conflict with the Profanity Peak pack in 2016. We were made aware of it by WSU graduate students operating the trail cameras. It did not change Department's assessment of the situation. The majority of the known wolf packs in Washington overlap livestock, and many overlap active grazing allotments. That is one result of wolves recolonizing of Washington state. However, the fact that livestock and wolves overlap and actively use the same landscape doesn't necessary mean there will be conflict. In fact, experience in Washington and other western states shows that wolves and livestock coexist without conflict about 80 percent of the time," Martorello said.

For Kretz, Wielgus did more harm than good, further dividing the state over wolf management.

"We all got tired of the death threats. That's not the way for a scientist to be operating, I don't think," he said.

Kretz told WSU he thinks Wielgus' science is driven by agenda. WSU reviewed the research but that resulted in no evidence of misconduct. Still, Wielgus believes his job is hanging by a thread.

"I was publicly discredited and defamed by the university. The university said I had lied. I did not lie. I simply reported the facts," he said.

Wielgus plans to sue for six years salary and then leave his teaching position.

At the same time, he's publishing research he calls one of the most in-depth wolf studies ever. He found wolf attacks on livestock are extremely uncommon, and that the more humans kill wolves, the more wolves kill cattle the following year. Depredations, he says, typically follow lethal removal of wolves due to disarray in the social dynamics of the apex predators.

"My agenda is scientific truth, and that's what's gotten me in trouble in this case. I could've just shut up," Wielgus said.

For Wielgus, the answer is simple: keep cows away from wolf dens. He believes many ranchers are working hard to live beside wolves, but are too afraid to speak out in areas where animosity toward the carnivores continues to mount.

"It's all about the encounter probability. Predators respond to prey on how frequently they encounter them," he said.

For Kretz, wolf management isn't so clear. He's furious that WDFW did not respond fast enough to the calf found dead Monday. It was called in around 6 p.m., he says, and WDFW responded that there were no conflict specialists available to investigate until Tuesday morning.

"The first incident of the year they can't get somebody there?" he said. "We can't trust them to have their act together."

Kretz worried the evidence would deteriorate, making it more difficult to confirm it as a wolf kill.

"They're not going to work 24-7. That's impossible to expect from them," said Western Wildlife Conservation Director Hank Siepp. "We're trying to educate people that we have a new critter on the landscape and there will be challenges."

Washington State University sent a letter to Kretz in regards to his concern over Wielgus. It included the following findings:

"Discussion of the data set and its analysis is continuing among Professor Wielgus, Professor Dasgupta, and other WSU researchers. The University believes the best path forward is continued analysis and discussion of the data within the research community, culminating in submission of articles to scientific journals as appropriate. There is no evidence of research misconduct in this matter. Accordingly, the University has not opened a research misconduct investigation."

2017 KING-TV

Read this article:
Wolf researcher plans to sue WSU over free speech - KING5.com

By Adrian H. Wood

Editor's note: Adrian H. Wood, an eastern North Carolina mom, writer and blogger from Tales of an Educated Debutante, originally shared this on her Facebook page where she writes about education issues, among other topics. Wood holds a doctorate in educational research and policy analysis with a minor in curriculum and instruction.

Southwest Edgecombe High is a high school in the town where I grew up, right in the heart of Eastern North Carolina.

Marvin Wright is an outstanding young man and well liked by his classmates and faculty. He was senior class president and in the top ten percent of his 2017 class. He has joined the U.S. Navy and, in the days of stories all about bad teenagers, he is a light in the darkness.

This past weekend, Marvin spoke at his high school's commencement per tradition for the senior class president. During graduation practice, Marvin was instructed by his senior adviser to email his speech so it could be placed at the podium.

The morning of graduation, Marvin was informed he would not be reading his speech, but instead one prepared by the school. Like all good mama bears, his mother went to the school to speak to the principal and her words fell on deaf ears. She was told Marvin would not be reading his speech.

Later that day, Marvin stood at the podium and read the speech, the one he prepared, the one I have read and, truthfully, it was outstanding. He stood proud and strong and defied an administrative blight and exercised his right to free speech with the support of his family, classmates and faculty.

After four years at Southwest Edgecombe, Marvin exited the stage and was denied his diploma. He was told to speak to the principal who hid in his office and Marvin left empty handed. (Read more about what happened next in this WRAL-TV story).

My oldest son is just a sixth grader, but I have tried to imagine how I might feel if he was class president and my whole family had come to cheer on his success, including his right to free speech that someone tried unsuccessfully to overthrow.

This morning, I told Marvin that if I was his mom, I would be awfully proud of him and can't imagine there are too many good people that would disagree. His speech ended with this: "I am no expert in this journey we call life, but we all have the ability to make a difference and to be that change the world needs."

Marvin, I would say you're well on your way.

Adrian H. Wood, PhD, is a mom of four and an N.C. writer, who offers glimpses where satire meets truth, faith meets irony, despair meets joy and this educated debutante escapes the laundry, finds true meaning in graceful transparency regarding education, special needs, and the real life that is not always lovely, but worth sharing.

Excerpt from:
Tales of an Educated Debutante: A lesson on free speech on graduation day - WRAL.com