Category Archives: Free Speech

The issue of free speech on college campuses will be the focus of this years Sidney Z. Vincent Memorial Lecture on March 15.

The lecture, Free Speech on Campus: Are There Limits? will be presented during the Jewish Federation of Clevelands community relations committees 70th annual meeting.

The event will begin at 7 p.m. at The Temple-Tifereth Israel in Beachwood.

Bradley Schlang, chair of the community relations committee, said the topic was chosen because of its relevance to the local Jewish community.

We chose the topic because with the political environment and the BDS movement, its become a real issue, especially for our young adults in the Jewish community, Schlang said. Were finding that a number of students are feeling uncomfortable expressing their Jewishness or love of Israel because of the backlash that they face.

Panelists will include Mark Yudof, president emeritus of the University of California and professor of law emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley; Blake Morant, dean and the Robert Kramer research professor of law at The George Washington University Law School in Washington, D.C.; and Susan Kruth, program officer at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a nonprofit founded in 1999 that focuses on civil liberties in academia in the United States.

Kevin S. Adelstein, publisher and CEO of the Cleveland Jewish News and president of the Cleveland Jewish Publication Company, will serve as moderator.

Schlang said Kruth was selected as a panelist due to the work her organization does to protect free speech on campus, while Yudof and Morant were selected for their expertise.

They are experts in their fields, not only being directly on campus that they bring that direct relationship and they have seen first-hand what speech on campus is about today and the problems that were seeing, but also as specialists on free speech from the legal perspective on what free speech actually means, Schlang said.

In addition to learning more about the concerns surrounding free speech on college campuses, Schlang said he hopes attendees will walk away with some strategies for how to combat the issue.

The CRC annual meeting always provides thought-provoking topics but also always with action items, he said. How do you work with students on campus? How do we work with the Hillels in order to provide a comfortable environment for all viewpoints to be expressed in a safe environment?

We want to create an environment here where people can discuss these issues and hear whats happening on campuses so that they can work with the rest of the community and with their kids to understand what theyre facing on campus today.

Kristen Mott is a former staff reporter at the Cleveland Jewish News.

Read the original post:
Free speech on campuses topic of Federation CRC meeting - Cleveland Jewish News

Students at Loyola University rally in solidarity with the Mizzou football team's strike against racism (The Loyola Phoenix)

LOYOLA UNIVERSITY students organizing for a variety of progressive goals, from women's rights to justice for campus workers, are now at the center of their own struggle to overturn bureaucratic restrictions on their right to free speech and assembly.

In the aftermath of Donald Trump's election victory, students around the country recognized the urgency of organizing in solidarity with those who are the target of Trump's attacks. But in many places, they are facing increased barriers to protesting, as universities place further restrictions on the right to organize--even while administrators claim their campuses to be bastions of free speech.

At Loyola, several organizations--including Students for Reproductive Justice, Students for Worker Justice, Students Organizing for Syria and the Loyola Socialists--recently initiated a campaign in defense of students' right to organize. The groups' petition has already been signed by more than 250 students, faculty, staff and alumni.

Trump's election has transformed the political climate at Loyola. As the new administration targets immigrants and refugees, women, LGBTQ people, people of color, union members and low-wage workers, many students are looking for avenues to effectively organize and resist--and for spaces to discuss political alternatives to a system of racism, sexism, xenophobia, poverty and war.

On Inauguration Day, more than 200 students rallied, marched and briefly occupied the student center--to denounce Trump and to demand that Loyola's administration declare the school a sanctuary for its undocumented students and workers.

Groups of Loyola students participated in the Women's March and the protests at O'Hare International Airport against Trump's Muslim ban, and a number of meetings have been held on campus to discuss next steps in pushing to make Loyola a sanctuary campus for immigrants.

Unfortunately, Loyola's administration has thrown up significant barriers to students organizing to discuss, strategize and speak out. The administration's policies around reserving rooms, publicizing meetings and tabling on campus make it very difficult for any group of students which does not have recognized student organization (RSO) status to do any of these things.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

THE UNIVERSITY'S "solicitation policy" defines "promotion of an idea" as solicitation, which is subject to regulation and approval by the Dean of Students. In effect, any group of students whose political message isn't sanctioned by the university is prevented from communicating publicly or organizing freely.

The Loyola Socialists, a campus branch of the International Socialist Organization, recently applied for and were denied RSO status by the university. And the ISO isn't the only organization on campus that isn't officially recognized. Loyola's hostility to activist organizations fighting for progressive change has a well-documented recent history.

Students for Worker Justice and Students for Reproductive Justice, both of whom have ongoing campaigns targeting the university's hypocritical anti-worker and anti-woman policies, aren't recognized by the university and have faced bureaucratic obstacles.

In addition, the administration has treated recent successful unionization campaigns by graduate employees and non-tenured faculty with outright hostility.

Loyola Students for Justice in Palestine had their RSO status revoked for a whole year following a spontaneous demonstration in the student center against the anti-Palestinian Birthright organization. And in 2015, the administration threatened three students with suspension for organizing a 700-strong Black Lives Matter demonstration on campus.

The arbitrary application of Loyola University's bureaucratic standards around student organizations and the onerous rules applied to groups of students who wish to organize are a significant curtailment of free assembly, free association and free speech.

Those of us who organize on college campuses need to fight against bureaucratic restrictions on free speech and the right to assemble, which always have and always will be used against those who challenge the administration's right to run our universities like corporations.

View original post here:
Tear down Loyola's walls against free speech - Socialist Worker Online

Self-described troll and conservative writer Milo Yiannopoulos resigned from Breitbart News on Feb. 21, but his far-right speeches and provocative comments aren't going anywhere. (Peter Stevenson/The Washington Post)

Update: Milo Yiannopoulos resigned from Breitbart News Tuesday. In a statement, he said the decision was "mine alone," though The Washington Post's David Weigel and Robert Costa previously reported that "by late Monday afternoon, there were ongoing discussions at Breitbart about Yiannopouloss future at the company."

Here is Yiannopouloss full statement:

The original post follows.

Milo Yiannopoulos claims to hate political correctness. He is about to feel the pain of livingwithout its benefits.

Despite all of Yiannopoulos'stalk, the reality is that the Breitbart News editor has thrived on political correctness. He built his brand not by saying substantive things but by demanding that he be allowed to say whatever he wants whileexploiting the fear that nothing couldbe seen asmore politically incorrect than appearing to deny his right to free speech.

That fear the worry that shutting up Yiannopoulos will make you look like an enemy of the First Amendment faded over the weekend when the Conservative Political Action Conference canceled a scheduled speech by the professional provocateur after remarks he made last year about sex involving adults and underage teens resurfaced online.

[CPAC rescinds Yiannopoulos invitation amid social media uproar]

In one interview from January 2016, Yiannopoulos shared his viewthat pedophilia is not a sexual attraction to somebody 13 years old, who is sexually mature.

The controversyalso prompted Threshold Editions, a Simon & Schuster imprint that publishes conservative authors, to pull the plug on a book by Yiannopoulos that was scheduled for release in June.

Yiannopoulos has never been a sophisticated voice in conservative politics. He has made a career out of being the gay immigrant who tellshis Breitbart audience that it is okay to use gay slurs and discriminate against immigrants. Yet he is remarkably skilled at convincing others that shutting out his kind of intolerance is a kind of intolerance all its own.

[Milo Yiannopouloss Trumpian rise shows how the GOP is stuck in opposition mode]

AsYiannopoulos has promoted the idea that PC police are trying to silence him, college after college has agreed to lethim speak on campus.Even the University of California at Berkeley, a beacon of liberalism, granted a student group's request to host Yiannopoulos earlier this month. A protest that turned violent forced the event's cancellation at the last minute, but the university said in a statement that it felt bound by the Constitution, the law, our values, and the campus's Principles of Community to enable free expression across the full spectrum of opinion and perspective.

Bound is the key word there. Yiannopoulos knows that people and institutions feel bound to let him talk because of their commitment to free speech and, yes, because of political correctness. Free speech and political correctness have long been Yiannopoulos's best weapons in his relentless PR push.

Now, however, no one will feel bound to givea microphone to someone who thinks sex between a grown man and an underage boy can be consensual. No one will feel bound to amplify a voice that even CPAC deemed unworthy of inclusion.

Until this weekend, the politically correct thing to do was to just let Yiannopoulos talk. Not anymore.

Read more from the original source:
Milo Yiannopoulos resigns from Breitbart, proving his free ride on free speech is over - Washington Post

Controversy surrounded Martin Shkreli's speech, which took place last week after the Harvard Financial Analysts Club extended him an invitation to campus. Despite Shkrelis infamy in the pharmaceutical industry and the public eye, he attempted to steer clear of those topics and focused on his investment career. Given his tenuous connections to Harvard itself and his refusal to engage on the topics for which he is known, it is questionable why HFAC invited Shkreli to speak at all.

Although HFAC has not commented on their reasons for inviting Shkreli, his presence appears part of a broader trend, especially on college campuses, that confuses contrarianism for its own sake with intellectual output and achievement. While both are protected, the ideals of free speech are held to improve public debate and recognize multiple viewpoints. In theory, giving those with more iconoclastic views a public platform falls under these goals.

Despite HFACs claim that the event would be governed by guidelines on free speech, their actions state otherwise. Prior to the talk, HFAC told attendees they could raise any concerns with Shkreli during the question and answer session. However, questions related to his personal or legal issues, the source of many audience grievances, were forbidden. Additionally, at the talk itself, HFAC intentionally attempted to bar press access to the event. Restricting the audiences questions, preventing honest reporting, and hindering the public knowledge of the event censored free speech rather than permitting it.

While Shkreli may have particular insights into the pharmaceutical industry, his speech did not discuss his experience in that sector, implying that he was invited more for his notoriety. His more than 5000 percent price increase of the drug Daraprim, compounded by fraud charges and a slated court case, are all infamous hallmarks of his pharmaceutical background. Shkrelis history of harassing women on social media is another cause for concern. Most troublingly, Shkreli has shown no remorse for his actions.

HFAC and similar organizations use free speech to support their assertion that their invitees have something of value to add to campus conversation. In reality, speakers such as Shkreli flood the marketplace of ideas with noise rather than discussion, just to garner attention for those doing the inviting. In the future, we ask those who wish to invite controversial speakers to consider the value of their contribution rather than just their fame. Both should be protected; only the former is wise.

Read more from the original source:
Why We Cannot Hide Behind Free Speech - Harvard Crimson

Virginia Delegate Dave LaRock (R-Clarke, Frederick, and Loudoun Counties) has just filed House Resolution 431, The Campus Free Speech Resolution. HR 431 is based on the model legislation I co-authored with Jim Manley and Jonathan Butcher of Arizonas Goldwater Institute.

Since the Virginia House of Delegates is nearingthe end of its current session, Delegate LaRock is offering a resolution conveying the sense of the legislature, to be followed up next session by detailed legislation based on the Goldwater model. As Delegate LaRock put it in a press release, This resolution will put down a marker as a precursor for next session when I will follow up with legislation to assure that universities take this seriously.

Explaining his reason for taking up the Goldwater proposal on campus free speech, Del. LaRock said, Virginia is the cradle of democracy and it is a disgrace that many universities have lost track of the idea that it is their responsibility to uphold free-speech principles By passing this measure we are communicating to universities and the public that students are in school to learn how to think; they are not going to college to be protected from differing opinions.

Virginias HR 431, and Del. LaRocks promise to follow it next session with fuller legislation based on the Goldwater model, means that Virginia is now the third state to move forward with initiatives based on the Goldwater proposal. North Carolina Lieutenant Governor Dan Forest has announced that a bill will soon be filed in that state, and Illinois Representative Peter Breen has introduced HB 2939. And although no bill has yet been filed, I will be testifying at the request of Education Committee Chair Michael Bileca before the Post-Secondary Education Subcommittee of the Florida State House this Thursday on the Goldwater proposal.

Stanley Kurtz is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He can be reached at [emailprotected]

More here:
Dave LaRock's Virginia Campus Free Speech Resolution - National Review

To understand the core of the free-speech challenge in this country, consider the case of a hypothetical young woman named Sarah. In college, Sarah is a conservative activist. Shes pro-life, supports traditional marriage, and belongs to a Christian student club. Her free speech infuriates professors and other students, so the administration cracks down. It defunds her student club, forces her political activism into narrow, so-called free-speech zones, and reminds her to comply with the universitys tolerance policies.

What does Sarah do? She sues the school, she wins, and the school pays her attorneys fees. The judge expands the free-speech zone to cover the whole campus and strikes down the tolerance policy. The First Amendment wins.

Sarah graduates. A brilliant student, she gets a job at a Silicon Valley start-up and moves to California to start her new life. Just as they did in college, politics dominate her conversations, and within a week she gets into an argument with a colleague over whether Bruce Jenner is really a woman. The next morning, Sarahs called into the HR department, given a stern warning for violating company policy, and told that if she cant comply shell need to find another place to work.

What does Sarah do? She shuts her mouth or she loses her job. Her employer isnt the government; its a private company with its own free-speech rights, and it expects its employees to respect its corporate values.

In a nutshell, this is Americas free-speech problem. The law is largely solid. Government entities that censor or silence citizens on the basis of their political, cultural, or religious viewpoint almost always lose in court. With some exceptions, the First Amendment remains robust. Yet the culture of free speech is eroding away, rapidly.

The politicization of everything has combined with increasing levels of polarization and cocooning to create an atmosphere in which private citizens are increasingly weaponizing their expression using their social and economic power not to engage in debate but to silence dissent. Corporate bullying, social-media shaming, and relentless peer pressure combine to place a high cost on any departure from the mandated norms. Even here in Middle Tennessee, I have friends who are afraid to post about their religious views online or express disagreements during mandatory corporate-diversity seminars, lest they lose their jobs. One side speaks freely. The other side speaks not at all.

EDITORIAL: CPACsMilo Disgrace

There is no government solution to this problem. The First Amendment prohibits the state from mandating openness to debate and dissent, and corporations arent designed to be debating societies. Nor can the government prevent (or even try to prevent) the kinds of social-media shaming campaigns and peer pressures that cause men and women to stay silent for fear of social exclusion. The solution is to persuade the powerful that free speech has value, that ideological monocultures are harmful, and that the great questions of life cant and shouldnt be settled through shaming, hectoring, or silencing.

It is thus singularly unfortunate that the conservative poster boy for free speech is Milo Yiannopoulos.

Milo, for those who dont know, is a flamboyantly gay senior editor at Breitbart News, a provocateur who relishes leftist outrage and deliberately courts as much fury as he can. How? Please allow my friend Ben Shapiro to explain:

Jews run the media; earlier this month he characterized a Jewish BuzzFeed writer as a a typical example of a sort of thick-as-pig shit media Jew; he justifies anti-Semitic memes as playful trollery and pats racist sites like American Renaissance on the head; he describes himself as a chronicler of, and occasional fellow traveler with the alt-right while simultaneously recognizing that their dangerously bright intellectuals believe that culture is inseparable from race; back in his days going under the name Milo Wagner, he reportedly posed with his hand atop a Hitler biography, posted a Hitler meme about killing 6 million Jews, and wore an Iron Cross; last week he berated a Muslim woman in the audience of one of his speeches for wearing a hijab in the United States; his alt-right followers routinely spammed my Twitter account with anti-Semitic propaganda he tut-tutted before his banning (the amount of anti-Semitism in my feed dropped by at least 70 percent after his ban, which I opposed); he personally Tweeted a picture of a black baby at me on the day of my sons birth, because according to the alt-right Im a cuck who wants to see the races mixed; he sees the Constitution as a hackneyed remnant of the past, to be replaced by a new right he leads.

Oh, and this week recordings rocketed across Twitter that showed Milo apparently excusing pedophilia and expressing gratitude to a Catholic priest for teaching him how to perform oral sex. (Later, on Facebook, he vigorously denied that he supports pedophilia, saying he is completely disgusted by the abuse of children.)

Milo is currently on what he calls his Dangerous Faggot tour of college campuses, which has followed a now-familiar pattern: A conservative group invites him to speak, leftists on campus freak out, and he thrives on the resulting controversy, casting himself as a hero of free expression. Lately, the leftist freakouts have grown violent, culminating in a scary riot at the University of California, Berkeley.

Operating under the principle that the enemy of my enemy must be my friend, too many on the right have leapt to Milos defense, ensuring that his star just keeps rising. Every liberal conniption brings him new conservative credibility and fresh appearances on Fox News. Last week Bill Maher featured him as a defender of free speech, and for a brief time he had been expected to speak at the nations largest and arguably most important conservative gathering, CPAC. (CPAC rescinded its invitation today.)

Lets put this plainly: If Milos the poster boy for free speech, then free speech will lose. Hes the perfect foil for social-justice warriors, a living symbol of everything they fight against. His very existence and prominence feed the deception that modern political correctness is the firewall against the worst forms of bigotry.

Ive spent a career defending free speech in court, and Ive never defended a conservative like Milo. His isnt the true face of the battle for American free-speech rights. That face belongs to Barronelle Stutzman, the florist in Washington whom the Left is trying to financially ruin because she refused to use her artistic talents to celebrate a gay marriage. It belongs to Kelvin Cochran, the Atlanta fire chief who was fired for publishing and sharing with a few colleagues a book he wrote that expressed orthodox Christian views of sex and marriage.

Stutzman and Cochran demonstrate that intolerance and censorship strike not just at people on the fringe people like Milo but rather at the best and most reasonable citizens of these United States. Theyre proof that social-justice warriors seek not equality and inclusion but control and domination.

Milo has the same free-speech rights as any other American. He can and should be able to troll to his hearts content without fear of government censorship or private riot. But by elevating him even higher, CPAC would have made a serious mistake. CPACs invitation told the world that supporting conservative free speech means supporting Milo. If theres a more effective way to vindicate the social-justice Left, I cant imagine it.

David French is a staff writer for National Review, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, and an attorney.

See the original post:
Free Speech Has a Milo Problem - National Review

Kevin,

I would like to respectfully address the ideas you posited in your article, many of which are indicative of the exact problems regarding discourse and speech here at Haverford. I feel this response is necessary because your views do represent a portion of the school that disagrees with me and I feel the best way to respond to such critique is through direct and open discourse.

You offer the opinion that my historical comparisons are illegitimate because there is no correlation between these events and the current situation at Haverford. However, the presented counter-arguments reflect a failure to understand the basis for my comparison. I included these examples to reflect a similarity between the modus operandi of the Haverford Honor Code and the perpetrators of these genocides and their justifications for silencing the speech of and exterminating certain groups of people. If you wish for me to briefly enumerate upon each example specifically, I will address them in order of mention in my article. In Nazi Germany, the Jews were considered a security threat to the German nation. In Turkey, the Armenians were considered a security threat to the Turkish nation. In Rwanda, the Tutsi were considered a security threat to the Hutu interests in the Rwandan nation. In Iran, the Bahai and the Kurds were considered a security threat to the Iranian nation. In Iraq, the Kurds were considered a security threat to the Iraqi nation. In every instance, these were subjective determinations by the majority of individuals in the nation and justified atrocious acts. As I explicitly clarified in my article, I am not comparing these genocides and atrocities to what is currently occurring at Haverford; however, I am making a comparison between our ideological justifications for denying speech and the ideological justifications given for these events. At Haverford College, many believe that certain ideologies and their associated groups are a security threat to the interests of minorities on campus and, therefore, they should be subject to institutional punishment due to the messages contained in their speech or expression. My argument, in accordance with the words of the Supreme Court in R.A.V. v. Supreme Court, is that these security interests are not legitimate justifications for viewpoint discrimination and the selective punishment associated with it.

Addressing your point specifically about Rwanda and the United States decision concerning radio jamming and free speechit is overtly evident that the United States should have intervened in this situation. The reasoning for this intervention, believe it or not, is enshrined in the Constitution and judicial precedent concerning free speech. Here in the United States, there are certain exceptions to free speech in extreme cases. One such exception is referred to as fighting words, which although they are more narrowly applicable than when the exception was first mentioned in the 1940s, still hold weight in considerations of what protected speech is. In this case, the Interahamwe militias message to exterminate the cockroaches would fall under fighting words because they advocated for violent action and an unreasonable threat to public peace. Thus, they would not be protected under the First Amendment. You have presumed that I agree with this decision because I am identifying a problem with free speech on Haverfords campus. My committal to free speech and expression does not mean that I automatically espouse this mistake on the part of the State Department Legal Advisors Office.

Now that I have clarified those points, I believe it is important to proceed to the latter half of your article. You repeatedly emphasize, through the usage of italics, that I was a signatory of the Honor Code, stating that I signed a social contract to follow our behavior standards. This is factually correct; however, this does not mean I resigned my right to critique and take issue with these behavioral standards. In the subsection of the Honor Code entitled Honor Council, the Code explicitly states:

members are obligated to confront each other and the administration regarding errors and points of dissent with proper procedure in relation to the Honor Code and Councils internal affairs, especially if they feel they are not fulfilling their community responsibilities or fully abiding by the Code.

While I may not be a member of Honor Council, I maintain that I have this same ability to dissent to the current procedure of Honor Code to reach the values enshrined in the Honor Council. Additionally, the exact pledge I took, as stated in Section 3.07 of the Honor Code, is I hereby accept the Haverford Honor Code, realizing that it is my duty to uphold the Honor Code and the concepts of personal and collective responsibility upon which it is based. Contractually, I remain fully committed to the values expressed in this code and recognize my personal and collective responsibility as a member of this community; once again, this does not mean that I unquestioningly follow the Honor Code and its stipulations, rather, I may disagree, privately or publicly, with the lack of procedural methods regarding the Social Honor Code and the potential abuses they allow. Just as we agree to follow the dictates of laws in the United States, I agreed to follow the Honor Code, but never forfeited my right to question it. Therefore, implying that I must abide by the dictates of this community without question or appeal is entirely incorrect and a dangerous way of conceptualizing membership to the Haverford community. Finally, I would like to mention that, in the clause of the Honor Code I take issue with, it also mentions that discrimination and harassment, includingpolitical ideology are in violation of the Honor Code. The fact is, the current lack of procedures regarding Social Honor Code violations allows for subjective determinations of offense and violation and, since Haverford is overwhelmingly of a particular political persuasion, this resultsde facto viewpoint discrimination based upon political ideology.

Continuing to critique what I perceive as dangerous ideas, I would like to proceed now to a question you ask in your article: Is a Moral Majority even a bad thing? My answer to that, unequivocally, is Yes. Once again, this one of the ideas I attempted to approach in my original article by referencing historical atrocities and is central to the problem I take with Honor Code in its current form. As I mentioned explicitly in my last article, a moral majority, masquerading as a moral absolute and suppressing dissent, is, indeed, a bad thing, especially when there is a clear lack of protection for the opinions of ideological minorities on campus. For example, when the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. mobilized individuals, spoke out, and fought for an end to the dehumanizing practice of segregation in the Jim Crow South, he faced an ideological majority comprised of people who viewed desegregation as a threat to their security. Last I checked, just because the majority of people agrees with a particular moral standard does not mean they possess the authoritative truth on what constitutes moral action. Although the moral majority in the Jim Crow South believed Dr. Kings approach, message, or both to be illegitimate, perceived him as a threat, and sought to erase his message, this does not mean thathe was automatically morally wrong.

Transitioning to my next point, I am not, as you claim, co-opting a civil rights leader and quoting him grossly out of context. Rather, there is legitimate reasoning behind including this quotation in my article. If you read Dr. Kings Letter From Birmingham Jail, you will encounter explicit denunciations of viewpoint discrimination. Specifically, in his discussion of just and unjust laws, Dr. King states that, An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. Currently, through the de facto institutionalization of viewpoint discrimination in our Social Honor Code, we face this exact situation. Though my argument concerns a different topic than Dr. Kings, I espouse this same fundamental belief concerning unjust laws and abide by it in my analysis on why I believe the Social Honor Code is illegitimate in its current form.

In this portion, I will address your final two paragraphs and clarify important points to avoid the conflations made. First, this is not fake moderacy; this is an appeal to the Haverford community to reflect on how, due to viewpoint discrimination, our value of pluralism is endangered. Furthermore, I never stated or suggested that cross burners are marginalized. My point is that non-majoritarian opinions and ideologies on campus are unduly subject to institutional punishment, and therefore comparatively marginalized, due to the messages they contained, messages the First Amendment protects. Finally, you state that moral majorities are not created equal[ly], attempt to differentiate Haverford from the historical events mentioned, and imply that I am utilizing atrocities in a haphazard and illegitimate way. As I believe I have already clarified these issues in this article, I would like to overtly state my incoherent point. The sordid state of free speech at Haverford College demands reflection and action. By allowing for viewpoint discrimination in our institutional proceedings, we threaten unpopular voices and opinions into a stifling silence in the name of security interests and subjective moral standards. If we are to actualize our commitment to pluralism, this incongruence must not be allowed to persist. While our values are noble, the ways in which we are currently trying to realize them, are illegitimate because they discriminate against ideology. It is one thing to peacefully confront an individual over their beliefs or to communally express our dissatisfaction with an action, but another to institutionalize our subjective moral standards in the Honor Code.

As members of an intentional community dedicated to confronting these social ills, I believe it is important to recognize that we share the same objective, just posit different methods by which to achieve these laudable goals. Although I believe in the legitimacy of these goals, I cannot in good conscience remain silent when the disallowance of free speech, as defined by the First Amendment and Supreme Court precedence, remains the procedure by which we seek to actualize our shared commitments. As members of a community that supposedly supports pluralistic ideals and peaceful discourse, I believe that the ideas in my article, while controversial, deserve to be and must be debated if we wish to protect and reaffirm our commitment to pluralism. I apologize if this article also fails to meet your expectations for me as a Haverford student and fellow community member, but I believe this issue is important enough for me to subject myself to such disapproval.

With the Utmost Trust, Concern, and Respect,

David Michael Canada 20

Have an opinion? Consider writing an article and sharing with The Clerk by emailing our Editor-in-Chief Maurice Rippel at mrippel@haverford.edu

The rest is here:
Protecting Free Speech and Press: A Critique of Defending Our Community Values: A Letter to the Editors - The Clerk

5492107

UCLA is preventing students from registering for a conservative professors free speech class for the spring semester, says the professor who teaches the course, The College Fix reports.

Keith Fink is charging that his department head is blocking enrollment in the his free speech on campus study because the members are politically hostile to his ideas.

But the head of the UCLA communications department says student enrollment in the class is limited to ensure reasonable class sizes and not based on any political assessment.

That reasonable size is limited to 150 students.

The students say they just want to sign-up for the professorsCommunication Studies 167: Sex, Politics, and Race: Free Speech on Campus.

Taryn Jacobson told The College Fix that she has repeatedly tried to register for one of Finks classes but is always turned away because the course is supposedly full.

This is one of my last quarters at UCLA and this class is crucial to my preparation for law school, Jacobson stated in an email. It will also strongly guide my decision (either by affirming or dis-affirming) my aspirations to attend.

Even though the class was closed to further enrollment, Jacobson went anyway with a permission-to-enroll (PTE) form that Fink gave her.The form was subsequently overruled by UCLA.

The Daily Bruin reports that Fink seems to be the only professor who cant get a PTE form approved by the university.

I am a voice of a teacher whos not going to go away, Fink told the UCLA college newspaper. When I see an injustice toward students, I am going to fight.

Fink blames Kerri Johnson, the new chair of the communication studies department, for also blocking students from enrolling in another one of his classes that focuses on free speech in the workplace.

Austin Kaidi, a former teaching assistant in Finks classes, told The College Fix: For the past five years, Professor Fink has been able to educate large numbers of students without any problems. However one quarter after the Communication Studies appoints a chairwoman with incredibly left-leaning ideals, Professor Fink, the only outspoken conservative in the department, is singled out, his PTEs are revoked, and his future classes are limited.

Kaidi said she was not even aware of Keiths political opinions when she was taking his classes.

Follow David on Twitter

Read the original:
UCLA Professor: Students Blocked From My Free Speech Course - Daily Caller

A bill for students rights and freedom of expression passed its first hurdle last week unopposed in the Senate. NICOLE HIGGINS DeSMET/Free Press

Burlington fans, with less controversial signs, cheer for the team during the high school football game between the Rice Green Knights and the Burlington Seahorses at Burlington high school on Friday night September 9, 2016 in Burlington.(Photo: BRIAN JENKINS/for the FREE PRESS)

A bill for students rights and freedom of expression passed its first hurdle last week unopposed in the Senate.

The legislation,Senate Bill 18was sponsored by Sen. JeanetteWhite of Putney, is timelyfor students at theBurlington High SchoolRegister, a school sponsored publication.Censorship hit the Register in Septemberwhen an editor, Alexandre Silberman, 18, wrote an articleabouta sign held by a Rice Memorial High School fan at a football game against Burlington.

The signclaimed that BHS football players were, among other things,gang members and convicts.

"They got really concerned about that story," Alexandre Silberman, said in a January interview.Silberman is also afreelance writer for the Burlington Free Press.

"They had us pull the image. They edited part of the article. We werent allowed to say what the sign said or print the image of the sign, sowe had to be really vague in describing it," Silberman said.

Inspired by whathappenedat the Register and what he heard about how a similar law benefited other student journalism programs,Silberman andco-editorJake Bucci testified before the Vermont Legislature in January, after the bill had been introduced.

Citing the First Amendment's guarantee offreedom of speech, the bill seeksto liberate students from school-sponsored censorship andprotect advisers from administrative backlash.

Burlington High School in May 2016.(Photo: FREE PRESS FILE)

David Lamberti,the adviser for the Register and a business teacher at the high school,supports the bill.

"Knowing I cannot be held legally responsible or fired for supporting my students is comforting," Lamberti wrote back after first submitting questions from the Burlington Free Pressto Principal Tracy Racicot.

"Another reason I support the Bill is because we need to teach kids at a younger age how to ask difficult questions and have conversations aboutdivisivetopics," Lamberti wrote, explaining the difficulty of starting such conversations when the studentslack skills to process them.

"The administration at BHS has always supported a student's right to voice their opinions.Indeed, in my experience, they have always respected the student voice," Lamberti said.

But Silberman says the school has taken actionsthat could createself-censorship, curbingstudents fromtrying to push for more controversial stories.

Student journalists from the Burlington High School Registrar stand in teh Burlington Free Press news room with their editor Alexandre Silberman, who is third from the left.(Photo: Free Press File)

"Now we are required to send the entire paper in advance. They can decideto pull any articles they want," Silberman said of the school's administrative policy. Previously,according to Silberman, Lamberti would flagindividual articlesfor Principal Racicot's review.

Lamberti did not respond to an emailed question regarding how this policyequates with supportingstudents rights to voice their opinions.

The bill, nicknamed New Voices, has just made it to theHouse Committee on Education. Committee Chairman, Rep. David Sharpe, wasn'tfamiliar with the bill on Monday. His first response to the legislation was mixed.

"I can't see why we wouldn't want to protect student journalists," Sharpe said,"but at the same time administration should have some right to control hate speech on t-shirts and promoting risky behavior."

The bill, as introduced, would not givestudents the right to breakstate or federal laws regardinglibel, slander, privacy and the orderly operation of a school.

Rep. KathrynWebb of Shelburne reports that the committee will probably look atthe bill in mid-March.

ContactNicoleHigginsDeSmet, ndesmet@freepressmedia.com or 802-660-1845. Follow her on Twitter@NicoleHDeSmet.

Read or Share this story: http://bfpne.ws/2loioTr

Go here to see the original:
Burlington students press for free speech - BurlingtonFreePress.com

WASHINGTON The Virginia Senate has passed a bill that supporters say promotes campus free speech. But some lawmakers wonder why the law is needed when the U.S. Constitution already provides the First Amendment guarantee.

By a 364 vote, the Senate has followed the lead of the House of Delegates and passed the bill which reads, Except as otherwise permitted by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, no public institution of higher education shall abridge the freedom of any individual, including enrolled students, faculty and other employees, and invited guests, to speak on campus.

I wish this wasnt necessary, said Sen. Mark Obenshain, a Republican representing Virginias 26th District, the chairman of theCourts of Justice Committee.

Weve got examples that abound across the country of colleges and universities that have been unilaterally making decisions as to whats appropriate political speech on campus, he said.

During the brief debate in the Senate chamber, no one could offer an example of any such conflict pitting free speech against political correctness occurring on any Virginia campus, leading some members to wonder whether the bill was needed.

It seems to me that its akin to saying the sky is blue except on cloudy days, even on college campuses, but Im not sure why we need to put that language in the Code of Virginia, said Sen. Creigh Deeds, a Democrat representing Virginias 25th District.

But Senate supporters of the measure insisted that the bill was necessary to encourage healthy debate on the commonwealths campuses.

Free speech is uncomfortable at times, and it has to be a two-way street in order for it to be able to work, Obenshain said.

Like WTOP on Facebook and follow @WTOP on Twitter to engage in conversation about this article and others.

2017 WTOP. All Rights Reserved.

Read more:
Va. Senate upholds campus free speech - WTOP