Category Archives: Freedom of Speech

Grant Strobl 11:43 p.m. ET May 25, 2017

The University of Michigan can secure free speech on campus with certain policy changes, Strobl writes.(Photo: Steve Perez / The Detroit News)Buy Photo

The Central Student Government at the University of Michigan blocked a proposal last month to strengthen free speech protections on campus. Some representatives who voted against the measure claimed that protecting free speech would [delegitimize] minorities on campus and put people at risk. Unlike what the nave student government suggests, free speech is at risk.

The University of Michigan is a repeat offender when it comes to limiting free speech. Early last year, the university stood silently by as hundreds of Black Lives Matters protesters invaded and shut down a planned debate held by the Michigan Political Union. The topic? Whether the Black Lives Matter movement is harmful to race relations in the United States. Pretty ironic. This is not the only time administrators caved to the demands of a small faction of campus leftists. Administrators also caused a national uproar by canceling a campus screening of the movie American Sniper after a handful of students claimed the award-winning film would be offensive.

There is, however, a glimmer of hope. The student government for the College of Literature, Science and the Arts (LSA), released a statement in support of free speech. Their statement recognizes that free speech is in danger on college campuses nationwide, calls for reforms to ensure that free speech is protected, and urges that the University as a whole adopt the Chicago Principles of Free Expression as its official policy.

At least one college within the university gets it.

After this LSA student government statement, both President Schlissel and LSA Dean Andrew Martin sent emails in support of free speech to leadership in the LSA student government. They cited Standard Practice Guide 601.1 on Freedom of Speech and Artistic Expression as being entirely consistent with the Chicago Principles of Free Expression. However, each campus leader pointed out areas of improvement at Michigan, namely figuring out when and how to act and when not to act, as Dean Martin put it.

While Standard Practice Guide 601.1 is sound policy on free speech, some sections need improvement.

Guideline 5 gives university administrators too much room for interpretation to let protesters/hecklers subvert an event. More precise language is needed to prevent situations like that of the Michigan Political Union debate where hecklers subverted the event and prevented the speakers from making their remarks.

Similarly, Guideline 8 should be repaired to prevent inaction from the university. As currently worded, the guideline places the burden of stopping undue interference on organizers of events, typically students, and allows the university to use them as scapegoats for university inaction. This should be changed to require the university to take action and prevent hecklers.

Beyond specific free speech policies, the university needs to also look at modifying policies for programs that have a severe chilling effect on free speech. For example, a bias incident according to the program's FAQs, is completely ambiguous and includes protected speech. It would also be wise for the university even to take a step further and issue a statement reaffirming its commitment to free speech as recommended by the LSA Student Government.

These small policy improvements would affirm the universitys commitment to free speech.

Grant Strobl is national chairman of Young Americans for Freedom and a senior at the University of Michigan.

Read or Share this story: http://detne.ws/2r3lyRJ

See the original post here:
Column: Securing free speech at UM - The Detroit News

This academic year has been dominated by debateoften diplomatic, often noton free speech, a term which itself has rapidly become politicized. We have opined on the topic on numerous occasions, both when it has affected our own campus and when it has affected colleges across the nation.

We stand by our prior opinion: Not all speakers are equally worth hearing; all have the right to be heard.

We believe that controversial speakers have the right to expound upon whatever claims they desireincluding those that we believe to be offensive and factually wrong. This is their right of free speech, and we wholeheartedly support it. Any infringement on any persons speech, however odious that speech might be, is a threat to the free expression that has fueled our democracy.

We have seen far too many incidents of individuals with controversial beliefs facing violent protests upon their arrival. This March at Middlebury College, Charles Murraythe author of the book, The Bell Curve, which alleges that there are genetically-rooted intellectual disparities between different ethnicitiesand interviewer Professor Allison Stanger were attacked by protesters after his speech. Stanger was hospitalized and later said that she feared for her life. In the face of these and other violent protests, we condemn such violence unequivocally. That we find Murrays views patently offensive and bigoted makes, and should make, no difference. Hateful speech does not excuse retaliatory violence.

These incidents, however, are not themselves damning evidence that colleges are simply bastions of liberal privilege or that free speech is under siege. It is unfortunate that these protests are exploited by certain news outlets that choose to ignore the many respectful, peaceful, and law-abiding protests where students voice disagreement with a speaker. Indeed, the right to peaceably assemble is codified in the same amendment as the right to free speech. We urge those who object to the mere act of protest, including of a speaker whom one finds distasteful, to remember that protest too is an act of free speech.

We also believe that the essential definition of free speech has itself been twisted and clouded. Free speech only entails the right of every individual to speak freely. It does not give one the right to speak free of criticism or protest. It does not give one the right to say something which could reasonably be construed as inciting chaos or violence. It does not give one the right to any forum that one desires.

Milo Yiannopoulos, for instance, is free to launch his tirades against Muslims, women, and African Americansbut he does not have an automatic right to be invited to continue those tirades at some of this countrys most well-respected institutions of learning. Certain speakers do not deserve the platform Harvard University offers, especially when their rhetoric runs antithetical to the values we should all hold dear.

We also believe that students should have the ability to engage in dialogue with controversial speakers. When the Harvard Financial Analysts Club invited indicted pharmaceuticals businessman Martin Shkreli, we criticized them for failing to allow open discourse by limiting the kinds of questions that could be asked and attempting to bar the press. Students and speakers alike would gain from an opportunity to challenge the views of one another. Free speech is made better and richer by a lively exchange of ideas. In short, we are in support of free speech, but not free reign.

For students and others who disagreesometimes vehementlywith those invited, we encourage nonviolent, legal protest. Those who have time and again proven themselves to be peddlers of hate and cruelty should have to defend their views as the price of a Harvard lectern. Individuals and events that will challenge the beliefs of controversial speakers and students are central pillars to keeping both accountable. Without student activism, speakers could espouse hateful rhetoric that often contradicts the norms we share as a campus. It is paramount that controversial speakerson both the left and the rightare met with contradictory student voices.

We acknowledge that often the burden of confronting objectionable views falls on members of the student body unequally. In particular, students who feel that their identity or culture are routinely attacked may feel uniquely hurt by a speaker who questions an intrinsic part of who they believe themselves to be. Racist or sexist rhetoric, for example, would be more shocking to those who have never heard such views expressed than students who belong to the marginalized groups in question and are intimately familiar with those kinds of hateful speech.

All students, not just those who feel under attack, should step up and challenge speakers who question or attack their peers identities and cultures. It can be difficult and exhausting to be constantly forced to defend inherent things about oneself, especially traits that are immutable. The debate over free speech offers an unique chance for all to support and encourage constructive speech and discourage the politics of hate.

Campus organizations should likewise resist the urge to invite a contentious speaker purely for the sake of generating controversy. Speakers such as Milo Yiannopoulos have previously engaged in tactics we find offensive, such as outing a trans-woman at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Others, such as Martin Shkreli, have been arrested for securities fraud and are unlikely to offer helpful (or lawful) financial advice to the Harvard Financial Analysts Club. It seems the primary purpose of inviting such speakers is an organizations selfish desire to generate publicity and controversy.

This does not and should not mean universities should aim to foster a particular political ideology on their campuses. We welcome the invitation of a diverse range of voices, and indeed believe that many colleges could benefit from hearing more conservative speakers. Instead, we question the decision of many student groups to invite hatemongerseither liberal or conservativein the name of academic diversity. These speakers do not well represent any school of thought and have built careers on being mere provocateurs. If a student group makes the choice to invite that guest to campus, they have a right to do so, but they should not go unquestioned in making that choice.

The Constitutions protections of speech are broad and expansive, yet the desirable and the Constitutionally-protected do not always align. That the First Amendment protects the freedom of young children to curse, of politicians to lie, of conspiracy theorists to peddle their tales, and even of neo-Nazis to march does not make any of those things desirable.

To us, the caliber of speakers invited to our campus sends a message about what views are accepted and acceptable. When speakers are intellectually lazy, unnecessarily cruel, or outright vindictive, they sanction that type of behavior as encouraged. The proper response is not to stifle their voices by physically barring such speakers or shouting them down. If invited, they must be allowed to come.

Yet it is perfectly within the boundaries of free speech to be thoughtful in those we invite. Much the same way, ones acceptance of admission to the College indicates an acceptance of the diversity of backgrounds and opinions here, including those widely different from our own. That is the beauty and benefit of a school like Harvard. It requires being empathetic with and thoughtful about our peers, including when making decisions about who to invite to campus as a speaker.

The freedom of speech is a national treasure, one of the founding ideals of American democracy, and the bedrock of a free press. Indeed, these pages are made possible by those principles. Yet to preserve and protect free speech requires effort and care. To cultivate rich and educational discourse demands still more consideration. It is up to the members of this communityHarvards students, faculty, administrators, staff, and alumnito work to build the conditions that will encourage thoughtful and productive conversations in pursuit of truth.

This staff editorial solely represents the majority view of The Crimson Editorial Board. It is the product of discussions at regular Editorial Board meetings. In order to ensure the impartiality of our journalism, Crimson editors who choose to opine and vote at these meetings are not involved in the reporting of articles on similar topics.

See original here:
Free Speech, Not Free Reign | Opinion | The Harvard Crimson - Harvard Crimson

Forbes

Notre Dame Graduates Miss Pence's Freedom Of Speech Lesson By Walking Out Forbes Vice President Mike Pence returned to Indiana to deliver a commencement address at the University of Notre Dame over the weekend. A small group of graduates walked out when the former Governor of Indiana began speaking. Only about 100 students of ... Vice President Mike Pence Defended Free Speech at Notre Dame Commencement while 100 Students Walked OutAccuracy in Academia Mike Pence and Barack Obama's commencement speeches had one point in common: defenses of free expressionWashington Examiner Pence's Message of 'Civility and Open Debate' Lost on Those Who Most Needed to Hear ItThe Weekly Standard Canada Free Press -Lifesite all 93 news articles »

Read more:
Notre Dame Graduates Miss Pence's Freedom Of Speech Lesson By Walking Out - Forbes

On Sunday, Vice President Mike Pence got a mixed reception when he delivered a commencement speech at the University of Notre Dame. Before he had even finished his address, dozens of students, some wearing rainbow flags on their graduation caps, stood and walked out.

Undeterred by the silent protest, Pence continued his speech, saying to the graduates: While this institution has maintained an atmosphere of civility and open debate, far too many campuses across America have become characterized by speech codes, safe spaces, tone policing, administration-sanctioned political correctness all of which amounts to the suppression of free speech.

This is a line of reasoning weve heard time and time again, mostly from those on the right. The pristine ideal of free speech is used to dismiss legitimate criticism of language and policies that harm marginalized communities. Figures like Milo Yiannopoulos, Ann Coulter, and Bill Maher have invoked the free speech argument when theyve been called out, criticized, or boycotted for their rhetoric.

None of them, however, have actually had their speech curtailed. They have never been thrown in jail for things like inciting racist and sexist abuse against comedian Leslie Jones, or complaining about Jews in America, or suggesting Muslims are inherently violent. Indeed, it wasnt until Yiannopoulos started speaking positively about pedophilia that he actually faced any tangible repercussions.

Perhaps to Pence, who has come under scrutiny in the past for his history of endorsing and enactinganti-LGBTQpolicies, the students who booed and walked out during his speech were only proving his point: that we live in a society where political correctness (a phrase thats often just coded language for liberal oversensitivity) is leading us to a future where young people balk at anyone who shares an opinion different than their own.

But its not that simple.

Contrary to popular belief, free speech, in the context of the Constitution, actually does have limits. The First Amendment does not protect speech that incites violence, fraud, or child pornography, or certain forms of obscenity. It puts limits and restrictions on slander, and intellectual property.

And while it protects criticism of the government (including the president), and also protects unpopular or potentially offensive political or ideological views, it doesnt mean one can say or do anything they want without social repercussions.

In other words, free speech does not mean that people arent allowed to be offended by or disagree with what you say. Free speech isnotan excuse to say racist, homophobic, sexist things. The Constitution may protect your right to say some of those things, but you are certainly not protected from being called out for doing so.

Beyond a seeming lack of understanding of the basic tenets of free speech, this line of critique also frames any identification of instances of racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamaphobia, ableism and transphobia as threats to free speech itself. And the ultimate effect of this argument can be chilling.

As Ulrich Baer put it in a New York Times essay published in April: Requiring of someone in public debate to defend their human worth conflicts with the communitys obligation to assure all of its members equal access to public speech.

The students who decided to publicly protest Pence for his views, many of whom identify as queer, have as much of a right to exercise free speech as Pence and his supporters. Safe spaces do not suppress anything they level the playing field in a landscape where so many of those who bemoan political correctness do so at the expense of already marginalized communities.

Of course, the conversation surrounding free speech is not a simple one. The difficulty of defining hate speech, for instance, has often come up in this ongoing debate, with some critics arguing that censorship is not the solution to offensive or hateful language that is constitutionally protected.

There is no legal definition of hate speech that will withstand constitutional scrutiny, Will Creeley, Senior Vice President of Legal and Public Advocacy at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, told Think Progress in January 2016. The Supreme Court has been clear on this for decades. And that is because of the inherently fluid, subjective boundaries of what would or would not constitute hate speech. One persons hate speech is another persons manifesto.

So, OK, both sides of the aisle must contend with how to express themselves and have vigorous debates about difficult without being awful. But research has shown that those who defend their right to use racial slurs and racist hate speech often use free speech to do so. A 2017 studyfound that out of hundreds of participants, those with high levels of racial prejudice were much more concerned with upholding freedom of speech, but were also less likely to defend free speech in non-racial scenarios.

Its certainly savvy to deflect the argument that what you are saying is offensive by zeroing in on a political ideal, free speech, that everyone can get behind. Its ultimately just a rhetorical ploy to normalize ideas that oppress others. And complaining when those who are oppressed call out these ideas, as is their right, is another petty ploy.

What Pence and Yiannopoulos and Coulter and other right-wing provacateurs are really doing when they weaponize free speech against marginalized people is perverting the idea of free speech itself.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story indicated that the First Amendment never protects hate speech. It does.

Read more:
Stop Using Free Speech As An Excuse To Be Awful - HuffPost

An organization continues to call for Texas A&M to fire its president and a professor, and a private university in Pennsylvania is reportedly investigating one of its professors for publicly promoting violence.

Support Aggies, an independent group of former Texas A&M students, says it has audio from a classroom lecture given by philosophy Professor Tommy Curry.

"That's how the situation came about," says 'Tony' from Support Aggies. "When I found out that the professor was promoting violence against white people, I decided to sign the petition at SupportAggies.com and to pledge to withhold any donations to the university."

Professor Curry also made comments about white people on a radio program in 2012, saying, "Today I want to talk about killing white people in context."

He went on to say the Second Amendment was used to arm white people to put down slave revolts and uprisings from indigenous natives.

Professor Curry did not respond to OneNewsNow's email seeking comment. Neither did Texas A&M, although the university's president, Michael K. Young, did issue a statement this month:

"As you may know, a podcast interview by one of our professors that took place approximately four and a half years ago resurfaced this week on social media, seen for the first time by many of us. The interview features disturbing comments about race and violence that stand in stark contrast to Aggie core values most notably those of respect, excellence, leadership and integrity values that we hold true toward all of humanity.

As we know, the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the rights of others to offer their personal views, no matter how reprehensible those views may be. It also protects our right to freedom of speech, which I am exercising now."

According to The Eagle, a Texas-based newspaper, Professor Curry claims his remarks in 2012 regarding race have been taken out of context and mischaracterized by the university's president -- who never identified the professor in his statement.

"The professor has acknowledged that it was him on the audio clips, so there is no dispute about that," comments 'Tony' from Support Aggies. "He has claimed that his comments have been edited in such a way that they've been taken out of context, but we have the full transcript and full audio that provides the context, and what people think he's saying on the audio is what he's really saying."

Meanwhile, Professor George Ciccariello-Mahers notorious tweets have finally caught up with him, as Drexel University, where he teaches politics and global studies, is now investigating him.

Last December, Professor Ciccariello-Maher tweeted, "All I want for Christmas is white genocide." And Horace Cooper of Project 21, The National Leadership Network of Black Conservatives, tells OneNewsNow the professor more recently tweeted that he wanted to vomit when he saw a passenger give up a first-class seat to a soldier.

"It is good that, in fact, some accountability is happening," Cooper comments regarding the investigation. "It is not good that universities aren't taking the lead to self-police this kind of behavior instead of having to let it build to such a degree that people realize how unacceptable the behavior is."

Cooper adds that when these situations erupt it is not always clear whether the school supports or condemns this kind of behavior.

"50 years ago, if the Faculty Senate had heard about it, they would have taken action, and an apology would have been immediately issued," the Project 21 spokesman submits. "We would have assumed that the university did not condone this behavior."

In a letter to Ciccariello-Maher, a school official wrote that while tweets are protected speech, professors have a "special obligation to act responsibly."

We moderate all reader comments, usually within 24 hours of posting (longer on weekends). Please limit your comment to 300 words or less and ensure it addresses the article - NOT another reader's comments. Comments that contain a link (URL), an inordinate number of words in ALL CAPS, rude remarks directed at other readers, or profanity/vulgarity will not be approved.

Continue reading here:
Responsibility and free speech - OneNewsNow

Theresa May and Angela Merkel have quite a bit in common. For example, both are suspiciousmore than suspiciousof the free market and both are daughters of clergymen(speculation, of course, but those two facts might not be entirely unconnected). Both are authoritarians.

Authoritarians dont like speech that is, well, too free, and that, of course, brings them up against the unruly reality of the Internet.

Foreign Affairs

In April 2017, the German cabinet passed new legislation on hate speech that the German Bundestag is scheduled to adopt in the summer. The law enables Germany to fine social media companies up to 50 million euros ($55 million) for not reacting swiftly enough to reports of illegal content or hate speech.

The law has an aptly German name Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz, or Network Enforcement Law. But its main target is U.S. tech giants, which provide the main social media networks in Germany. The clash between U.S. social media companies and the German government is about more than deleting hateful online comments. It is a fight about how much free speech a democracy can take.

Ponder that last sentence:

It is a fight about how much free speech a democracy can take.

And then re-read the First Amendment.

Foreign Affairs:

The new law applies to social media platforms with over two million users and imposes large fines if they do not delete posts contravening hate speech law within 24 hours of receiving a complaint. In response, a broad opposition coalition swiftly emerged. Although the law excludes journalistic platforms where someone is already accountable for content, such as online newspapers, the German Journalists Association joined civil rights activists, academics, and lawyers in signing a joint statement warning that the law jeopardizes the core principles of free expression. In addition, the Global Network Initiative (GNI) an international coalition of tech companies, civil society groups, investors, and academics asserted that the law poses a threat to open and democratic discourse. These groups worry that the law might lead to broad censorship of the Internet and create a precedent for more authoritarian regimes to further restrict free speech on the Web.

They are right to worry.

Foreign Affairs:

Created in 1949, the West German federal constitution, also known as the Basic Law or Grundgesetz, contained a central paradox. Many West German politiciansconservatives and social democrats alikebelieved in a militant democracy, one where free speech could be constrained to protect democratic norms. Essentially, democrats had to use undemocratic means to protect democracy. Article 18 of the constitution states that anyone abusing rights like freedom of speech to undermine a free democratic order might forfeit those basic rights.

In the specific circumstances of Germany just after the fall of the Third Reich, that might (just) be understandable, but now?

It also raises the question of who decides what speech is to be defined as suspect. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes and all that.

Foreign Affairs quotes German Justice Minister Heiko Maas as saying that freedom of speech has boundaries.

And:

Maas aims to expand Germanys approach to all of Europe, probably by introducing similar legislation in Brussels. With Emmanuel Macron as Frances newly elected president, Maas might succeed. Macron said during his campaign that he wanted to stop fake news and regulate the Internet because today certain players are activists and have a very important role in the campaign.

Who defines what is fake news?

We are often toldthese days that Merkel and Macron (in contrast to wicked Donald Trump) are thedefenders of the liberal order, but theirs seems to be a liberal order where free speech is kept on a leash. That does notlook to me like a liberalism worthy of the name.

The reference to plans to neuter free speech elsewhere in Europe (ie the EU) suggests that post-Brexit Britain might escape. That would be optimistic. As Brits discovered under Blair, Brown and Cameron, reining in free speech is popular across the UKs political class (even more so in Scotland, incidentally), but Theresa May, that accomplished enabler of the predatory state, is likely to make it even worse.

The Independent (my emphasis added):

While much of the internet is currently controlled by private businesses like Google and Facebook, Theresa May intends to allow government to decide what is and isnt published, the manifesto suggests.The new rules would include laws that make it harder than ever to access pornographic and other websites. The government will be able to place restrictions on seeing adult content and any exceptions would have to be justified to ministers, the manifesto suggests.The manifesto even suggests that the government might stop search engines like Google from directing people to pornographic websites. We will put a responsibility on industry not to direct users even unintentionally to hate speech, pornography, or other sources of harm, the Conservatives write.

But perhaps most unusually [technology companies] would be forced to help controversial government schemes like its Prevent strategy, by promoting counter-extremist narratives

The Conservatives will also seek to regulate the kind of news that is posted online and how companies are paid for it. If elected, Theresa May will take steps to protect the reliability and objectivity of information that is essential to our democracy.

So Britains political class is going to protect the reliability and objectivity of information.

What could possibly go wrong?

Go here to read the rest:
Against Free Speech: Merkel, May (and Macron) - National Review

You know, when I think about free things, I always thought that must be a bargain of some kind. Good, free stuff is pretty rare these days.

Lately Ive been scratching my head thinking about this term free speech and all the many voices I seem to hear each day while others must be keeping their free speech card locked away for later use.

In the spring of each year as commencement exercises begin to dot our landscape with graduation ceremonies, there always seems to be a controversy involving some invited guest speaker.

This year was no different.

Ann Coulter, a conservative commentator who had been invited to speak at the University of California, Berkley was canceled over objections by students.

Free speech seemed to take a hit on this graduation stage.

Texas Southern University canceled a scheduled commencement address Saturday by U.S. Sen. John Cornyn after students at the college didnt particularly care for the senators politics and started a petition to complain about his invitation.

Free speech obviously didnt fare too well in this venue either.

Politics, liberalism and an ongoing dispute with conservatism and vice versa always seem to occupy our headlines this time of the year.

The battle between our youth and their dreams of the future, and the establishment and those who find it important to maintain the status quo, seems like an unsolvable conflict.

I remember reading Platos Republic so many years ago and focusing on a story shared by the philosopher about a ship sailing the high seas.

It seemed that the captain of the sailing ship was quite old and maybe set in his ways. But he was also a sea captain who had much experience in navigating the waters under the guidance of the stars above, and he had seen many things and possessed much knowledge.

As the young crew had many discussions about the captain, they began to criticize his performance and became dissatisfied with his leadership. Eventually, a mutiny might occur and the youth, in their passions and desires for change, would dispose of the captain.

A young crew member would replace him.

The only problem suggested in Platos story was that none of the young men possessed any navigation skills. The young crew had a desire to lead but had little basic experience to do so.

This same notion exists today in many places of the work environment, politics and government. Everyone wants to be a leader, but not everyone is prepared to become one.

Democracy sometimes suffers from the same dilemma. The oldest person and leader is often not the wisest, but might have some knowledge. The youth are not really any better prepared to navigate those waters of politics.

Plato was actually criticizing that concept of democracy.

His solution? Only true philosophers are the best leaders, because they possess the good attributes and qualities required of leadership.

That sounds good enough, I thought, after reading the book many years ago. But I dont know many virtuous philosophers either, I sadly concluded.

Freedom of speech is a very noble idea, too, but the expression of thought and conversation should never be restricted by political might or petition, if it is really free.

And shouldnt freedom of speech apply to everyone?

When students use their numbers to cancel a speakers performance or our president suggests that we no longer need political briefings, which really embraces or understands that concept of real free speech?

Even in Athens, where Democracy was born, the greatest travesty of Greek history, in my opinion, was the death of Socrates at the hands of leaders who objected to his free speech and thoughts.

As Socrates drank his potion of hemlock late that evening, and waited for death to arrive as he lay upon his pillow, maybe he thought too about that notion of free speech and how it seemingly did not apply to him.

Is there any such thing as free speech in this world?

I dont believe there is.

And maybe I wont be able to tell anyone.

Lloyd Pete Waters is a Sharpsburg resident who writes for The Herald-Mail.

Go here to read the rest:
Lloyd Waters: Is there such a thing as 'free speech'? - Herald-Mail Media

As the graduates of Bucknell University's Class of 2017 stepped across the stage on the Malesardi Quadrangle to receive their degrees on Sunday, May 21, each passed by a banner the class designed together four years earlier. Above and below an image of the Christy Mathewson-Memorial Gateway, the banner proclaimed a motto, inscribed in Latin and English: "The power to transform the future lies within our differences."

From the ceremony's opening invocation to the Commencement address delivered by journalist Fareed Zakaria to student speaker Max Ferrer's closing words to his peers, the banner's message echoed. Its words signified not only a defining aspect of the class' Bucknell experience, but a lesson to take into the world that is perhaps more critical today than ever before.

"The whole purpose of the liberal arts has been to hear people out, to listen to opposing views," Zakaria, the host of CNN's flagship foreign-affairs program, Fareed Zakaria GPS, said in his address. "I don't want you to turn your back to people. I want you to turn your face, your mind. Debate with them. Argue with them."

Zakaria, the author of the 2015 book In Defense of a Liberal Education, has long been a proponent of the liberal arts approach at the heart of a Bucknell education, arguing for its effectiveness not just in preparing graduates for their first jobs, but also in building adaptable skills that will serve them for a lifetime. He observed in his speech that others have recognized the wisdom in this outlook. Technology visionaries Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos have all been informed and guided by liberal arts in their insights and approaches to leadership, he said.

But Zakaria, who is also a columnist for The Washington Post and a New York Times-bestselling author, noted that the liberal arts have more recently come under fire from a different direction. Particularly on college campuses, protesters have increasingly sought to silence voices they don't agree with, mounting attacks on the freedom of speech so fundamental to the liberal arts that "strike me as fundamentally illiberal, if not un-American," Zakaria said.

"Freedom of speech, freedom of thought, is not freedom for people we like, for warm, fuzzy ideas that we find comfortable. It is for ideas that you find offensive," Zakaria said. "There is no idea that is beyond the pale. Everything should be within the arena and should be worth contesting."

889 graduates Zakaria addressed his remarks to the nearly 900 undergraduate and graduate students receiving their degrees at Commencement, and the more than 6,000 faculty, staff, family members, friends and other well-wishers who gathered on Bucknell's Malesardi Quadrangle to see the graduates off. | See more photos from Commencement Weekend

The University presented degrees to 889 graduates (including 19 who completed their studies in January) at the Commencement ceremony. They comprised 868 students receiving bachelor's degrees and 21 receiving master's degrees. Among undergraduates, 699 received degrees in the arts & sciences (including 123 from the School of Management) and 169 received degrees in engineering. The graduates represent 37 states and 19 nations. | Learn more about the Class of 2017.

In addition to celebrating the achievements of the graduating class, Provost Barbara Altmann recognized five professors with awards for excellence in teaching: Professors Emily Dryden, mathematics; G.C. Waldrep, English; Peter Judge, psychology and animal behavior; Kris Trego, classics & ancient Mediterranean studies; and Martin Ligare, physics & astronomy. Professor Heidi Lorimor, linguistics, received the Bucknell University Writing Across the Curriculum Award of Excellence.

University President John Bravman also recognized Doris and Bob Malesardi '45 for their generosity to Bucknell. In 2016 the Malesardis pledged $20 million to Bucknell, the largest single commitment in the University's history, all of it dedicated to financial aid endowment. A matching gift program they started, the Malesardi Match, has additionally amplified that commitment by a further $20 million. In honor of their leadership and loyalty to Bucknell, the academic heart of the University was renamed the Malesardi Quadrangle last year.

We question In his address to his graduating peers, student speaker Max Ferrer remarked that the spirit of critical inquiry and constant curiosity Zakaria extolled in his speech was a hallmark of a Bucknell education.

"As Bucknellians, we question," Ferrer said. "Bucknell is an environment where we are taught to question what we are told."

From the question that challenged the students as they entered Bucknell, "What am I going to major in?" to its evolution confronting them now, "What am I going to do with my life?" constant inquiry defined the class' journey to this day, Ferrer said.As the members of the Class of 2017 prepared to depart the University, Ferrer implored them to "keep questioning."

"Question the standard practices of your industry, that is how we will innovate," he said. "Question our leaders, that is how we will progress. Question the structure of the world around you, that is how we will improve. But most importantly, question yourselves, because that is how we will grow."

In his own closing address to the graduates, President Bravman not only echoed the advice offered by Ferrer and Zakaria, but also returned to the motto the class devised for itself four years earlier: "More than ever, successful navigation of the world requires conscientious examination of our differences," Bravman said. "Remember to seek out, and strive to understand, an array of perspectives especially those that challenge your own."

Here is the original post:
Fareed Zakaria Offers Defense of Free Speech and the Liberal Arts ... - Bucknell University

The Senate Judiciary Committee took testimony this week on recently introduced campus free speech legislation.

The legislation would require Michigan's public colleges and universities to adopt a policy on free expression that includes, at a minimum, 12 statements spelled out in the act.

One required provision of the policy would be the mandatory expulsion or one year suspension of a student who has twice been found responsible for infringing on the expressive rights of others.

The legislation also would require the creation of a 12-member higher education committee on free expression in the state Department of Education. The committee would have to issue an annual written report for the public, the governor and the Legislature on disruptions to free expression at Michigan's public universities and colleges and how they were handled.

In a written statement submitted to the committee, State Sen. Patrick Colbeck, R-Canton, who sponsored the legislation, said, "In the interest of preserving our core value of freedom of speech, I have introduced SB 349 and SB 350 to protect the increasingly rare principle of freedom of speech at our colleges and universities."

Colbeck cited a handful of high-profile incidents on college campuses where protests have derailed appearances of controversial speakers or where students were prevented by the university from distributing literature.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan and the Michigan Association of State Universities oppose the legislation.

"The bill has these kind of undefined and really broad terms for interference and infingement," said Kimberly Buddin, policy counsel of the Michigan ACLU. She said that the vagueness could penalize or chill protected free speech.

Buddinalso said the bill's mandatory penalties for a student's second violation is a bad idea that would prevent universities from making the punishment fit the type of violation and the circumstances around it.

Buddin said the legislation did not add to free expression protections already provided under the state and federal constitutions.

"We find the two bills to be simply unnecessary," said Dan Hurley, CEO of the Michigan Association of State Universities. "Given the fact that there are thousands of events every year - guest speakers, demonstrations, you name it -- held on our college campuses, virtually without incident."

"There are very broad protections already afforded to all students and guests involving free expression and free speech," said Hurley. "And these bills do nothing to advance that cause."

He said the bills are an attempt to fix something that is not broken, and removes decision-making from the elected or appointed boards of Michigan's public universities and colleges.

Colbeck was not available for comment.

Go here to see the original:
Committee hearing held on campus free speech legislation - Michigan Radio

Protests that shut down a planned speech from anImmigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) public relations officer at Northwestern University this week were just the latest in a troubling trend of activists trampling on First Amendment rights, a leader of the school's College Republicans told Fox News on Friday.

The protesters were making an unsafe environment for the students, for the professor, for the guest, Sammy Cuautle, the public relations secretary of the Northwestern College Republicans, said onFox & Friends.He added, This is a very troubling trend around the whole country where universities are becoming less safe for freedom of speech and less safe for expression and different ideas which is really, really disappointing.

The goal was to bring in somebody who was familiar with how [ICE] is structured, Beth Redbird, an assistant professor in the Department of Sociology, toldTIME. But those plans were nixed when the protesters started chanting and waving banners as they claimed the officers presence on campus illustrated a threat to illegal immigrants.

The professor canceled the class during the protest amid safety concerns.

BUTLER UNIVERSITY TONES DOWN ANTI-TRUMP COURSE DESCRIPTION

Essentially what happened was that, a lot of, several students on campus got together and they were upset that the ICE agent was coming, David Donnelly, the president of the Northwestern College Republicans, told Fox & Friends. They felt that it threatened undocumented immigrants who were going to Northwestern or on Northwesterns campus. In reality, what it really was, it was just a PR person for ICE. And what it was supposed to be was a two-day, sort of seminar, that was going on in the sociology class that would give the students two really great perspectives of basically whats going on in the immigration reform debate.

The debate followed comments from Northwestern President Morton Schapiro in which he advocated for providing safe spaces for students on campus.

BERKELEY COLLEGE REPUBLICANS EXPLAIN LAWSUIT AGAINST UNIVERSITY OVER COULTER

You want to protect the First Amendment, obviously, but it isnt absolute, Schapiro toldThe Wall Street Journalon May 16. People reduce it to slogans or free speech at all costs. Ive been a president 17 years and an educatorthis is the 38th consecutive year that Ive taught. I see it. I eat in the dorms. Im with the students all the time. I see what they struggle with. These are tough issues, and to just say, My campus doesnt do safe spacesMaybe some people take comfort in that, but I dont. My job as a leader is to draw that line.

I love Morty but at the same time I think hes really wrong about this, Cuautle said in response. Earlier in the year, to the freshman class, he defended safe spaces. I think, in a lot of ways, the administration has been a little bit complacent. They havent been very aggressive toward us or towards freedom of speech in general but I think they can do a little bit more to defend it and at least tone down the extremism by, you know, this group of students.

Go here to read the rest:
Northwestern free-speech fight ensues after campus protesters shut down ICE representative's talk - Fox News