Monthly Archives: May 2017

Robert Spencer, the director of Jihad Watch, spoke before a large, respectful audience at Gettysburg College last Wednesday, at the invitation of the schools Young Americans for Freedom chapter. In the lead-up to the event, students complained and 375 alumni signed a letter calling for his talk to be canceled because, they wrote, Allowing him to visit and speak will be an act of violence against Muslim students at Gettysburg College and will further legitimate his false and hateful message.

Spencer writes and speaks about radical Islam and jihad. His most recent book is The Complete Infidels Guide to Iran (2016). In 2013 he was prohibited from entering the UK to give a scheduled speech, and in 2006, Pakistan banned his book, The Truth About Muhammad. In his talks, he frequently reads passages from the Quran that he says justify human rights abuses in radical Islam, such as sex slavery.

Outrage and protest over Spencer as a campus speaker are not unique to Gettysburg. Most recently, on May 1, students at the University of Buffalo drowned out his presentation, chanting and screaming throughout the event. According to Spencer, the UB administrators did nothing to restore order.

At Gettysburg, President Janet Morgan Riggs answered the alumni letter by declaring that Spencer would still make his presentation on The Political Ramifications of Islamic Fundamentalism, and that another speaker, Luther College professor Todd Green, would give a talk that same week, on Professional Islamophobia. Riggs cited the colleges freedom of expression statement, which quotes Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis: If there be a time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.

In these days of campus speaker shout-downs and dis-invitations, Riggs stands out for her principled defense of intellectual freedom. At least, so it might seem. Riggs is not quite a shining example of free speech protection. Her response to the situation sent conflicting messages.

Selective on Second Speakers

Riggss choice to bring in another speaker appears to be a helpful gesture toward ideological balance. Debates and panels that offer competing points of view are sadly rare on college campuses now. Students deserve to hear more than one perspective on controversial ideas. But here the additional speaker concept is applied selectively. For example, in March the department of Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at Gettysburg hosted transgender activist Aren Aizura, who promotes queer theory and gender reassignment surgery. The college did not bring in a speaker to present the counter view that accommodating gender dysphoria is destructive in a manner similar to accommodating anorexia.

The more speech policy appears to apply only in cases where the point of view does not conform to progressive ideology.

Clash of Values

Riggs wrotethe following in her letter to the community:

Thisissueisdifficultbecauseitpitstwocoreinstitutional valuesagainstoneanother:

Taken literally, these values are really not in conflict. A diverse and inclusive learning environment ought to mean a college where students and faculty members of differing backgrounds and views can come together to participate in a marketplace of ideas, and no idea is excluded without due consideration. But diverse and inclusive has come to be a euphemism for its opposite: homogenous and exclusionary.

In that sense, Riggs is right to recognize a clash of values. This is the reason so many campus speakers are prevented from talking: when the free exchange of ideas is confronted by the notion that a certain view is hateful to a preferred identity group, free speech usually loses. This time, Gettysburg College did the right thing by ensuring that Spencer could speak. But Riggs noticed something real, the incompatibility of diverse and inclusive (as the notion is practically applied) with intellectual freedom. Colleges and universities should reconsider their institutional values and drop the language of diverse and inclusive in order to protect intellectual freedom.

Taking Sides

As is sometimes the case with college administrators who countenance controversial speakers, Riggs couldnt resist showing her own biases. At the Todd Green event, when a student challenged her decision to allow Spencer to speak, she replied, My fantasy is that we will have four or five people sitting in a room with Robert Spencer, and the other 2,500 members with Jerome at his rally. I think thats what we can do to counter the fear that a speaker like this can bring to this community.

Riggss call for students to boycott Spencers talk to attend a simultaneous Muslim solidarity rally and her assertion that Spencer could bring fear to campus compromised her defense of his right to speak. This declaration was essentially an act of self-justification to students and alumni who might accuse her of not being on the right side. Getting steamrolled by angry students is a legitimate concern for college presidents these days, but it is up to presidents to show students how to listen to views they disagree with and to model what openness to different ideas looks like.

Imperfect Virtue

Gettysburg College did the right thing by ensuring an invited speakers right to be heard. Riggs is to be commended for not surrendering to the many who pressured her to turn Spencer away. But her declaration of her hope that no one would attend considerably weakened her position. Students need to see examples of gutsy defenses of intellectual freedom. Riggs falls short of that.

It is possible that Riggss statement actually served as an impetus for more students to attend Spencers talk. The room was filled with nearly 400 people, including many who disagreed with what he had to say but nevertheless came to listen.

Controversy can help pique curiosity. Ultimately, however, it should be a normal, even mundane occurrence to have views across the spectrum aired and debated on a college campus. That is the mark of a diverse and inclusive learning environment in the best sense.

Ashley Thorne is theExecutive Director of the National Association of Scholars.

Read this article:
How Not to Defend Free Speech - RealClearEducation

The recent cancellation of an appearance by conservative commentator Ann Coulter at the University of California at Berkeley resulted in confrontations between protestors. Its the latest in a series of heated disputes that have taken place involving controversial speakers on campus.

One of us is a researcher of higher education legal issues (Neal) and one is a senior administrator in higher education (Brandi). Together, were interested in how institutions facilitate free speech while also supporting students.

From our different perspectives, we see two closely connected questions arise: What legal rules must colleges and universities follow when it comes to speech on campus? And what principles and educational values should guide university actions concerning free speech?

Key legal standards

When it comes to the legal requirements for free speech on campus, a key initial consideration is whether an institution is public or private.

Public colleges and universities, as governmental institutions, are obligated to uphold First Amendment protections for free speech. In contrast, private institutions may choose to adopt speech policies similar to their public counterparts, but they arent subject to constitutional speech requirements. California proves a notable exception: State law requires private secular colleges and universities to follow First Amendment standards in relation to students.

For those colleges that are subject to constitutional speech rules, what does this mean?

For starters, an institution does not have to make all places on campus, such as offices or libraries, available to speakers or protesters. Universities may also provide less campus access to individuals unaffiliated with the institution, thus potentially limiting the presence on campus of activists or protesters who are not official members of the university community.

Regardless of these limitations on free speech, once an institution categorizes a campus space as accessible for students or permits its use for a specific purpose such as musical or theatrical performances campus officials must not favor particular views or messages in granting access.

Some campus areas, such as plazas or courtyards, either by tradition or designation, constitute open places for speech and expression, including for the general public. Colleges and universities may impose reasonable rules to regulate the use of these kinds of open campus forums (e.g., restrictions on the length of the event, blocking roadways or the use of amplification devices). However, a guiding First Amendment principle is that institutions cannot impose restrictions based on the content of a speakers message.

Free speech zones

A central point of conflict over student speech and activism involves rules at some institutions that restrict student speech and related activities (such as protests, distributing fliers or petition gathering) to specified areas or zones on campus.

Students have argued that such free speech zones are overly restrictive and violate the First Amendment. For instance, a community college student in Los Angeles alleges in a current lawsuit that his First Amendment rights were violated when he was allowed to distribute copies of the U.S Constitution only in a designated free speech zone. Virginia, Missouri, Arizona and Colorado (as of this April) have legislation that prohibits public institutions from enforcing such zones. At least six other states are considering similar laws.

In our view, legislative and litigation efforts may curtail the use of designated free speech zones for students in much of public higher education. In the meantime, increasing resistance could be enough to prompt many institutions to voluntarily end their use.

Beyond legal requirements

While legal compliance is certainly an important factor in shaping policy and practice around free speech, campus leaders should perhaps have a different consideration foremost on their minds: namely, the institutional mission of education.

Most students arrive on our nations campuses to acquire a degree, discover who they are and determine what they want to be. Students grow in myriad ways cognitively, morally and psychosocially while in college.

This personal development cannot fully take place without exposure to opposing views. To that end, students should be encouraged to express themselves civilly, listen to critiques of their ideas and think deeply about their convictions. Then, in response, students can express themselves again in light of new and opposing ideas.

This process of engagement, productive discourse and critical reflection can create tension and conflict for many. The reality is that protected free speech is not always viewed as good or productive speech by all members of the campus community.

However, rather than labeling students as fragile snowflakes or pressuring institutions to punish students who wish to challenge campus speakers, in our view, theres a better approach: Why not take seriously students objections to controversial speakers support them and engage with them on how to reconcile their concerns and institutional commitments to free speech?

Free speech issues on campus are often messy and can make both students and campus officials uneasy. But discomfort also presents an opportunity for growth. We believe that educational institutions have a responsibility to foster debate and to help students gain experience in processing and responding to messages they find objectionable.

And so, when controversies arise, campus officials at times stretching their own comfort zones around issues of student speech and activism can embrace the educational opportunities they present.

Neal H. Hutchens, Professor of Higher Education, University of Mississippi and Brandi Hephner LaBanc, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs, University of Mississippi

Read the original:
Can we talk about free speech on campus? - Salon

Gay journalist Chadwick Moore who recently came out as a conservative spoke at Portland State University in a speech that drew protests and prompted Moore to boldly engage demonstrators who heckled him.

The speech, The Joys of Being an Infidel: Challenging Orthodoxy and Standing Up for Free Speech in America, drew roughly 60 students and community members, including about a dozen student protesters.

They held signs declaring No sympathy for alt-right trash and Destroy your local fascist, and at times disrupted the speech with verbal outbursts. Moore responded in sometimes feisty rebuttals as the two sides clashed.

Moore entered the national spotlight after coming out as a conservative in an op-ed in the New York Post in February that detailed the intense backlash and hatred he received from his once beloved and supportive gay community for writing a feature on Milo Yiannopoulos for Out magazine.

If you dare to question liberal stances or make an effort toward understanding why conservatives think the way they do, you are a traitor, Moore wrote in his coming out piece. It can seem like liberals are actually against free speech if it fails to conform with the way they think. And I dont want to be a part of that club anymore.

Now, as an emerging defender of free speech, he finds himself a target.

The Joys of Being an Infidel

In opening his Portland State speech on April 28, he alluded to its title with an Islamic greeting: As-Salaam-Alaikum, he said. Thats how they say it in France.

The event was organized by Freethinkers of PSU, a nonpartisan classical liberal and humanist student group.

Blake Horner, one of the leaders in Freethinkers of PSU, said that some protest was expected given that dozens of flyers promoting the event had been vandalized or torn down during the preceding week.

It seems that many people at PSU were motivated to halt public knowledge of this event, Horner said. We were also confronted by someone who was determined to intimidate us.

On the day of the speech, messages plastered on the groups display case called Moore a fascist defender.

Moore reserved strong criticism for PSUs Queer Resource Center at the beginning of his speech. He pointed out what he perceived as the centers political bias for refusing Freethinkers request to place a flyer in its space while socialist promotional material is displayed on its windows.

Here I am, a public gay person who was working for the two largest gay magazines in the world as their top investigative journalist, and they cant put that up there because they dont like my politics, Moore said. Maybe the Queer Resource Center should rebrand itself as something less misleading.

Moore suggested the center call itself the Ministry of Propaganda or the Im with Her Memorial Museum and Gift Shop, referring to Hillary Clintons failed 2016 presidential bid. The audience burst out in laughter.

Moore later read from a power and privilege training document he received from a PSU student. He criticized the training material, which defined white people, heterosexuals and English-speaking people, among other groups, as agents of oppression due to their privilege.

After addressing the training materials arguments point-by-point with counter facts and statistics, Moore ripped up the document.

Anyone who gets this in a future class, this is what you have to do to it, he said. Sign up for a new class.

We can punch you too

Protesters began to heckle and disrupt Moore further in his speech as he continued to ridicule social justice activism and the political far-left.

Can you not wait until the Q&A and be polite? Moore responded as the interruptions continued. Why dont you shut up and have respect for your fellow students?

Later, an audience member called out the rude behavior of some protesters. Stop being homophobic, let the gay man talk! he shouted. Youre stifling gay speech.

Moore carried on with his lecture but about midway through another student yelled at him from the middle of the room.

I am black, I am disabled, Im a woman, she shouted. After a back-and-forth, Moore invited her to speak during the Q&A. The student stormed out of the room and pounded on the window with her fists.

Girl, theres still time, we can punch you too, a student shouted to Moore after he mocked the disrupters low energy. Sorry, not a threat, she said after the audience gasped. Some students in the audience recognized her as a candidate for student government.

1 in 5 gay Americans are conservative

Moore closed his speech by reading part of a letter he received by a gay man who thanked him for coming out in his New York Post op-ed.

This touched me so much and I cried a little because I was thinking about how much the gay community has meant to me my entire life, Moore said.

Citing a Gallup survey that estimates 1 in 5 gay Americans are conservative, Moore shifted his ire to queer resource centers across the country.

If you decide to shun a huge percentage of your community simply because they might not agree with your political views youre denying people a chance to true happiness of living authentically, he said.

During the Q&A, audience members used the opportunity to express support, criticism or gratitude for Moores partisan views.

I was one of those people who wrote you a message when you came out, said a young woman in the audience. I want to personally thank you for being as loud as you are because youre speaking up for people like me.

Later on, one of the protesters who earlier held a Black Lives Matter sign asked Moore about his views on racial matters.

You talk about how you feel like you dont have free speech in some places, she said. Are you also fighting then for the free speech of black gay Americans?

Puzzled by the question, Moore asked her to clarify.

Knowing people who side with the right-side they tend to be racist, she said.

Moore stated that he supports free speech full stop.

Why would I not want black people to have a voice? he asked. I want everyone to have a voice. More speech is more speech.

Freethinkers

After answering questions for about 40 minutes, Moore thanked the audience and some of the protesters for voicing their dissent in a respectful manner.

Several attendees expressed their gratitude to event organizers for hosting the event.

I was impressed by Chadwick standing up to these bullies and speaking his mind, said Mykle Curton, a self-identified leftist who graduated from PSU in 2013. Just because I disagree with him on politics doesnt mean I cant like and support him. I agree with him about his rejection of identity politics. They argue that you can lump people into groups and generalize their experiences and beliefs.

Marko Balogh, a student leader of the Freethinkers, expressed concern that the event was too politically polarizing and didnt further the mission of the organization.

While I think free speechincluding the freedom to offendis an absolutely vital component of an intellectually healthy society, I dont think the excessively combative demeanor of the speaker was helpful, he said. If we are going to reduce political polarization and make our society better for everyone, we have to approach politics from a charitable and well-meaning mindset.

Balogh said he hopes future events organized by Freethinkers would encourage conversations in which all sides of the issues are considered wholeheartedly.

Editors note: Andy Ngo was involved in organizing this event.

Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter

PHOTO CREDITS: Main, Twitter screenshot; Top, Collin Berend; Bottom, Andy Ngo

About the Author

Andy Ngo is a graduate student in political science at Portland State University. His academic interests include political Islam and secularism in the Middle East and North Africa. He can be reached at ango@pdx.edu.

See more here:
Students protest gay conservative speaker as he defends free speech at Portland State - The College Fix

Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, and state Rep. Jesse Kremer, R-Kewaskum, introduced a bill they named the Campus Free Speech Act. For those who value free speech, a more accurate name for this bill is the Suppression of Free Speech Act."

Reps. Vos and Kremer contend their motivation in introducing this bill was to ensure that University of Wisconsin System schools facilitate free speech. For those of us reading between the lines, Reps. Vos and Kremer are saying they dont trust UW System schools to facilitate their kind of free speech -- the kind that halts it.

The bill requires the UW Board of Regents to form a free speech committee that meets annually with the governor. Reading between the lines one more time, Vos and Kremer are saying they don't trust the Regents to share their desire to squelch protest.

UW System has policies that protect free speech and ensure discipline for students who violate free speech. The Vos and Kremer legislation demeans one of the greatest institutions of higher learning in the country.

Continue reading here:
UW already has rules for free speech -- Mary Hoeft - Madison.com

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

The traditional belief that free speech and unfettered debate underpin a free society is wounded and dying among many in this country. This is particularly true among the students and faculties at the nations elite colleges and universities and within the ranks of the leftist progressives who dominate todays Democratic Party. Those righteously convinced that they and they alone possess the truth and that all who oppose them are evil rather than simply wrong are in the saddle and working to consign everyone else to the outer darkness.

There have always been those on both the left and right who would shut down others with opposing viewpoints. Until recently, they lurked on the edges of the ideological spectrum, rebuffed by mainstream conservatives and liberals alike committed to the belief that free speech and open discussion along with a willingness to tolerate the views of those with whom one disagree are key to the survival of a free society. But that is changing.

In the mid-60s as a conservative activist at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, I was invited to debate our involvement in Vietnam with a popular campus leftist before an audience of something like 600 of our fellow students and faculty. I spoke first and when I was finished, my opponent took the microphone to raucous applause. He turned a hostile eye to me, declared that he wouldnt dignify anything I had said with a response, but wanted to assure those present that come the revolution, I would be among the first lined up against a wall to be shot. That didnt surprise me, as I knew him to be an angry extremist, but the standing ovation he received gave me pause.

That took place in what today must seem like the golden age of campus tolerance. Professor Donald Downs teaches at Madison and recently observed that free speech and tolerance are in far more trouble today on our campuses than they were back then. Things, he concludes in an article published by the Martin Center, are much worse than in the past. Todays suppression, Mr. Downs writes, differs from the previous era in three key respects: It is more passionate and aggressive; it is more student-initiated and driven; and it extends the reach of censorship more deeply into everyday campus life and the life of the mind.

The problem today is that the radicals of the 60s, righteously convinced that their opponents must be silenced, have risen to positions of power and influence in the academy, the media and politics. I got to speak then; those with diverse views no longer get that right on our campuses, and increasingly within major parts of the larger society.

Speakers with whom those who dominate our universities disagree are driven away by angry mobs lest the unenlightened be influenced or tainted by what they have to say or the microaggression inherent in their very presence on campus. The chairman of the Democratic Party informs the faithful that there is no room for them in the party of their fathers and grandfathers if they harbor any politically incorrect moral qualms about abortion, and campaigns are waged against media pundits, corporate executives and even scientists who refuse to tow the politically correct party line.

Scientists who question climate change face career-ending attacks from the faithful followers of the sainted Al Gore because they dont accept the fictional consensus used as a rhetorical gavel to silence them. Now the same kinds of attacks are being made on social scientists who suggest that contrary to what we are supposed to believe, there is empirical evidence to suggest that there is such a thing as voter fraud in this country.

At Wisconsin and elsewhere, however, legislators are beginning to demand that college and university administrators take action against those who would suppress dissent. Wisconsin State Rep. Jesse Kremer recently introduced the Wisconsin Campus Free Speech Act, patterned on model legislation developed by Arizonas Goldwater Institute, to protect free speech for all points of view on the states campuses. His bill has won the support of the Badger States Gov. Scott Walker, who summed up the case for action with the observation, To me, a university should be precisely the spot where you have an open and free dialogue about all different positions. But the minute you shut down a speaker, no matter whether they are liberal or conservative or somewhere in between, I just think thats wrong.

Its also dangerous if one is a believer in a free democratic society and an informed citizenry.

David A. Keene is editor at large at The Washington Times.

See the rest here:
Campus free speech must be protected - Washington Times