Monthly Archives: May 2017

Liberals mock UW free speech center as ‘GOP safe space’ – Campus Reform

Posted: May 26, 2017 at 3:50 am

A Republican-backed proposal to establish a center for freedom of speech at University of Wisconsin, Madison is being mocked by liberals as a GOP safe space.

Republican Assembly Speaker Robin Vos introduced his proposal for the creation of a Tommy G. Thompson Center on Public Leadership during a Tuesday press conference attended by Republican Governor Scott Walker, saying his goal for the center is to ensure we have diversity of thought on college campuses.

"Having a center on campus that is dedicated to maximizing free speech should not be controversial.

[RELATED: Students, faculty demand OCC get Republicans out of our face]

Far too often, we feel like theres only one legitimate viewpoint on campus. This is just going to ensure we have diversity of thought, Vos explained, according to the Associated Press.

He also preemptively dismissed concerns that the center will become a conservative think tank, though he did express hope that it might offset some of the liberal thinking on the infamously left-leaning campus.

Vos elaborated that the proposed centerwhich is named after a former Republican governor of the statewould have no agenda other than to promote maximum free speech, which was nonetheless enough to prompt fears among some Wisconsin Democrats that it would serve to undermine their policy agenda.

According to The Wisconsin State Journal, Democratic Rep. Gordon Hintz quickly identified that risk, attesting that Gov. Thompson had relied on input on legislation from the schools existing La Follette School of Public Affairs and that the new center would undermine the political messaging currently being pushed from university campuses.

If you dont like the science and you dont like the data and you dont like the truth, you have to create an academic institution that meets their version of the truth, Hintz stated. Its directly aimed at combating whats coming out of our universities right now.

[RELATED: UCLA restricts enrollments in popular free-speech course]

One Wisconsin Now, a liberal interest group, blasted the proposed center in a tweet as the Institute for GOP Safe Spaces, while the organizations executive director called it an attempt at bullying students, faculty, and administrators through the dissemination of Republican propaganda on campus.

There is no doubt [that] right-wing foundations, corporations, and millionaire Republicans will finance what taxpayers dont get stuck paying, Scot Ross told the AP, referencing the $3 million in state funds that have been requested to kick start the project.

The center still requires approval from the states Republican-controlled legislature, leaving some students concerned that criticism could yet torpedo the proposal.

"Having a center on campus that is dedicated to maximizing free speech should not be controversial, Cahleel Copus, campus coordinator for the UW Students for Liberty chapter, told Campus Reform. Time and time again, we have seen coercive tactics used by the predatory left, including rioting and physical blockades, which to me shows that many students are not interested in engaging in opposing ideas.

[RELATED: Prof: College campuses are not free speech areas]

[The university] and the state legislature are taking great steps towards counteracting this culture by creating avenues for free expression (like the Tommy Thompson Center) as well as proposing a bill that would mandate each school discuss with incoming students the value of free exchange, he added. This center gives myself, along with many of the other right-of-center students, hope that Wisconsin is recognizing the importance of the First Amendment, especially on college campuses."

Follow the author of this article on Twitter: @AGockowski

See the original post:
Liberals mock UW free speech center as 'GOP safe space' - Campus Reform

Posted in Free Speech | Comments Off

We cannot stifle our freedom of speech | TheHill – The Hill (blog)

Posted: at 3:50 am

Our nations Constitution guarantees us certain inalienable rights, not the least of which is contained in its First Amendment: the freedom of speech. For years, college campuses have stood as a beacon to the ideal of free speech. As a Vietnam-era veteran, I saw first-hand how colleges and universities served as hotbeds for free speech and debate some of which I vehemently disagreed with, in all candor. But, as a veteran myself, I fought to protect and defend this right to free speech, and as a country we were better served by allowing both sides to passionately argue their views, instead of bottling one side up.

Recently, however, free speech has come under attack at the very same institutions that served as conduits for this debate. College students have been challenged for expressing political beliefs; differences of opinion have been censored; speakers have been shouted down; and so-called free speech zones have been created to keep students from expressing their thoughts outside of restricted areas. If we train our next generation of leaders that disagreement is something to be avoided, our society will be worse off as a result.

Too often, students basic freedoms are being suppressed in an attempt to appease a vocal minority for whom no middle ground exists. According to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, 1 in 10 of Americas top colleges and universities quarantine student expression to so-called free speech zones. There needs to be greater recognition that this is a problem and that appeasement is not an option.

Last year, on two separate occasions, students were arrested for distributing copies of the United States Constitution. In both instances, the students were accused of violating the colleges free speech zone restrictions. First Amendment scholar Charles Haynes notes, In the land of the free, the entire campus should be a free speech zone. In a more widely publicized event earlier this year, Middlebury College students and protesters from the community prevented an invited speaker from giving his presentation and then attacked his car and assaulted a professor as the two attempted to leave, resulting in the professor suffering a concussion. The loud voices of a few intolerant students obstructed other students ability to participate in this school-sanctioned event. Worse, since the students involved in both the protest and the attack did not face any significant discipline for their actions, the message is unmistakable: Students are free to disrupt speakers they disagree with, using violence if necessary. Let there be no mistaking this for free speech.

There are countless additional examples. After further examining the bleak situation being created on college campuses around the country, I introduced a bipartisan resolution that serves as a first step to protect Americans First Amendment rights on college campuses. This isnt about protecting conservative or liberal viewpoints its about encouraging conservative and liberal viewpoints, and a diverse set of viewpoints in between.

Just this month, Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam signed a new law that will prohibit colleges from disinviting speakers based on their viewpoints or from charging student groups higher security fees based on their speaker. This move is similar to the steps taken in the states of Virginia, Missouri, Arizona, Kentucky, Colorado and Utah. This is a strong step in the right direction, and I am proud to be a representative from a state that is working to advance and protect all free speech.

It is my hope that passing our resolution and these state efforts will send a strong message to college and campus leaders across the country. If our colleges and universities protect and foster the free and open exchange of ideas, our society will be better off as a result.

Roe represents Tennessees 1st District and is a member of the Education and the Workforce Committee.

The views expressed by this author are their own and are not the views of The Hill.

The rest is here:
We cannot stifle our freedom of speech | TheHill - The Hill (blog)

Posted in Freedom of Speech | Comments Off

Column: Securing free speech at UM – The Detroit News

Posted: at 3:50 am

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

Posted in Freedom of Speech | Comments Off

Free Speech, Not Free Reign | Opinion | The Harvard Crimson – Harvard Crimson

Posted: at 3:50 am

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

Posted in Freedom of Speech | Comments Off

Is NATO Getting Too Big to Succeed? – The New York Times – New York Times

Posted: at 3:48 am

New York Times

Is NATO Getting Too Big to Succeed? - The New York Times
New York Times
American and Polish troops taking part in the official welcoming ceremony for NATO troops in Orzysz, Poland, in April. Credit Wojtek Radwanski/Agence ...

and more »

See the rest here:
Is NATO Getting Too Big to Succeed? - The New York Times - New York Times

Posted in NATO | Comments Off