Daily Archives: June 26, 2017

There has been a lot in the media recently about speakers with a conservative message who were scheduled to speak on college campuses but through one action or another were not able to speak. Whether these speakers were cancelled by the administration or whether they were not allowed to speak due to large (and sometimes violent) protests has led to a widespread belief that conservative voices are not tolerated on college campuses. While I understand why some speakers have been cancelled, often for safety reasons, I think cancelling speakers who were invited is a mistake. Let them speak; challenge their statements; but, dont silence their voices.

This is not a new issue. While serving as the Provost at Luzerne County Community College, I addressed a legislative subcommittee on the issue of conservative voices on campus. I stated then (12 years ago), as I state now, all voices are welcome on college campuses. However, with the current climate polarized positions, the tendency for people to act out (conservative or liberal) with violence and the seemly lack of meaningful dialogue across the country, the issue is being exacerbated for everyone. The current climate adds a heightened concern for public safety to the mix of speakers on campus, liberal or conservative.

There are those who argue that college campuses are bastions of liberal thinking attempting to indoctrinate liberal viewpoints in all students. I respectfully disagree. Do more people who work on a college campus lean to the left of the political spectrum? Most probably. I think two factors lead to that conclusion. First, those with more liberal leanings tend to be drawn to careers that are designed to help others. College education is indeed a career of helping others. Second, students, for the most part, are young. Historically, younger folks tend to be more liberal; conservative views tend to develop as we get older. Does that mean conservative voices cannot be heard in our classrooms, in our lecture halls, in public speeches or in community events? Of course not.

The faculty and staff that I have known at each of the colleges and universities where I have worked, welcome students opinions in class. They are thrilled when students participate in discussions and express their views on either side of the topic of the day. However, faculty will question any student as to how they reached their conclusion. What data did they use? How do they know the data is factual? Did they cherry pick data or conduct a reasonable review of both sides of the issue? Today, far too many people dig in their heels on an issue based on a headline or something they read on Facebook. We are academic institutions and we must teach students to use facts, data and reasoning to reach whatever conclusion that they reach. It is our job.

It is my belief that colleges, like Fulton-Montgomery Community College have the responsibility to bring discussions of current issues to our campuses; and, to do so with a balance voice of both sides of any issue. This is particularly important in rural regions, such as the one FM serves, as the college may be the only place to have such discussions in an academic and balanced manner. Given todays climate, I believe that it is important to discuss these issues as a panel and not through a single speaker. Whether the voice is conservative or liberal, we need to demonstrate to our students, and our public, that fair and measured discussions or debates are not only possible, also meaningful.

The Morning Email

Wake up to the day's most important news.

Excerpt from:
Free Speech on Campus - HuffPost

Bill C-16, which recently received Royal Assent and will soon become law, is the most recent bill to threaten free speech and to mandate that individuals adopt a social constructionist philosophy of gender. Those who refuse to use gender neutral pronouns such as they or zi and zir, or who oppose the notion that gender is subjectively determined, may find themselves facing the full force of federal law. The federal statute is akin to existing provincial laws in Canada and municipal laws in the United States, and demonstrates a disconcerting turn toward compelling speech and ideology. Laws that protect people from discrimination need not infringe on free speech or individual rights. However, Bill C-16 risks crossing the line into coerced speech for favored groups at everyones expense.

The bill itself looks quite innocuous. It makes three alterations to federal law. Two are amendments to the Criminal Code to include "gender identity" and "gender expression" to the groups protected from hate propaganda, and to include gender identity and gender expression as an aggravating factor. That is, if a crime is committed against a transgender individual and there is evidence that the crime was done due to the individuals gender identity or gender expression, the defendant may be given a harsher sentence.

Serious restrictions on free speech come with changes to the Human Rights Act to include gender identity and gender expression to the list of groups protected from discrimination. Previously, discriminatory practices did not include failure to refer to an individual by their preferred name. Rather, they included denying someone public employment due to their race, gender, sexual orientation.

Now, particular courts may find that individuals who do not use preferred pronouns guilty of discrimination as well. Precise grounds for discrimination are not laid out in the legislation. Rather, according to Canadas Department of Justice, With very few exceptions, grounds of discrimination are not defined in legislation but are left to courts, tribunals, and commissions to interpret and explain, based on their detailed experience with particular cases. An individual accused of discrimination can be named in a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission and then be tried and fined by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

This is not at all far-fetched, given the precedent of the provincial courts where this kind of legislation already exists. Even supporters of Bill C-16 have been forthcoming about this possible interpretation of discrimination by the Human Rights Tribunal. University of Toronto law professor Brenda Cossman wrote, Non-discrimination on the basis of gender identity and expression may very well be interpreted by the courts in the future to include the right to be identified by a persons self-identified pronoun.

Theryn Meyer, a political commentator on YouTube who focuses on transgender issues, critiqued Bill C-16 for claiming to benefit transgender individuals while infringing on everyones right to free speechtransgender people included. She noted that transgender individuals are already protected under the laws against discrimination, which do not infringe anyones rights.

Everyone who cares about free speech should be concerned that this prima facie benevolent legislation actually harms everyone who wishes to practice their right to free speech.

Provincial law in Canada has prohibited discrimination on the basis of gender identity and gender expression for years. The Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) added "gender identity" and "gender expression" to the listed of protected groups in 2012. The OHRC defined gender identity as "each person's internal and individual experience of gender. It is their sense of being a woman, a man, both, neither, or anywhere along the gender spectrum. A persons gender identity may be the same as or different from their birth-assigned sex.

As with the federal law, the problem arises with the definition of discrimination: "Refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity, or purposely misgendering (using a pronoun that is not ones preferred pronoun), will likely be discrimination when it takes place in a social area covered by the Code, including employment, housing and services like education."

Individuals who refuse to use made-up words, who refuse to endorse a social constructionist philosophy of gender, who refuse compelled speech and ideology can be brought before the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal and severely fined. Professor Jordan Peterson, a University of Toronto psychologist, came under fire last fall when he made a YouTube video saying that he would not use made-up gender pronouns. The University sent him a letter requesting that he stop making such videos because he was expressing an intent to violate the law. Ontario human rights commissioner Renu Mandhane suggested that Peterson might be liable under the law, but no action has been taken.

This kind of legislation has already made its way into the United States. In the District of Columbia, the Office of Human Rights, which enforces the D.C. Human Rights Act, prevents discrimination on the basis of gender identity and has recently stated that Deliberately misusing a persons preferred name or pronoun may be considered unlawful harassment.

In New York City, the Commission on Human Rights Legal Enforcement requires employers and covered entities to use an individuals preferred name, pronoun and title (e.g., Ms./Mrs.) regardless of the individuals sex assigned at birth, anatomy, gender, medical history, appearance, or the sex indicated on the individuals identification. The legislation states, Some transgender and gender non-conforming people prefer to use pronouns other than he/him/his or she/her/hers, such as they/them/theirs or ze/hir. Failure to comply can result in, civil penalties up to $125,000 for violations, and up to $250,000 for violations that are the result of willful, wanton, or malicious conduct.

If each person is allowed free speech, then surely each person should be able to decide for him or herself whether or not to act out a radical social constructionist philosophy of gender. However, each of these laws, regardless of their intent to benefit transgender people, infringes individual liberty. They require not only that people use government approved speech, but that they adhere to a government-approved ideology. They are coercive intrusions by the government into the speech of individuals. Protections for transgender individuals can and should be accomplished without infringing on everyones rights.

Max Diamond is a writer and editor in New York.

See original here:
Free Speech for Zi - The Weekly Standard

By U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley

Q: Why did you conduct a hearing to examine free speech on college campuses?

A: On July 4, Americans will celebrate 241 years of independence. We will celebrate our nations sovereignty and cherished individual freedoms that have been passed down from one generation to the next. As Americans, we are endowed with unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As citizens, we are challengedto protect and defend the sacred blessings of freedom enshrined in our nations founding charters. During tumultuous periods of war and social upheaval, these founding principles have served as an unbending arc to keep America united,from the nations Civil War and civil rights movement to the Vietnam War and 21st century terrorism. Through it all, the U.S. Constitution enshrines the protection of freedom, liberty and justice for all.

The five freedoms of the First Amendment are arguably the most well-known among Americans of all ages and walks of life: freedom of religion; freedom of speech; freedom of the press; freedom to assemble peaceably; and, freedom to petition the government for redress of grievances. Upholding this legacy and heritage of freedom for posterity depends on the next generation to stand up for and champion the free flow of ideas. Indeed, a consequential dissent written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes one year after World War I heralds the marketplace of ideas that has influenced the protections of the First Amendment for decades. Opendialogue and diversity of thought are vital hallmarks of self-government.

Throughout my public service representing Iowa in the United States Senate, I prioritize constituent dialogue by holding meetings with Iowans in every county, every year. Thats why I view efforts to thwart free speech on college campuses as a red flag to self-government. The censorship of ideas on college campuses has a chilling effect on a students ability to digest, analyze and question opposing opinions.

Banning speakers from campus to prevent certain messages from being heard does a disservice to the studentbody. It assaults the First Amendment. Institutions of higher learning should not be in the business of shielding students from opposing views. It poisons the well of democracy and erodes constitutional protections that generations of men and women in uniform have sacrificed life and limb to protect.

Q: What is your takeaway from the Judiciary Committee hearing?

A: We heard from seven witnesses who shared their views about the state of free speech on college campuses. The good news is not all college campuses are censoring free speech or restricting who comes to speak to the student body. However, two college students reported on free speech zones and other measures that they say results in intolerance and even fosters violence towards opposing viewpoints.

In my opening statement, I referred to Northwestern Universitys president who supports safe spaces for students to avoid uncomfortable debates. Carving out free speech zones and safe spaces creates a disconnect on college campuses that unplugs young adults from reality. Colleges need to help open their eyes to the world, not muddy the lens through which they see it. Restricting the free flow of ideas at an institution of learning flunks common sense. It fosters a conformist culture that will shrink mindful learning and stunt schools of thought. Expanding tolerance for differing viewpoints comes from exposure to dialogue, not censorship. College administrators who testified raised concerns about limited resources for maintaining campus security and student safety amid recent incidents of violent protests.

Certainly, campus safety is critical to families who send their kids off to college and a critical responsibility of a college administration. However, using it as a scapegoat to undercut the First Amendment is a flawed argument. Its very troubling that some college administrators are discriminating against speakers based on their points of view and political ideology. America does not subscribe to one single political orthodoxy. And while its no secret that prevailing political orthodoxy among many universities leans to the liberal end of the political spectrum, its unacceptable to prevent students from exploring the free flow of ideas and nurturing their ability to compromise and negotiate differences of opinion with civility and respect.

Polarization and gridlock in Washington wont ever improve if the next generation is indoctrinated to shut down free speech and shut out opposing views. Even liberal university administrators agree that conservative views are often unwelcome on campus. A provost from Stanford University has said, There is growing intolerance at universities ... a political one-sidedness that is the antithesis of what universities should stand for.

Its promising that not all schools are adopting the censorship approach. America would be better served if more colleges adopted the University of Chicagos policy. It expressly prohibits obstructing or otherwise interfering with the freedom of others to express views they reject or even loathe. Instead, it calls for counter-speech and peaceful protest to express disagreement.

My takeaway from the hearing confirms what I have long practiced in public office. Ill continue listening to whistleblowers who expose wrongdoing and continue seeking input from Iowans to bring their views to bear at the policymaking tables in Congress. America is better off when all voices have the freedom to be heard.

Continued here:
Q & A : Free Speech 101 | Newton Daily News - Newton Daily News

Protesters attending the free speech rally. (WTOP/Liz Anderson)

WASHINGTON At the National Mall Sunday afternoon, a few hundred people gathered with signs and flags to exercise their First Amendment rights.

Both rally groups gathered near the Lincoln Memorial; one in support of free speech, the other just steps away to rally against hate speech.

Were not going to be replaced, one speaker told the audience gathered near the reflecting pool for the free speech rally. This was our country, the founding fathers objectively founded this country for white people.

There were a variety of ideological representations at the gathering including Ariel Kohane, who held Jews for Trump signs. Kohane said he traveled from Manhattans Upper West Side for the rally.

I definitely think that the left is trying to smother free speech. We on the right definitely promote it, Kohane told WTOP.

The free speech speaker lineup included controversial white nationalist Richard Spencer.

At the counter rally staged by D.C. Unite Against Hate, attendees said they felt it necessary to also make their voices heard.

The U.S. is very progressive as of right now. I think were moving in the right direction. But of course there are some people who just are living in the past, said Rose, who is from D.C. but now lives in Rockville, Maryland.

I think we have to come out when the far right is demonstrating and the racist white supremacists are out here, said John van Kamp of Arlington, Virginia.

But everyone at the free speech rally didnt agree with everything they heard.

I think that shows I stand up 100 percent for freedom of speech, said Irma Hinojosa, a rally speaker who says shes taken lots of flack because she is a Donald Trump supporter.

Others gave a listening ear at that rally, not to show their support for all the rhetoric, but to understand other points of view and try and see what people are concerned about and what their grievances are with other political parties and ideologies, said William, a student studying government at Georgetown University.

Meanwhile, Yale University student Sidney Daniels attended the counter rally because there are people in this country, Americans, fellow citizens, who dont believe in my right to exist and who dont believe in my right to have rights, she told WTOP.

Now that Trump is in office, lots of people have been given license to do and say things that they wouldnt have said before. Things that werent previously (socially) acceptable have become socially acceptable, said Daniels. Because of that, I think its important to have counter protests in order to demonstrate that Black lives matter, that women matter, that all people matter.

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

2017 WTOP. All Rights Reserved.

Visit link:
Steps from Lincoln Memorial: Dueling rallies for free speech, against ... - WTOP

The Nonprofit Quarterly (registration)

Free Speech Just Got Freer The Nonprofit Quarterly (registration) If you are a free speech advocate, last week was arguably a very good one. Two recent Supreme Court decisions rejected efforts to limit speech and hinder access to communication tools. But in doing so, they may have made our society nastier and more ... SCOTUS Won't Disparage Free SpeechPalisades Hudson Financial Group Yes, hate speech is free speechSt. George Daily Spectrum Editorial: High court rulings a welcome defense of free speechReading Eagle O'Dwyer's PR News -MacIverInstitute -mySanAntonio.com -Supreme Court of the United States all 111 news articles »

See the original post here:
Free Speech Just Got Freer - The Nonprofit Quarterly (registration)

Campus Free Speech Act moves on to Senate.

Despite Democratic arguments, a Republican-led bill that punishes student protests at the University of Wisconsin is moving on.

The Campus Free Speech Act passed the Assembly by a 61-36 vote. It moves to the Senate, where a similar bill was already introduced.

A UW System student who interrupts a speaker twice would constitute suspension for a semester, while a third offense would mean expulsion.

"We don't allow free speech here like we should, as people in the gallery can't sit quietly and protest with a piece of tape across their mouths," Representative Jill Billings, D-La Crosse, said of the Capitol rotunda. "I don't think we are the role model on free speech - that we should be legislating what should happen on campus."

Billings pointed out that it's not even a reoccurring problem.

"I'm not happy when speakers are shouted down on campus," she admitted. "The fact is, that doesn't happen all the time. A few cases have been cherry picked, mostly outside of Wisconsin."

Lead sponsor Rep. Jesse Kremer, R-Kewaskum, said. "Around the country we've had situations that have gotten to the point of demonstration shout downs and we do not want to get to that point in Wisconsin."

Rep. Chris Taylor, D-Madison, pointed out that not one speaker has ever been silenced from a protester on a UW campus, and said the bill"bags and gags" First Amendment rights. She added that the irony that "Assembly Bill 299 (that) "protects" free speech by restricting it for our UW System students.

Taylor went on to argue Republican lawmakers keep restricting opposing speech at the Capitol since assuming control. They've restricted protesters from gathering at the rotunda, a public forum where people are entitled to the most heightened protection on speech.

Those who run the show have shown hostility to free speech and hostility to the university, Rep. Jonathan Brostoff, D-Milwaukee, added.

Billings was also upset that UW System president Ray Cross was not spoken to.

"I don't think it's by accident that this bill came out for the public hearing during finals week," Billings pointed out. "I'm disappointed president Cross was not consulted."

Go here to see the original:
Democrats speak out, as Republican bill aimed at silencing UW protesters passes - La Crosse's NewsTalk 1410AM 92.3FM