{"id":193584,"date":"2017-05-18T14:09:24","date_gmt":"2017-05-18T18:09:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/how-missouri-used-shared-governance-to-preserve-free-speech-the-chronicle-of-higher-education-subscription\/"},"modified":"2017-05-18T14:09:24","modified_gmt":"2017-05-18T18:09:24","slug":"how-missouri-used-shared-governance-to-preserve-free-speech-the-chronicle-of-higher-education-subscription","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/free-speech\/how-missouri-used-shared-governance-to-preserve-free-speech-the-chronicle-of-higher-education-subscription\/","title":{"rendered":"How Missouri Used Shared Governance to Preserve Free Speech &#8230; &#8211; The Chronicle of Higher Education (subscription)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><p>    Alamy Stock Photo  <\/p>\n<p>    The University of Missouri torn by    conflict, built trust and crafted a workable campus-speech    policy by relying on openness and the combined wisdom of    faculty and administrators.  <\/p>\n<p>    Last week Tennessee     enacted a law designed to promote free speech on the    states public-university campuses. I support free expression    on campus and understand why politicians might have been    motivated to protect it with legislation. But     this sort of legislation is a clumsy instrument with which    to craft academic policy, and university leaders in other    states would be wise to quickly address free-speech issues head    on. Delay invites speculation that faculty and administrators    are at best indifferent to free-speech rights and risks further    intervention by impatient politicians. Recent success at the    University of Missouri can be a national model of how to do    this well.  <\/p>\n<p>    At Missouri, free speech has been a hot topic lately. In    November 2015, the president of the university system and the    chancellor of the Columbia campus (\"Mizzou\")     resigned on the same day, in the wake of student protests    concerning the universitys racial climate. (The events were    vastly more complicated and involved several other issues    unrelated to race, but this summary will do for now.)  <\/p>\n<p>    Some observers denounced the student protesters for dragging    the universitys name through the mud, flinging broad    accusations of racism, and making unreasonable demands. Others    applauded the students for their idealism, their strength of    conviction, and their perseverance in the face of intimidation     as well their tangible successes. In one particularly    unfortunate moment, a professor shouted at a student and then    pushed his camera in an effort to stop him from approaching and    filming student protesters, and the confrontation became    national news.     She would ultimately be fired as a result.  <\/p>\n<p>    Appointed interim chancellor in the aftermath of the    resignations, Hank Foley knew he had free-speech problems.    Journalists were questioning how the home of one of the worlds    first (and best!) journalism schools could allow students to    create a \"no media\" zone on the campus quad, as well as how a    communications professor ended up in an argument that got so    out of hand. Meanwhile, black students  among others     continued to face hateful speech, including criminal threats.    Events on the quad had made at least one thing clear: Many on    campus had no idea just what the rules were.  <\/p>\n<p>    Responding to someone who posts on the now-defunct social media    app Yik Yak, \"Im going to stand my ground tomorrow and shoot    every black person I see\" is not especially tricky as a policy    matter. University of Missouri police     found him and arrested him. But when white students utter    racial slurs near black students, the question is more    complicated. In addition to drawing the line between unlawful    harassment and criminal threats (which the university may    regulate) and garden-variety racist stupidity (which is mostly    protected speech), the university would need to decide all    sorts of other speech-related questions presented by the    protests and likely to recur.  <\/p>\n<p>    For example, are students allowed to camp on the quad? The    former chancellor allowed it (despite existing university rules    prohibiting it), but perhaps that was bad policy. Can members    of the media be excluded from part of the quad by students    seeking refuge from cameras and interviews, and is the answer    to that affected by the chancellors implicit permission for    the students to erect a tent village? What are the rules    concerning electronic amplification of voices and music? What    about chalk? And putting aside questions about legal rules, how    can we build a campus at which everyone feels welcome, free    inquiry is encouraged, and the best ideals of higher education    may flourish as a result?  <\/p>\n<p>    In January of 2016, Mr. Foley, who had seen his predecessor    take heat for inadequate consultation with faculty on such    matters as     governance of the medical school and     graduate-student tuition waivers, and I, as chair of the MU    Faculty Council, appointed the Ad Hoc    Joint Committee on Protests, Public Spaces, Free Speech,    and the Press. The faculty contingent included two free-speech    experts, one from the law school and one from journalism.    Administration members included the vice chancellor for student    affairs, the police chief, and the vice chancellor for    inclusion, diversity, and equity. We also appointed two student    members and invited someone from the general counsels office    to attend as an adviser.  <\/p>\n<p>    Despite the committees broad representation, there were    immediate complaints. One journalism student noted the lack of    any students from his school on the committee roster. Others    wondered whether the six faculty appointees had too little  or    perhaps too much  connection to recent protests. Rather than    attempting to please everyone by adding more and more committee    members, we reassured everyone that the committees report    would be purely advisory.  <\/p>\n<p>    It would not enact regulations but would instead make    recommendations to the chancellor and the Faculty Council, who    would then work together to craft a final version. We also    promised to publish the committees suggestions and to hold    public forums, as well as smaller meetings with student groups    especially interested in the committees work. These procedural    promises built trust that the substance would eventually prove    acceptable to a wide cross-section of the university community.  <\/p>\n<p>    Further trust accrued in March 2016 when the committee     recommended a statement reaffirming the universitys    \"commitment to free expression\" that was modeled on a     similar statement released by the University of Chicago and    adopted elsewhere. The Faculty Council and the chancellor    endorsed it.  <\/p>\n<p>    Throughout the spring, the committee met to discuss drafts. The    student committee members, chosen after consultation with    student-government leaders, informed the committee about which    proposed rules might incite student discontent. The adviser    from the general counsels office provided background on how a        Missouri statute could complicate the First Amendment    analysis concerning regulations of university property.  <\/p>\n<p>    In late May 2016, the committee chair transmitted the    committees     detailed recommendations to the chancellor and me. I shared    the report with the Faculty Council, and the chancellor emailed    all faculty, staff, and students a link to the committee web    page where the draft rules had been posted. It didnt take long    for suggested improvements to appear in my inbox. This past    fall, we held public meetings, and the committee prepared    updated drafts incorporating changes suggested in written    comments and at the forums.  <\/p>\n<p>    Eventually, the Faculty Council approved a set of policies, and    the chancellor directed staff to distill them into new    provisions of the \"Business    Policy and Procedure Manual.\" A few days before leaving for    his new    job, Interim Chancellor Foley announced his formal approval    of     the policies, effective June 1, 2017.  <\/p>\n<p>    The rules represent the shared wisdom of faculty and    administration, as well as the staff who will enforce them and    the students they will regulate. With a combination of    expertise, patience, and goodwill, we have shown how shared    governance is supposed to work  and how free speech can be    protected.  <\/p>\n<p>    Ben Trachtenberg is an associate professor of law and chair    of the Faculty Council at the University of Missouri.  <\/p>\n<p><!-- Auto Generated --><\/p>\n<p>Read more:<br \/>\n<a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/www.chronicle.com\/article\/How-Missouri-Used-Shared\/240099\" title=\"How Missouri Used Shared Governance to Preserve Free Speech ... - The Chronicle of Higher Education (subscription)\">How Missouri Used Shared Governance to Preserve Free Speech ... - The Chronicle of Higher Education (subscription)<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p> Alamy Stock Photo The University of Missouri torn by conflict, built trust and crafted a workable campus-speech policy by relying on openness and the combined wisdom of faculty and administrators. Last week Tennessee enacted a law designed to promote free speech on the states public-university campuses. I support free expression on campus and understand why politicians might have been motivated to protect it with legislation <a href=\"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/free-speech\/how-missouri-used-shared-governance-to-preserve-free-speech-the-chronicle-of-higher-education-subscription\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[162384],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-193584","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-free-speech"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/193584"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=193584"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/193584\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=193584"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=193584"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=193584"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}