So reports the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, discussing the case we blogged about in May. Here are some excerpts from FIRE’s summary; there are more details, and pointers to the relevant documents, here:
[A] student threatened with punishment for attempting to form a gun-rights group at Community College of Allegheny County (CCAC) is finally allowed to distribute pamphlets about the group on campus. The college has also rescinded its unconstitutional policy demanding “prior written approval” for “personal contact with individuals or groups related to non-sponsored college material or events.” … Christine Brashier, who wanted to form a chapter of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus (SCCC), was told that her pamphlets were unacceptable “solicitation” and that any further efforts would be considered “academic misconduct” ….After FIRE took Brashier’s case public in May, generating national news coverage, CCAC attorney Mike Adams finally replied to FIRE. Adams assured FIRE that Brashier did not face any disciplinary action and that she did have the right to try to form a SCCC group, but he reported that CCAC would not budge from its unconstitutional policy of prior review of materials….
But, FIRE reports, the policy has finally been changed; “Michael J. Rinaldi, a FIRE Legal Network attorney in the Commercial Litigation Practice Group at Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP in Philadelphia, … successfully pressed CCAC to allow not only Brashier but all CCAC students to exercise their fundamental rights on campus.” Good work.
Disclosure: I will be a keynote speaker at FIRE’s Tenth Anniversary event this month, but my enthusiasm for FIRE’s work of course long preceded that invitation.
CDU says:
Well, it took them long enough, but they eventually did the right thing.
October 2, 2009, 2:25 pmBama 1L says:
I can’t get past “to advocate for.” Why can’t we just let him “advocate” his position?
(Hoping to spark another EV grammar thread.)
October 2, 2009, 2:53 pmKazinski says:
I’d feel a lot better about CCAC doing the right thing if they did it for the right reasons. The got caught, threatened with a lawsuit, and were probably told by their lawyer they would lose.
October 2, 2009, 3:26 pmDavid McCourt says:
“to advocate for.” I’m no authority, but it seems to me that one can act as an advocate (noun) for someone, or as an advocate (noun) of some policy, and one can advocate (tr. verb) something, but, to my ear at least, one cannot “advocate for” something, unless it is for the renaming of the Department of Redundancy Department. My impression is that this jarring phrase seems to emanate from the “caring professions” and the less literate precincts of the “education” industry. I have no complaint with the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, but what about a foundation for education in education?
October 2, 2009, 3:26 pmPlugInMonster says:
Well, we know the radical left will never do something like that willingly. Of course the basic problem with being radical anything is that you want to shut up anyone who disagrees with you.
October 2, 2009, 3:31 pmNonlibertarian says:
I am mystified why a libertarian would object to a property owner (even a state-owned enterprise) making whatever rules it wants — even those that restrict free speech, even those enforced arbitrarily — for the use of its property.
If the student doesn’t like it, he can go elsewhere. Isn’t that the libertarian view?
October 2, 2009, 4:15 pmPerseus says:
That too seems redundant.
October 2, 2009, 4:19 pmPerseus says:
As sovereign, we, the people, ultimately own government property, and therefore the government may not violate the constitutional limitations placed on what government may do.
October 2, 2009, 4:28 pmArthurKirkland says:
my enthusiasm for FIRE’s work of course long preceded that invitation.
From what I recall of a thread that examined FIRE’s record, I hope your enthusiasm for FIRE’s work preceded (and would not survive)familiarity with that record.
October 2, 2009, 5:53 pmEugene Volokh says:
I’m well-acquainted with FIRE’s record, and am highly enthusiastic about it precisely because of that record. I’m sure there are particular decisions of FIRE’s I’d disagree with, as would doubtless be the case for any organization. But on balance I think they do a great job.
October 2, 2009, 6:58 pmTom in GA says:
The college takes tax money from people in their service district. The people in that community don’t have the ability to withhold their money and take it elsewhere.
October 2, 2009, 7:03 pmBrian G. says:
They are go to allow him to exercise his First Amendment rights? How nice of them!
October 2, 2009, 8:15 pmCareless says:
In this thread, a person who makes it clear they are not a libertarian argues that the government can ignore the Constitution any time they take control of something.
I wish this was just bad trolling, but it clearly reflects the view of a large portion of our country
October 2, 2009, 9:51 pmDave says:
Even if Community College of Allegehny County weren’t a governmental institution, a libertarian would certainly be within his rights to object to their (really quite repulsive) actions on policy grounds, if not constitutionaly grounds. Nothing about libertarianism says that I have to support every damn fool, as long as he doesn’t violate the constitution.
October 2, 2009, 11:13 pmArthurKirkland says:
I can understand why an organization seeking money from hard-core conservatives would put Bucknell, Brandeis and Michigan State on a “worst of the worst” list that doesn’t include the free-speech-disdaining likes of Bob Jones or Liberty; I can understand why certain members of the target audience would reward such a scheme with donations; I find it baffling, however, that a law professor at a legitimate institution would continue to fall for it, especially after the folly was exposed at the professor’s website.
October 3, 2009, 7:15 amblargh says:
ArthurKirkland, can you link to the “folly” being exposed? Do you mean here on the Conspiracy?
October 3, 2009, 7:34 amAngus says:
AK,
Those on the right cannot quite see FIRE’s conservative advocacy because they agree with it. To them it is non-ideological, despite the fact that FIRE is funded mostly through conservative foundations rather than individual donations.
Not a bad gig for Lukianoff. Sit back, cherry pick cases, send out the occasional letter, and make a salary of $200,000+ per year.
October 3, 2009, 7:38 amThe Man with the X-Ray Eyes says:
Arthur, perhaps because Bob Jones is a, um, private school not funded directly by public funds and thus isn’t required to, well, stick to various constitutional guarantees?
October 3, 2009, 7:48 amTMLutas says:
The situation is not one where the problem that the individual is violating the state’s policy. The situation is one where the problem is that the state is violating the constitutional restrictions that we have all agreed are a vital barrier to tyranny.
The state is supposed to be representing everybody fairly. The definition of fair was set down in the US Constitution, federal and state law, and administrative regulation.
We collectively agreed in the US Constitution that this instrument, the Federal government (and through constitutional incorporation doctrime the state governments which is probably more relevant here) are severely limited in how they may restrict advocacy. The school is rebelling against those restrictions and taking it out on its students, falsely trying to paint this one student as engaging in something illegal.
You do not seem to understand libertarianism very much. Perhaps you have only heard about it second hand?
October 3, 2009, 7:56 amAllan Walstad says:
I can’t afford to donate a significant amount to every worthy cause, but FIRE is on my list. FIRE likewise presumably cannot take up every free speech violation on every college campus. It may be that their choice of cases is influenced by a libertarian-to-conservative perspective. Arthur Kirkland complains about that. I like it just fine. (The libertarian part, anyway.)
October 3, 2009, 8:19 amAl says:
So what if it is funded mostly through conservative foundations. Could that be because conservative viewpoints are the ones most likely to be supressed on college campuses? I’m pretty confident, Angus, that FIRE would not turn down a donation from you, the Ford Foundation, or others on the left to support their worthy cause.
Also, FWIW, I was on FIRE’s volunteer attorney list some years ago and the only potential case they ever contacted me about was regarding a professor who was concerned about repercussions for her anti-Bush/anti-Iraq war statements (man bites dog, I know).
October 3, 2009, 8:24 amDaily Pundit » Another Campus Civil Rights Victory says:
[...] The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » “Pittsburgh-Area College Allows Student to Advocate for C… [...]
October 3, 2009, 8:28 amyankee says:
FIRE’s worst of the worst list comprises Brandeis, Colorado College, Hopkins, Michigan State, and Tufts. Michigan State is public, but the others are all private. And FIRE’s mission is geared towards protecting academic freedom and freedom of speech at all colleges and universities; it is not just (or even principally) about enforcing the constitution.
October 3, 2009, 9:04 amAngus says:
FIRE goes after numerous private “liberal” schools because it dislikes their “speech codes,” but it forgives private “conservative” schools their “speech codes.” Why? The answer is pretty clear.
October 3, 2009, 9:18 amgeekWithA.45 says:
A word of clarification is in order here.
Pennsylvania state law remains silent, and therefore does not prohibit possession of arms on college campuses.
Any such prohibition is a matter of college policy, and any sanctions for violation are within that framework, ie, neither criminal nor civil matters of law.
Furthermore, because the PA state constitution provides strong individual rights language (“Section 21 . Right to Bear Arms The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.”), the PA state legislature has reserved regulation of possession and carriage of arms to itself, prohibiting sub divisions of the state from enacting their own schemes.
Consequently, because the community colleges are public institutions, what you had was a public institution deploying powers that had specifically been denied to it to prevent the lawful carriage of arms, an unquestioned right of law abiding adults, and furthermore suppressing the efforts of citizens to redress the matter.
October 3, 2009, 9:22 amCase3L says:
I’ve read through a lot of FIRE’s cases and letters sent to educational administrations, and it seems that whenever the institution is private, they tend rely on the institution’s own policies to argue against the speech codes. Colleges will often promote a “free and open learning environment” in their literature, and then only later the students discover that “free and open” means something else in practice.
With places you mention, like Bob Jones U, often no pretense is made towards free speech, giving FIRE a lot less they can work with in condemning those schools. I went to one of the more liberal and open Christian colleges I could find (Calvin College) mostly because I didn’t want to have to deal with some of these speech codes.
October 3, 2009, 9:54 amArthurKirkland says:
18.The Man with the X-Ray Eyes says:
Arthur, perhaps because Bob Jones is a, um, private school not funded directly by public funds and thus isn’t required to, well, stick to various constitutional guarantees?
Those are remarkable X-Ray Eyes if they see Bucknell as a non-private school.
Bucknell is private, as are Colorado College, Brandeis University, Tufts University, and Johns Hopkins University — all part of FIRE’s “worst of the worst.” The sole public university on the list is Michigan State University.
The distinction observed by FIRE is not private/public. If FIRE’s dividing line between schools it attacks and schools to which it hands a pass has any articulable rule, is hard-right (preferably Christian hard-right)/non-hard-right.
The “worst of the worst” list — unadorned by asterisks — is a lie. Anyone who falls for it is a dope.
FIRE is dishonest.
Um.
October 3, 2009, 11:55 amTom in GA says:
No Arthur, you are either being dishonest or disingenuous.
As several have pointed out, when it comes to private colleges, FIRE only goes after those who say one thing and do another.
If you go to Bob Jones, et.al., you are told up-front what the rules are. If you choose to accept those rules in the beginning, you can’t complain about them later.
If you go to a college like Bucknell or Brandeis, you are being told one thing in the policies, and seeing another thing being enforced. People have every right to complain when they are sold a bill of goods.
October 3, 2009, 12:41 pmCurtis says:
Whenever I see that, “no disciplinary action” I speculate that “administrative action” was taken in lieu of that naughty discipline. In the navy we call these admin actions Article 15 or Non-Judicial Punishment and this just means loss of privileges such as on campus parking pass or call blocking on your phone calls on campus and things of that nature.
October 3, 2009, 12:49 pmPerseus says:
Indeed they do prattle on about a free and open learning environment, diversity of thought, etc., but aren’t very serious about it when they adopt such codes. And even if it is argued that FIRE should go after institutions that make no serious pretense of creating such an atmosphere because of their mission, it in no way derogates from FIRE’s criticisms of institutions that do make such a pretense. Certainly FIRE’s alleged hypocrisy pales in comparison to these “institutions of higher learning.”
October 3, 2009, 12:53 pmArthurKirkland says:
FIRE’s “alleged” hypocrisy?
It proclaims “worst of the worst” without asterisk, or, apparently, a shred of self-awareness or integrity.
Michigan State or Tufts worse than Grove City or Hillsdale with respect to freedom of speech? Brandeis or Johns Hopkins worse than Liberty or Biola or Regent with respect to respect for the scientific method?
FIRE lies. That is somewhat understandable, because it opens right-wingers’ checkbooks. Why its adherents, particularly academics, tolerate this is more difficult to understand.
October 3, 2009, 1:28 pmAngus says:
The problem is that private universities place their speech codes on their web sites, so prospective students know what to expect when they sign up to attend such a private university. FIRE still loves to go after just the “liberal” ones since they are paid to “stick it” to liberals whenever possible. Conservative foundations donate to FIRE and expect conservative advocacy in return. Quid pro quo.
October 3, 2009, 3:30 pmrpt says:
Would conservative professors be comfortable with armed students in their classrooms?
Has FIRE ever taken a case or position that did not support the ideologically conservative?
October 3, 2009, 3:54 pmtheBuckWheat says:
If a property owner can refuse entry to a person who is carrying an otherwise legally concealed firearm (and by implication will never find out that fact a long as it does in fact remain concealed), can he also refuse entry to a person who is carrying concealed HIV in his blood? Why the one and not the other?
While I respect and want to protect the rights of property owners, a legally concealed firearm that cannot be brandished or used except in exigent circumstances is a substantially different case than something openly carried.
October 3, 2009, 4:05 pmCarl from Chicago says:
As an aside …
If it is unconstitutional on 1A grounds for a college to demand “prior written approval” for “personal contact with individuals or groups related to non-sponsored college material or events” …
Then hypothetically, would it be unconstitutional on 2A grounds for a college to flatly forbid the bearing of a defensive arm for lawful purposes? Could the college so prohibit but the state not? Vice-versa?
It would seem, to me, that as long as a college campus was not deemed a “sensitive place”, it might well be unconstitutional for them to prohibit the individual right to possess or carry weapons in case of confrontation.
October 3, 2009, 4:26 pmPerseus says:
FIRE does in fact explain why it doesn’t rate all colleges: “Of course, some private institutions—such as religious colleges—have particular missions that they believe require restrictions on speech. When a private university states clearly and consistently that it holds a certain set of values above a commitment to freedom of speech, FIRE does not rate that university.”
Liberty University, for example, is quite explicit about its purpose and mission: “To develop Christ-centered men and women with the values, knowledge, and skills essential to impact tomorrow’s world.”
Since those sorts of institutions make no pretense to being committed to a fully free and open learning environment, it is hardly a lie to omit them as points of comparison. Indeed, only a “dope” would expect them to be included.
October 3, 2009, 4:30 pmArthurKirkland says:
If FIRE excuses many institutions from its analysis, for reasons defensible or indefensible, it should not excoriate those to whom it does not give a pass as “worst of the worst,” particularly without the cautions required to make the statement anything other than egregiously misleading. Most of the genuinely worst are institutions FIRE excuses from scrutiny. Most of the genuinely worst share ideology with FIRE’s founders and funders.
October 3, 2009, 4:42 pmJK says:
The problem is that there’s no clear bright line between Colleges and Universities that “state clearly and consistently that it holds a certain set of values about a commitment to freedom of speech” and ones that don’t.
Many of the Universities that FIRE criticizes have clear “speech codes” that that restrict freedom of speech (such a a ban on “hate speech”), so it’s not really about a clearly stated rule. The hair splitting that FIRE relies on is the idea that some (ie. liberal) institutions have general mission statements that include something to the effect of “promote freedom of speech/ academic diversity/ whatever” that are arguably in conflict with their speech codes.
I don’t see how one can reasonably claim that such an insitution is “saying one thing and doing another.” At worst they are saying two contradictory things, but IMO the only truly reasonable understanding is that the broad statement of policy is not intended to not be a source of enforceable rules or a constitution or sorts that can invalidate specific rules.
To be clear I think every “speech code” I’ve read is utter crap and completely counterproductive, but that doesn’t make insulating conservative schools with this hair splitting any less inane.
1. Unless it’s actually true that Bob Jones, Liberty, Regent, etc never make the statement in any of their documentation that they promote “the free exchange of ideas” or whatnot, their “test” for “clear and consistent… values above a commitment to freedom of speech” has essentially no objective foundation.
2. Even if they really never do make such statements, why is this hypertechnical “honesty” about draconian speech policies elevated above every other concern. At best it seems like it should be one consideration among many.
3. Are there any “liberal” schools that FIRE doesn’t consider due to this policy? Are there any schools associated with movement conservatism that it doesn’t except due to this policy?
4. Overall I actually like FIRE, this type of nonsenses shows that its a deeply partisan organization, but that doesn’t mean they don’t do a lot of good work.
October 3, 2009, 5:16 pmDavid Nieporent says:
If only you had — what’s the word? — evidence for any of these claims.
The fact that there may be some speech code buried somewhere on a website does not provide notice to people, but more importantly, those speech codes are all written in such vague language that they would be unconstitutional if public.
Contrary to the trolling ArthurKirkland, who’s simply parroting what the hack jukebox said, FIRE excludes liberal institutions as well as conservative ones; it also lists the very left-wing Bard College as one of the schools it does not rate.
October 3, 2009, 9:38 pmDavid Nieporent says:
Why? FIRE is not trying to tell people how to run their schools. It is trying to protect students from mistreatment. If a private school tells people it doesn’t value free speech, then students aren’t harmed.
As to your first question, yes; see my previous post. Bard. As to your second, I don’t understand it.
October 3, 2009, 9:42 pmChrisTS says:
Ok, here is a test question:
October 3, 2009, 10:04 pmhow many times has FIRE defended/taken on the case of anyone [student, faculty member, administrator, or staff member] whose complaint could plausibly be construed as suppression of ‘liberal’ or ‘leftist’ speech?
I do not know the answer to this question. I believe that FIRE tends to ‘defend’ what its members perceive as conservative or right-wing speech and action (the differentially priced bake-sales).
This narrower question might help us to focus on the main thrust of FIRE’s advocacy. Of course, any group may direct its efforts as it sees fit. However, if a group claims to be against all actions/policies of type X, but typically only pursues cases of subtype Xa, observers might reasonably be suspicious.
Angus says:
And yet, FIRE still blasted Bard College’s speech policies in front of Congress in 2003. Sticking it to the liberals, as their right-wing donors (read: taskmasters) demand.
FIRE should just be honest and describe themselves as a conservative organization. Is honesty that hard?
October 4, 2009, 2:11 amspostrel says:
FIRE defended critics of President Bush and his policies. It defended Ward Churchill from the original attempts to fire him for his views (though not for the later academic misconduct claims). It defended a feminist poetry professor in Alaska. It is true that left-wing speech is rarely restricted by university administrations and that left-wing students and faculty are therefore less likely to contact FIRE for help.
Harvey Silverglate, chairman and co-founder of FIRE, is not a plausible conservative. He is a hard-core civil libertarian whose most recent book criticizes the overweening power of federal prosecutors. The trolls on this thread are being ridiculous.
October 4, 2009, 4:00 amRobert Shibley says:
Greetings all,
This is FIRE’s vice president, Robert Shibley. I just wanted to take a minute to address the accusations that FIRE is driven by party politics or conservative ideology. Such accusations occur in just about every comment thread of a Prof. Volokh post about a FIRE case. Indeed, the criticism is largely driven by the very same people each time.
This accusation is false, as even a cursory inspection of FIRE’s website will reveal (www.thefire.org). Greg Lukianoff, our president, elaborates on this more than two years ago, complete with links to many cases where FIRE has represented “liberals” on campus.
http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/7975.html
It is obvious that many of the claims about FIRE above are not made in good faith and are not even original, so I will just address them through posting Greg’s blog above. FIRE wants to hear and address good-faith criticisms, though, and educate those who don’t know much about the organization, so let me do a bit of that here:
Nonlibertarian: FIRE expects public colleges and universities to support free expression not only because it’s the right thing to do but also because it is their legal obligation under the First Amendment. This has been well-established in a number of federal circuit and Supreme Court cases, most prominently Sweezy v. New Hampshire (1957).
Allan Walstad: Thanks for your support of FIRE! Please be assured, though, that FIRE absolutely does not consider the political leanings of the speaker when determining what cases it takes. In fact, if we did, that would destroy FIRE, since at every level the organization is staffed with conservatives, liberals, and others who would not stand for such an ideological litmus test of those we decide to help.
Al: Thanks for your comment! We have had several cases where professors were threatened for anti-Bush or antiwar speech.
Curtis: I can assure you that if disciplinary action was replaced with some sort of “administrative action” like you describe, that would not be OK with us. We don’t always win cases, of course, but we do most of the time, and if someone is punished for his or her speech in any way, that is a concern for FIRE.
rpt and ChrisTS: We have taken many cases defending “liberal” speakers. Probably the most obvious recent ones are the cases of Hayden Barnes (environmentalist) at Valdosta State in Georgia and Andre Massena (social justice advocate) at SUNY-Binghamton. Some informative links are http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/9945.html and http://www.thefire.org/case/751.html .
JK: You have a long comment (and this one is getting really long) so briefly I will say that yes, figuring out what a private school promises in the way of free speech is complicated, which is why we employ an expert attorney (Samantha Harris) to make those determinations. It’s not FIRE, though, that makes it complicated – the schools do that by saying various conflicting and inconsistent things about free speech and academic freedom (which is bad, but which is not FIRE’s fault). People can in good faith disagree with our rating decisions for one school or another, but we do the best we can and we post all the policies we used to make the determination so that people can decide for themselves if they want. Look up any school on http://www.thefire.org/spotlight and you will see what I mean.
You also ask why we elevate concerns about free speech or speech codes above all other concerns. We do that because we are a free speech organization, and that’s what we care about.
Here’s our analysis of Liberty University, to give you a sense of our thinking on such schools: http://www.thefire.org/article/10644.html . I note that the ACLU of Virginia agreed with us on the most recent issue there: http://www.acluva.org/opeds/Jun22009LibertyUniversity.html .
October 4, 2009, 5:00 amArthurKirkland says:
Does anyone wish to take a crack at defending FIRE’s full-page magazine ad damning six far-from-the-worst schools as “worst of the worst” without qualification?
Until FIRE stops issuing misleading lists, and is as critical of Liberty’s speech code (let alone the “biology” curriculum) as it is of Bard’s speech code, it is a dishonest organization.
Quite profitably dishonest, I suspect.
October 4, 2009, 9:00 amDavid Nieporent says:
Does anybody wish to take a crack at defending Kirkland’s hackery? FIRE is not conservative. It was founded by liberals, is run by liberals, and supports liberal (but not “Liberal”) values like free speech without regard for the content of that speech. It did not “blast” Bard’s code, but simply cited it as an example of a vague speech code that doesn’t tell students anything about what’s allowed or forbidden. It does not rate Bard any differently than Liberty or Bob Jones.
October 4, 2009, 12:02 pmArthurKirkland says:
It does not rate Bard any differently than Liberty or Bob Jones.
The point is that it would rate Liberty and Bob Jones lower than Bard, were it honest. Instead, it publicly castigates Bard and dons kid gloves for right-wing institutions.
FIRE is not conservative.
From certain rare perspectives, it may seem downright liberal.
October 4, 2009, 12:10 pmRobert Shibley says:
ArthurKirkland:
I know that you are not criticizing us in good faith, but for the info of other people, I do want to note that we don’t have Liberty or Bob Jones in our speech codes database at all because they are not big or prestigious enough. We rate about 400 schools a year based on size and prominence, and with our small staff, that’s about all we can manage. There would be no point in putting small, non-prominent schools in the list. That would be especially pointless in the case of Liberty and Bob Jones since nobody in his or her right mind would expect the environment there that one would expect at Harvard, Berkeley, or even Bard. We do have Bard on the list, even though it’s small, because of its academic prestige. And because it clearly does not value free speech, we list it as “Not Rated.” http://thefire.org/spotlight/codes/2646.html . Of course, you probably knew that, but found it inconvenient to let everyone know about it because it makes your argument far more difficult.
October 4, 2009, 12:23 pmArthurKirkland says:
Mr. Shibley
I acknowledge that FIRE advocates worthy causes in a number of circumstances, but that does not excuse the selective prosecution, nor the misleading disparagement of institutions that are not the “worst of the worst” by any legitimate measure. Without so much as an asterisk, the “worst of the worst” advertisement is a lie.
How does Colorado College make the list instead of Regent or Liberty? Enrollment? Prestige? Degree of hostility to free speech and academic freedom?
Or ideology, and in particular the tastes of FIRE’s fundraising audience?
October 4, 2009, 12:55 pmJK says:
Mr. Shilbey,
First, it’s great to see an official response in a forum like this, excellent engagement.
Actually I was asking why you evelvate consistancy with mission statements and offical policies above all other free speech concerns.
David Nieporent’s answer to this was, “FIRE is not trying to tell people how to run their schools. It is trying to protect students from mistreatment. If a private school tells people it doesn’t value free speech, then students aren’t harmed.”
Now if that’s the goals of the organization then fine, but is it really true that FIRE as absolutely no position on whether free speech in academic settings is good thing regardless of the consistency with official school policies? If you are truly neutral on the issue of whether schools should protect freedom of speech as a normative matter, then it would seem that a school that officially has a draconian speech code, but doesn’t enforce it, is just as bad as a school that doesn’t have one but interferes with speech.
Now I agree that consistency with official policy is an important issue to look into, but IMO a civil rights organization should be promoting actual civil rights, not simply promoting open and honest rights suppression.
I don’t want to harp on this too much, I think you do a lot of good work, and perhaps a certain amount of partisan red meat is necessary for fundraising. But I do think on this one, rather small, issue of not considering an institution if it “states clearly and consistently that it holds a certain set of values above a commitment to freedom of speech” when that exception is granted almost entirely to conservative institutions that would be unpopular to criticize among some donors, just reeks of unprincipled partisanship.
October 4, 2009, 4:10 pmDavid Nieporent says:
The problem is, you (I mean that generically, to encompass all of FIRE’s critics here) haven’t shown the slightest evidence that there are any donors for whom it would be unpopular to criticize Bob Jones and Liberty.
October 4, 2009, 5:00 pmRobert Shibley says:
ArthurKirkland:
Colorado College is on the list because of a FIRE case in which they have consistently refused to do the right thing. You can read more at the link (http://www.thefire.org/article/9312.html), but in short, Colorado College found two students guilty of sexually-related violence for making a flyer that was a parody of a feminist group’s flyer. Their “crime” was mentioning a gun and a sexual position on the same flyer in two seperate items (you can see the flyer on FIRE’s website). Colorado College apparently thinks that making a parody flyer is sexual violence, and that’s why it’s one of the worst of the worst schools for liberty on campus.
Explanations of the offenses of all the Red Alert schools are here: http://thefire.org/spotlight/redalert/ .
Also, for everyone’s info, of the 364 colleges and universities rated in our Spotlight database of speech codes, only EIGHT promise so few rights that we do not rate them. Those institutions are Bard College, Baylor University, Brigham Young University, Pepperdine University, the United States Military Academy, the United States Naval Academy, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, and Yeshiva University. Three are “conservative,” three are “liberal,” and two are service academies where students obviously have limited rights.
October 4, 2009, 5:03 pmRobert Shibley says:
JK:
What you bring up is a complicated issue and is one that FIRE is always going to have to struggle with to some extent. I am talking about the fact that in order for there to be free association, people have to be able to give up some of the rights they would otherwise have. America is a nation that has room for a Pepperdine, a Bard, and everything in between when it comes to colleges and universities, and private organizations have the right to come together and decide that their community will adhere to certain values. Free speech may not necessarily be among them, and if we insist that, say, seminarians have absolute free speech rights, we would be infringing on that seminary’s civil rights. Freedom of association is a FIRE and First Amendment value too.
Nevertheless, most people do not want to attend a university that makes no pretense towards protecting free speech, so the market for such places is self-limiting. Many Americans tend to discount the value of degrees from places like Liberty that might not guarantee much freedom (indeed, I am getting the sense that many people on this comment thread are mentally doing just that). With the rules Liberty has in place, it’s never going to be Harvard. I am pretty sure they are OK with this, just as you are free not to put much value in the education a place like Liberty provides.
That said, FIRE is indeed “biased” towards freedom of speech, religion, etc. Therefore, if a college says it protects free speech in one policy and then takes that freedom away in another, we start looking very carefully. If we get the sense that they are presenting themselves as an open marketplace of ideas but are not actually providing that, we give them a “red” or “yellow” rating and call them on it. If after further examination we believe that there is no way a reasonable person would expect a truly free marketplace of ideas going in, we will give them a “not rated” designation. Yet as I said above, this is so rare that it’s only 8 out of more than 360 schools we rate.
There is a legitimate, rational argument–an argument that we respect–for pushing for free speech at all private and even religious universities, even if they don’t make any attempts to promise free speech. However, because of our freedom of association concerns, we have not adopted this argument. I do think it profits universities to be as open as possible, but we recognize that that’s an issue on which universities need to be persuaded, not pressured.
Also, while I know nobody around here has to take my word for it, I want to say that our development efforts do not drive our program efforts in any way. This makes life harder for the development people, but they simply have no input at all in what cases we take. I honestly think it would be much easier to raise money if FIRE was a secretly partisan organization, but we’re not. If we were, I would quit and so would pretty much everyone else. Running and fundraising for FIRE is hard work and if we were in it to do some partisan work there are much, much easier ways to do it. Believe me, there are a limited number of people out there who are willing to donate to an organization that defends both evangelical Christians and a guy who wrote a play in which Jesus was gay. You have to be really, really committed to the idea of liberty, so if you know anyone like that, please send them our way!
October 4, 2009, 5:25 pmAngus says:
Yes, FIRE is nonpartisan. That’s why they get their funding largely through right-wing organizations similar to the Scaife and Bradley foundations, and why they are taking out a massive advertisement in National Review. That’s why they recruit staffers at the Conservative Political Action Conference. And why they make up their own fuzzy rules as to why most conservative private universities get a total pass but liberal ones do not based on the judgment of a single conservative “expert.”
While you list Bard as “unrated” on your website, you still have a page for them with excerpts from their code of conduct, which suggests to a reader that something is wrong. No pages at all for Bob Jones or Liberty or Regent, all of which have been accused of stamping out freedom of speech. On top of which, FIRE has criticized Bard in front of Congress. Will we see a similar public criticism of Bob Jones or Liberty? Or perhaps an apology offered to Bard? One of your defenses in not listing Liberty U. is that it is a small school? It has 20,000 students!
Frankly, I’m glad you guys decided to make a major push in the new issue of National Review. It announces your allegiance. You guys are capable of doing good work, and often do, however the dodges and dancing around your conservative origins and conservative affiliation really undermine your credibility. Maybe if you guys came clean about your origins and sources of funding rather than try to obfuscate, you’d be able to show your critics that your conservative connections do not determine your cases. As is, the “deny everything” strategy is a loser.
October 4, 2009, 8:16 pmArthurKirkland says:
Mr. Schibley
Unless one is willing to argue that Michigan State is worse than Grove City or Hillsdale, or Johns Hopkins worse than Regent or Biola, or Brandeis worse than Liberty, on academic and speech freedoms, the unqualified “worst of the worst” advertisement unfairly and misleadingly disparages six schools.
Why does FIRE do this?
October 4, 2009, 8:26 pmDavid Nieporent says:
Yet another evidence-free claim. Presumably, like JBG, you’re parroting the less-than-authoritative Sourcewatch, except that at no point does it say anything about how FIRE “largely” is funded.
October 4, 2009, 9:03 pmDavid Nieporent says:
You need to look at who actually founded FIRE, and think instead of talking so much.
October 4, 2009, 9:22 pmAngus says:
It is not in question that FIRE has either gotten in the past or still gets yearly major grants from these conservative foundations. Not all of them put their grants online, but a cursory search for 2007, for example, shows that FIRE got $50,000 from the Achelis and Bodman Foundation, $125,000 from the Sarah Scaife Foundation, $75,000 from the Bradley Foundation, $32,500 from the F.M. Kirby Foundation. That’s almost a quarter of a million dollars for 2007 found in 15 minutes of searching. Several other conservative foundations have been known to regularly donate similar sums, but I am not paying $100 for Guidestar access to get exact amounts.
If FIRE had nothing to hide, they could list institutional/foundational donors and the amounts they donated.
October 4, 2009, 9:40 pmDavid Nieporent says:
Well, I don’t see any evidence that the Achelis and Bodman Foundations or the F.M. Kirby Foundation are “conservative foundations” at all. And “almost a quarter of a million dollars” is — as another 30 seconds of searching would have told you — less than 15% of FIRE’s donations for 2007. Hardly comports with the claim that FIRE is “largely” funded by conservative foundations.
You know what you sound like? “If Barack Obama has nothing to hide, why has he sealed his school records?”
October 4, 2009, 10:05 pmRobert Shibley says:
I find it interesting that every time I disprove an argument from certain people in this thread, they just move on to another argument that is also intended to prove that FIRE has a secret agenda or they simply ignore the information and links provided. It is clear that no matter what information I provide, they are determined to attach some sinister intent to FIRE that they cannot actually demonstrate with evidence. We seem to be down to the argument that FIRE takes money from conservatives (of course we take money from liberals, libertarians, and moderates too) and then defends both liberal and conservative speech with it (as is obvious from the links I have provided). I confess I can’t really see how that makes us bad, but then, being the vice president of FIRE, I would be in on the evil conspiracy, right?
October 5, 2009, 4:18 amArthurKirkland says:
Mr. Shibley
There you go again: Colorado College is “one of the worst of the worst schools for liberty on campus.” Do you assert Colorado College is worse than Liberty? Biola? Hillsdale? Grove City? Regent? Bob Jones? If so, state that and be revealed as a peddler of what another termed “unprincipled partisanship.” If not, your statement is misleading to the point of being a premeditated falsehood. Forgive me for refraining from accepting your declaration that you repeatedly disprove detractors’ arguments.
If FIRE claims to be something other than a conservative operation, why does/did FIRE not simply support the efforts of the American Civil Liberties Union?
October 5, 2009, 5:17 amDavid M. Nieporent says:
Gee, I don’t know; why doesn’t the NAACP simply support the ACLU? Perhaps some people like to target their advocacy?
October 5, 2009, 6:24 amArthurKirkland says:
If your point is that FIRE targets its advocacy ideologically — no crime, but bad form when one purports to be evenhanded and when one issues biased criticism without qualification — I agree.
October 5, 2009, 7:12 amAngus says:
Mr Shibley,
It is FIRE that keeps deflecting. We point out that FIRE recruits its staff at conservative political meetings, advertises in conservative outlets, draws up vague standards to criticize private liberal colleges while giving private conservative colleges a pass, draws a major portion of its money from partisan conservative foundations, does a regular circuit of conservative activist conferences each year, all while denying any conservative tilt. You claim to have taken no stand on Bard College, for example, but I point out that FIRE criticized Bard in front of Congress. Your rebuttal is to point in the distance and cry, “Look over there! Ward Churchill!”
Your early Presidents and departed high officers all ended up at conservative organizations and think tanks. Is this coincidence?
Why not just write a piece in which you 1) acknowledge that FIRE was founded by conservative activists to protect conservative viewpoints on campus, and then 2) you can begin to honestly make a case that FIRE has in recent years tried to move away from its conservative roots and make an effort to be more nonpartisan? You’d spend far less time doing that to far greater effect than constantly getting in a huff at every charge of conservatism on the internet.
October 5, 2009, 7:15 amDavid Nieporent says:
What does advertising in conservative outlets have to do with whether it is partisan or not? Since when is advertising somewhere an endorsement of the views of the publication? It also advertised in U.S. News, according to its website. What conclusion should we draw from that?
Yes, you falsely pointed this out. It was refuted by pointing out that its standards are neither vague nor partisan, but apply equally to left and right.
Actually, Angus falsely pointed out that it “largely” was funded by conservative foundations; now you’ve changed that to the even more vague “major portion,” which is still unsupported, and also meaningless, since it draws an even larger portion from sources other than conservative foundations.
And I pointed out that your claim was false. It did not criticize Bard, but merely cited its code in passing as an example of a vague code, and in any case what they actually claimed was not to “take no stand” on Bard, but not to rate Bard.
The real question is, is it true? And the answer is: no, it isn’t.
Because it’s false. FIRE was founded by Alan Kors and Harvey Silverglate, neither of whom are “conservative activists” — Kors is a professor; Silverglate is a lawyer active in the ACLU — in the wake of the “water buffalo” incident, which had nothing to do with “conservative viewpoints.” Unless you think free speech and due process are conservative viewpoints.
Why are you so desperate to try to convince yourself that FIRE is conservative? Do you understand that you sound as hysterical as the right wing people who go around calling the ACLU anti-Christian?
October 5, 2009, 9:27 amAngus says:
My point is that they chose a partisan conservative magazine to make their big PR push because they are, well, conservative. They didn’t choose Mother Jones, The Nation, or Harper’s. They make sure to regularly attend major conservative political gatherings like CPAC, but make no effort to attend liberal gatherings.
Actually, Shibley agreed that they are vvague and subject to interpretation which is why they hired an “expert” to make such calls, who is – natch – a conservative.
I assume you can offer proof of that? I know that several conservative foundations have given to FIRE whose records I cannot access to find out exact amounts. I’d be interested in hearing your conclusions about liberal foundations who give to FIRE.
Glad we agree that FIRE went after Bard despite it being liberal and not giving guarantees of free expression. I do find it interesting that blasting Bard in front of Congress does not amount to “criticism.” Spoken like a true partisan.
FIRE had more than two people at its founding. Of the two you mention, one was a conservative activist (Kors), one is a self-described “traditional liberal” who dislikes liberals and leftists (Silverglate). Two of the others were David French and Thor Halvarsson, both conservative activists. The staffers and officers were conservatives, as are the vast majority of staffers, officers, directors, and advisors today. You can look at FIRE’s own pages of people: conservative journalists, former Republican officials, college republican organizers, and a few libertarian activists. You’ll find maybe 3 or 4 possible liberals out of maybe 50 officers/advisors/directors.
I don’t have to convince myself. I can see it with my own eyes. I criticize FIRE because they choose to lie bout who they are. They pretend to be something they are not. Ask FIRE about why it was founded and they refuse to talk about it except in vague platitudes.
I don’t blame Shibley (himself a former conservative journalist) for stalking blogs to hammer FIRE critics. He’s got more than 100,000 rea$on$ per year to do so. Not sure what your dog is in this hunt.
October 5, 2009, 10:43 amJack Burton says:
“I don’t have to convince myself. I can see it with my own eyes.”
And we generally call these people “flat earthers.”
October 6, 2009, 8:12 amDavid Nieporent says:
I do find it interesting that you think they “blasted” Bard in front of Congress, but you haven’t produced any quotes showing them blasting Bard in front of Congress.
Kors is not a “conservative activist,” or an activist of any other stripe. Thor Halvorssen is not a “conservative activist.” I’ll give you French, so that leaves one conservative and one liberal, charitably considering Halvorssen neutral rather than liberal.
Indeed you can. And you’ll see a few obvious conservatives, a lot of people with no obvious political leanings (*), and a few obvious liberals.
I haven’t seen them “refusing to talk about” anything. If you consider “free speech on campus” to be a “vague platitude,” I guess that explains a lot of your attitude. As for your pretended motives, sure, obviously; I assume you routinely criticize the ACLU because it handles cases for non-Americans and deals with issues that aren’t civil liberties, too — like driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants — while ignoring civil liberties such as the second amendment or property rights, right? Or is your outrage slightly selective?
(*) Except, obviously, in favor of free speech on campus; why you want to insist that this is solely a conservative notion is beyond me.
October 6, 2009, 8:45 am