The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education reports:
Duke University’s Women’s Center has canceled an event about motherhood because the sponsor was engaging in pro-life expression elsewhere on campus. A Women’s Center representative told Duke Students for Life (DSFL) that “we have a problem” and an ideological “conflict” with the event, which was supposedly canceled to protect Duke women from encountering the event during the group’s “traumatizing” pro-life “Week for Life.” …As part of a “Week for Life” series of events held at Duke over March 15-19, DSFL had reserved a Women’s Center space for a “Discussion with a Duke Mother” on March 18. A Duke student and mother was to speak about motherhood and the challenges of being in both roles. But the day before the event, the reservation was abruptly canceled in a voicemail to the group.
Meeting with the group on March 18, Duke Women’s Center Gender Violence Prevention Specialist Martin Liccardo said that because the event was associated with the Week for Life and DSFL, the event could not be held at the Women’s Center.
Liccardo told the group that the prospect of holding a pro-life event in the Women’s Center during Week for Life was too upsetting for some students: “We had a very strong reaction from students in general who use our space who said this was something that was upsetting and not OK. So based on that, we said, OK, we are going to respond to this and stop the program.” …
Oh, yes, and the Women’s Center “ascribe[s] to a broadly defined, fluctuating and inclusive feminist ideology that welcomes discordant viewpoints from varied experiences.” I guess this must be one of those fluctuations away from welcoming discordant viewpoints.
Duke is a private university, and is not bound by the Free Speech Clause. (That isn’t changed by Duke’s acceptance of government money.) But it is a university that claims it supports “freedom of inquiry and the free exchange of ideas” as “essential for the fulfillment of the university’s mission,” and we should hold it responsible for such blatantly viewpoint-based and narrow-minded exclusions of “discordant viewpoints” (even when the exclusion is just from one particular building).
B.D. says:
The American language of politics is woefully deficient. This is one of the many examples for why the Left doesn’t deserve to be termed “liberal.” (Neither does the Right, incidentally.)
One would hope our universities would talk the talk and walk the walk. But they mostly don’t.
March 29, 2010, 1:13 pmPeteP says:
Pretty typical of the Left, and the ‘liberation’ movement – wherein ‘lbieration’ means ‘You are free to hear what we say you can hear, to say what we say you can say, and believe what we say you can believe’. All other viewpoints, opinions, or speech will be met with raucous, ocassionaly violent ( as needed ) protest, until they are appropriately silenced’.
March 29, 2010, 1:17 pmCJColucci says:
In other free speech news, this morning’s paper reports that a a college in the University of Texas system — which is governed by the First Amendment — shut down a student production of a play insufficiently deferential to the tender religious sensibilities of Texans after the Lt. Governor, and others, raised Hell.
March 29, 2010, 1:19 pmA. Zarkov says:
Yes Duke is a private university, and under current law they can accept federal funding while suppressing speech. But laws can get changed. If the Republicans ever come back into power, they should put conditions on the money the feds give out. By statute, a university that accepts federal money shall not have speech codes. There would also need to be an office of compliance to handle complaints. If we can have EEOC, then why can’t we have such an office? Would such a statute be unconstitutional? Of course the universities would scream, but I think it would be a trifle embarrassing for them to support speech codes. Most of the population does not know about university speech codes. These transgressions are nearly invisible to the public at large.
Sad to say this kind of strategic thinking seems beyond the capicity of the stupid party, but we can always hope.
March 29, 2010, 1:20 pmJoseph Slater says:
Personally, I’m rooting for Michigan State.
March 29, 2010, 1:21 pmShelbyC says:
IMHO such a statute would not be constitutional. Private organizations have a right to disassociate themselves with certain viewpoints.
March 29, 2010, 1:31 pmSarcastro says:
Indeed, A. Zarkov.
March 29, 2010, 1:31 pmBig Government forcing private institutions to conform is totally the way to go! Political pressure is for sissies, as is the free market!
JoeSixpack says:
Choose Death!
March 29, 2010, 1:35 pmA. Zarkov says:
What part of the Constitution would get violated? Are you saying universities have an unconditional right to federal money? If the feds can hold back money from a place that engages in racial discrimination then why can’t they hold it back for speech restrictions? Indeed is not the First Amendment a higher right?
March 29, 2010, 1:36 pmJK says:
Sounds like Duke is allowing a pretty major series of pro-life events throughout the campus, such that it’s hard to say that the viewpoint is being suppressed. Is there evidence that the Women’s center doesn’t allow pro-life advocacy in general? Regarding the particular event, it appears there was a planned talk on ‘Motherhood’ and the Women’s Center became concerned that it would become a pro-life rally. We don’t know whether that concern was valid, but absent evidence either way I think we need to give them the benefit of the doubt.
I can appreciate why the Center might be upset if they found out that an unbalanced pro-life rally in their department was being advertised as a discussion of “motherhood.” I see nothing wrong with requiring event organizers to be honest about the content of the event.
March 29, 2010, 1:36 pmA. Zarkov says:
See anti-trust laws. Minimal government does not mean anarchy. Besides would it not be delicious to see the left stew in their own juices?
March 29, 2010, 1:38 pmBrad Ford says:
Don’t universities have to have some level of academic and free speech freedoms to keep their accredition?
Imagine if a Pro-Choice speaker was banned from the building, there would be nationwide protests.
March 29, 2010, 1:38 pmSarcastro says:
No speech codes on universities is anarchy! Plus, passing laws out of spite makes for some awesome policies.
[Though yeah, totally Constitutional.]
March 29, 2010, 1:40 pmMark T. Tillar says:
“Liccardo told the group that the prospect of holding a pro-life event in the Women’s Center during Week for Life was too upsetting for some students: ‘We had a very strong reaction from students in general who use our space who said this was something that was upsetting and not OK. So based on that, we said, OK, we are going to respond to this and stop the program.’”
The lessons learned from this 1) Duke has personnel in positions of authority who think the answer to students having very strong reactions to the pro-life issue is to limit intellectual inquiry and diverse views; 2) the term Women’s Center at Duke means Women’s Center for those women who support killing unborn babies and not woman who wish to protect unborn babies.
The other lesson is that when you take away the right to life, all other freedoms are in peril.
March 29, 2010, 1:41 pmAllan says:
When Baylor University and Wheaton College have pro-choice events, I will be sympathetic.
I do find it ironic that Duke, which was founded by the namesake of the defendant in Griggs v. Duke Power, is in the middle of the Bible Belt, and was started as a religious institution of higher learning, would be considered liberal.
March 29, 2010, 1:43 pmgeokstr says:
Hey, wait, aren’t you supposed to put the things you really do believe in in brackets or something?
:-)
March 29, 2010, 1:47 pmShelbyC says:
I’m saying that any right they have to federal money cannot be subject to conditions based on what speech they support or decline to support.
March 29, 2010, 1:47 pmMike P Wagner says:
As the parent of a daughter who will likely be heading off to college in a couple of years, I find this kind of action extremely annoying.
Many of our most prestigious colleges and universities do a much better job of representing liberal world views that of representing more conservative world views. I am not at all concerned about the political/social leaning of the school she eventually attends. She seems to think for herself.
But – as a child of the 60s – I have a hard time accepting quashing alternative for institutional protection. I understand that Duke, as a private entity, is not bound by the Free Speech Clause. But I also happen to feel strongly that Free Speech is a darn good idea.
I am no happier to see open and vigorous discussion of ideas prevented than I was in the 60s and early 70s when I was busy storming the ramparts – even when the people defending the ramparts are people with who I would have agreed four decades ago!
March 29, 2010, 1:49 pmEugene Volokh says:
CJ Colucci: Do you have a pointer to that story? Sounds interesting, but I’d need to read more about it. Thanks!
March 29, 2010, 1:50 pmA. Zarkov says:
They don’t have to support or not support anything. They simply can’t suppress. In other words, they have do nothing.
March 29, 2010, 1:53 pmAnonymous says:
These appear to be stories about the play to which CJ Colucci is referring:
http://www.texastribune.org/stories/2010/mar/29/gay-jesus-place/
http://www.playbill.com/news/article/138274-Student-Production-of-McNallys-Corpus-Christi-Canceled-in-Texas
According to the stories, the university claimed that it was determined to let the play go on, but the professor of the course appears to have cancelled the play based on “security concerns.”
March 29, 2010, 2:02 pmADF Alliance Alert » Duke keeps pro-life group out of women’s center during “Week for Life” says:
[...] Eugene Volokh: Pro-Life Speech “Upsetting” and “Not OK” for the Duke University Women’… [...]
March 29, 2010, 2:06 pmAngus says:
Duke is giving the pro-life group time and space for the whole week. Only this one event was canceled. I’m betting that there is much more here than meets the eye than just a talk with a “mom.” I’d like to see this reported by another outlet without having to rely on FIRE’s slant.
March 29, 2010, 2:08 pmShelbyC says:
Well, as a private entity they can’t supress anyway. All they can do is refuse to provide resources to certain viewpoints, or refuse to be associated with people who express certain viewpoints.
March 29, 2010, 2:10 pmAnonsters says:
Stop being reasonable. This is the blogosphere!
March 29, 2010, 2:12 pmCato The Elder says:
Are you serious? Duke’s faculty and administration are incredibly leftist. It’s been that way for a long time, since at least the ’70s, when they made a concerted effort to hire cheaper humanities and sociology professors to up their national profile as college admissions were heating up. Or have you managed to forget the Group of 88 and what they stood for? And don’t forget that Duke University Press publishes Social Text, the journal that Sokal perpetrated his notorious hoax on. The atmosphere there is in no way conservative.
March 29, 2010, 2:12 pmDG says:
{Duke is giving the pro-life group time and space for the whole week. Only this one event was canceled. I’m betting that there is much more here than meets the eye than just a talk with a “mom.” I’d like to see this reported by another outlet without having to rely on FIRE’s slant.}
FIRE’s slant is almost reliably pro-expression and pro-speech. While many of the FIRE folks are conservative, they regularly cross the line to protect unpopular left-wing speech. They tend to be absolutist and I don’t always agree with them, but they are predictable.
As someone from a strongly pro-choice position, I think Duke is making a mistake. Either your ideas are strong enough to stand up to opposition or they are not.
March 29, 2010, 2:13 pmRPT says:
This story does seem to require some further context.
What is FIRE’s position on the banning of Thomas Jefferson from Texas textbooks?
March 29, 2010, 2:17 pmgeokstr says:
Wow, at a prestigious, highly rated university, too, ranked right up there in national standing with Duke – Tarleton State:
Gay Jesus
Why does the left have such a fetish for doing anything they can to bash, smear, and slander Xtianity? Because they can. It shows real courage when the object of your Rule #5 tactics never really fights back, eh? When will we see a play put on by a leftist with a gay Mohammed pedophile? That would be closer to the truth. Answer: NEVER – because Islam hangs gays.
Another case of phony moral equivalence from the the left.
It’s apparently OK that 99% of the universities have left-wing speech codes that can result in your expulsion if you don’t behave, because in one cowtown college in hated Texas, one gay student was prevented from doing a class project with a gay Jesus.
I can see how that’s so, like, you know, totally fair and balanced, and stuff.
For every one of these “notorious” cases of “extreme” right wing censorship, I can google a couple thousand from the left.
March 29, 2010, 2:18 pmAllan says:
Cato,
I don’t deny that the Duke faculty tend to be on the left. I just find it ironic.
March 29, 2010, 2:18 pmDougInSanDiego says:
So many comments discussing the legality of lack thereof of this.
So little on the decline of higher education as a place for the free exchange of competing ideas.
Legislating solutions is how we have decayed to this extent. Why are so many reluctant ot simply call behavior “wrong” and call the misbehaving individuals to task?
March 29, 2010, 2:19 pmAnonsters says:
That’s a little naive, isn’t it?
March 29, 2010, 2:20 pmAnonsters says:
Gee, I wonder why that could be….
The Volokh Conspiracy is a group blog. Most of us are law professors.
March 29, 2010, 2:23 pmHouston Lawyer says:
The Women’s Center is not a place where you go to hear anything other than typical feminist jive. Under no circumstances should female students there hear that there are alternatives to killing an unplanned child.
If they wanted to provocative like the gay jesus folks, I know a bunch of dead baby jokes that could be made into very offensive presentations.
March 29, 2010, 2:28 pmRichard Nieporent says:
It is sad to see so many people on the Left defending the action of the Women’s Center. There was a time when the Left actually believed in free speech.
March 29, 2010, 2:29 pmAnonsters says:
Well, we’re all terrorist-loving socialist revolutionaries now, so. Times are a-changin’.
March 29, 2010, 2:31 pmWhadonna More says:
I don’t speak doubletalk, so I have no clue what Mr. Liccardo is saying, but why do EV and the commenters assume that the problem is abortion? The DWC cancelled a talk about doing school and motherhood, but their overview says
Any chance that “you can finish your B.Mrs. even after Mr. Right gets you knocked up” is too much gender inequity and social stasis view for their taste?
March 29, 2010, 2:33 pmrb1971 says:
I’m about as pro-choice as they come, but this sort of viewpoint discrimination at the college level – where you’d expect students to be learning the value of debate and of hearing both sides of an issue – pissed me off 20 years ago when I was a student and pisses me off even worse as time goes on. (You’ll never be able to learn how stupid the other side is unless you let them talk.)
March 29, 2010, 2:35 pmalbert says:
When your focus of “study” is really just yourself, what can you expect from 19-year-olds other than immature self-indulgence? Too bad the faculty fed these narcissistic tendencies.
Of course the whole “Look at me! I’m not racist/sexist! Really, please, please LOOK AT ME!” impulse at Duke was fed, and the dangers of carrying it too far devastatingly exposed, by their lacrosse “rape” fiasco. Too many of their faculty and administration demonstrated such a lack of judgment.
My wife went to a women’s college. She has remarked on the lack of diversity of viewpoints- for example, if strictly to get a rise out of her fellow students she’d taken such a position in a seminar as “Look, I may want to work a couple of years after school, but getting married and being a mother is really my dream” she has suggested she might’ve been physically harmed. Now, maybe not, but she was never willing to try it!
March 29, 2010, 2:37 pmChrisTS says:
The Tarleton case is interesting: even after the school decided to hold the play on Saturday and open only to those invited by the students in charge, there were so many threats of violence that the professor became worried about his students.
I’m not at all sure why the academic reputation of Tarleton as compared with Duke is relevant, geokstr.
March 29, 2010, 2:42 pmJohn says:
“A mothering discussion during Week for Life that to me, well I should not even say to me but to the students we actually encounter, had a smack of a political agenda,” he explained.Women’s Center staffer Martin Liccardo
Evidently the Women’s Center at Duke is a political free zone.
March 29, 2010, 2:44 pmgasman says:
I had no idea that the women at Duke were such fragile things that they might be “traumatized” through ordinary discourse and exchange of ideas regarding one of the most polarizing topics in our society. What other social subjects are beyond the pale for the typical Duke student?
March 29, 2010, 2:44 pmJoel says:
Isn’t the point of guaranteeing free speech, to protect unpopular or “upsetting” speech? I figured a bunch of effete intellectuals at DUKE would understand such a rudimentary constitutional concept. I say sue the bastards, even if it won’t work. As has been evidenced a few years ago, bringing suit (or even charges) can have significant political impact in Durham.
March 29, 2010, 2:44 pmPersonFromPorlock says:
But not all. Some of us are mere civilians, fascinated by the ability of law professors to believe three impossible things, not simply before breakfast, but immediately upon awakening. The intellectual muscle developed by straining at gnats is remarkable.
March 29, 2010, 2:45 pmDangerMouse says:
Why is anyone surprised that a group that believes murdering babies is ok would then go ahead and suppress speech? Hello!? They support murdering babies. Of course they’re going to suppress speech. Wake up and smell the coffee, people. “Pro-choicers” have never believed in choice, and will do anything and everything in order to continue to worship at the altar of Molech.
March 29, 2010, 2:47 pmDesiderius says:
Allan,
“I don’t deny that the Duke faculty tend to be on the left. I just find it ironic.”
Ever critically consider what connotes “Left”, given the other facts you cited? I noticed a couple years back that the Barnes and Noble news stand in the ritziest mall in my city was overflowing with “left-wing” publications.
Policies that produce social immobility eventually attract supporters who benefit therefrom, even unwittingly.
March 29, 2010, 2:51 pmAnonsters says:
No argument here (though I’m in law school, so I guess I’m only partially civilian; I’m like a guerilla). I was just pointing out why one should reasonably expect so much talk around here about the legality vel non of things.
March 29, 2010, 2:52 pmDougInSanDiego says:
And, lest we forget …………. humans, members of society, fathers & mothers, citizens.
March 29, 2010, 2:54 pmCheckEnclosed says:
Dog bites man.
March 29, 2010, 2:54 pmDougInSanDiego says:
and then we have Frank Lombard. Hero to some, I suppose.
March 29, 2010, 2:58 pmFormer Army MP says:
The University is just upholding the faith of the faculty.
Free speech and freedom of ideas have no place in the modern university.
March 29, 2010, 2:59 pmwfjag says:
Cato — Watch the pocket watch as it slowly swings back and forth, . . . back and forth . . . back and forth . . . You will feel drowsy . . . drowsy . . . drowsy . . . and, now, repeat after me . . .
“There is no Group of 88 . . . there is no Group of 88 . . . there is no Group of 88 . . . Social Text is the truth . . . Social Text is the truth . . . Social Text is the truth . . . Duke is a bastion of white, male, Supremacists . . . Duke is a bastion of white, male Supremacists . . . Duke is a bastion of white, male Supremacists . . .
And, when I count to 3, all those “Not OK” thoughts will have vanished from your mind. One, . . . Two . . . Three.
Feel better now?
March 29, 2010, 3:02 pmCJColucci says:
For every one of these “notorious” cases of “extreme” right wing censorship, I can google a couple thousand from the left.
No, you can’t. Not unless you have even funkier googling skills than I do.
March 29, 2010, 3:18 pmAnd keep in mind that you can’t protest or shut down people who don’t get invited to speak in the first place, which is the most effective form of censorship of all, and heavily skews a fairly-researched sample of protests and shut-downs leftward.
DG says:
{ DG: Either your ideas are strong enough to stand up to opposition or they are not.
That’s a little naive, isn’t it?}
Dude, are you defending the Duke Women’s Center’s censorship or do you just have a strong desire to troll? I suspect the latter, but if you really think its ok for an educational institution to ban speech it doesnt like, please just say so. As a pro-choice person, I do not fear pro-life views or people. That’s because I think not having an abortion is just as reasonable choice as having one. Maybe that’s heresy to the progressive left, which according to a recent NPR report I heard, considers abortion to be “a sacrament”, but hey, it is pro-choice.
March 29, 2010, 3:24 pmLarryA says:
Just what makes you think Republicans are evenly remotely interested in promoting free speech? The Republican reaction to this problem would be to require attendance at the pro-life event, and cancel pro-abortion speech.
March 29, 2010, 3:33 pmSarcastro says:
[I'd say that depends on the Republican. Just as apostasy regarding gun control is becoming more common among rank-and-file Dems, so too is a pro-choice stance among Republicans more accepted (if you don't mind the internets calling you a RINO.)]
March 29, 2010, 3:39 pmOrenWithAnE says:
Alright, but you will have to explain to Bob Jones and St. Mary’s why they have to accept a LGBTerrific! group meeting on their campus spreading their sinful lies.
A statute that imposed it would not be constitutional, whether one that conditions the receipt of Federal money on compliance would fall afoul of the unconstitutional condition doctrine remains to be seen (see, e.g. FAIR v. Rummy).
March 29, 2010, 3:41 pmOrenWithAnE says:
Seconded, so long as the Right gets equal tar for supressing their particular bugaboos. Somehow I doubt DangerMouse really advocates for free speech for baby-killers (although he might, I’m not sure).
March 29, 2010, 3:43 pmDangerMouse says:
Oren,
You wanna stand on a street corner and rant about how great it is to kill babies? Be my guest.
March 29, 2010, 3:49 pmricky says:
Look, folks, the Constitution is a living document. Times change. Freedom of speech might have been a good idea in the 18th century, but haven’t we evolved beyond that as a society?
March 29, 2010, 3:54 pmA. Zarkov says:
The Republicans might not be interested in promoting free speech in the abstract, but since they are generally on the losing end of speech codes, it behooves them to have free speech on campus. It’s just realpolitik.
March 29, 2010, 3:54 pmOrenWithAnE says:
Street corner? I thought we were talking about equal access to University resources.
March 29, 2010, 3:57 pmA. Zarkov says:
They sure can. What do you think campus speech codes are all about? They go beyond mere promotion of one point of view to out and out censorship. Read Bernstein’s book, You Can’t Say That. Or browse the F.I.R.E. website for case histories. Need I remind you that a student/employee was told he could not read a certain book with “KKK” in the title? On his own time during a lunch break.
March 29, 2010, 3:59 pmOrenWithAnE says:
I’m not so sure, given the immense difficulty that the ACLU has been having getting schools in the South to accept LGBT and GSA groups on equal footing, even after Congress mandated it with the Equal Access Act (because intolerant liberals were banning bible-study).
March 29, 2010, 4:01 pmAngus says:
And some of us are waiting for more information before reaching a conclusion. If there are no other circumstances, then clearly Duke was in the wrong. However, if Duke had some reason to believe that the session was going to be disruptive rather than constructive (for example, if the woman planned to throw red food coloring on the crowd while screaming “babykillers”) then as a private university they would have the prerogative to cancel it.
On the other hand, you won’t see many conservatives (nor FIRE I suspect) criticizing the Texas Lt. Governor’s statement in the other case mentioned in this thread:
March 29, 2010, 4:03 pmA. Zarkov says:
Under our new and improved Commerce Clause jurisprudence, Congress can direct universities not to promulgate speech codes or interfere with student expression. They don’t even need to withhold federal funding. Universities draw students from all over the country, and their activities certainly affect interstate commerce. Surely if the Commerce Clause gives Congress the authority to fund universities, it gives Congress the authority the prevent speech codes in a viewpoint neutral manner. This is not about Congress controlling speech, it’s about Congress preventing others from controlling free speech. If Congress says a university can’t have a segregated dorm, why can’t Congress say “no speech codes.”
If you think Congress has the authority to make me buy insurance just because I exist, I don’t see why Congress can’t protect my right to speak out on campus? You want an expansive federal government, you have it. Be prepared to live with the consequences.
March 29, 2010, 4:10 pmArthur Kirkland says:
So long as John Thune (Biola graduate), Michele Bachman (Oral Roberts-now-Regent), Patrick McHenry (Belmont Abbey), Jeff Flake (Brigham Young), Louie Gohmert (Baylor), John Cornyn (St. Mary’s), Jeff Sessions (Huntingon), Trent Franks (Ottawa), Mike Crapo (Brigham Young), Jim Bunning (Xavier), Orrin Hatch (Brigham Young), Tom Coburn (Southern Baptist deacon) and legislators with similar backgrounds are around, Republicans seem unlikely to condition receipt of federal money on academic or expressive freedom on campus.
March 29, 2010, 4:12 pmA. Zarkov says:
That’s an enforcement problem. We have a model: EEOC. Let students sue the university and get their legal fees paid for if they win. Just like civil rights. We could also levy fines on universities with speech codes or even put the administrators in jail. Come to think of it, is not free speech a civil rigtht?
March 29, 2010, 4:14 pmA. Zarkov says:
See my recent post. They don’t need to condition the rules on federal funding. Those Republicans need to be educated to the facts of life.
March 29, 2010, 4:16 pmRichard Nieporent says:
You will get no argument from me OrenWithAnE. I am against censorship from the Left or the Right. The only point I was trying to make was that at one time the Left was the champion of free speech without any qualifications. Now not so much.
March 29, 2010, 4:21 pmChrisTS says:
DG:
Could you provide any info on this?
March 29, 2010, 4:22 pmOrenWithAnE says:
Sure, but the fact that there is an enforcement problem with getting conservative school districts to accepts LGBT and GSAs gives rise to the reasonable inference that, like liberals, conservatives only care about free speech when their ox is being gored.
That is to say, I don’t object one bit to your proposal of conditioning Federal money on repeal of university speech codes (but I’m concerned it might fall afoul of the unconstitutional-conditions doctrine) but I think that conservative (especially religious) universities would oppose such a thing if it meant they have to accept the queers. I mean, BYU’s Honor Code explicitly states:
March 29, 2010, 4:22 pmJim Rhoads says:
I can’t believe that anyone who regularly comments here seriously believes that Duke’s action as reported is an exercise in wise college administration.
March 29, 2010, 4:33 pmShelbyC says:
Read the book, great book. And the Notre Dame v. KKK case was at a public University, IIRC. My point was, all they can do is refuse to do business with you if they don’t like your speech. And private universities seem to be pretty clearly expressive organizations. If states can’t prevent newspapers from hiring/firing people based on their political beliefs, it’s hard to see why schools can’t refuse to do business with you based on the same principle.
March 29, 2010, 4:36 pmA. Zarkov says:
How much money from the feds does BYU get? To repeat myself, I don’t think we need go the funding route, Congress already has the power to stop university speech codes. Now if the members of the stupid party can’t see their self interest, that’s too bad for them. That’s my whole point. Without speech codes, the left loses a lot of power to propagandize our future leaders in their formative years. They know very well how they were able to penetrate the university system, and they don’t want their opposition to do the same thing to them. Ergo speech codes.
March 29, 2010, 4:39 pmChris says:
It’s silly to think the Duke Women’s Center shouldn’t have editorial control over its speakers. How else could you run such a place. If they make choices you don’t like or think wrong, the proper response it to shame them and appeal to their funding sources–in this case Duke, not the Feds. It’s not like we have a free speech problem here in any practical sense. Duke has no monopoly on college and the Women’s Center has no monopoly on speech.
March 29, 2010, 4:43 pmA. Zarkov says:
I’m referring to Indiana University. Read how the employee student was brought up on charges for merely read a book here. Mind you the book was anti-KKK, but that didn’t matter.
March 29, 2010, 4:45 pmA. Zarkov says:
It’s not about your political beliefs. Remember I wrote “viewpoint neutral.” Denying you the right to express yourself, is a violation of your civil rights. Again if Congress can tell a university not to segregate its dorms, then why can’t it tell a university to respect the expressive rights of its students irrespective of the politics of the students. Can a newspaper tell its employees what books they can read on their own time during lunch?
One would think that universities could not operate without speech codes. Well they did. When I was a student there were no codes. But the left wasn’t running the place either.
March 29, 2010, 4:52 pmRandy says:
geokstr: “Tarleton State: Gay Jesus
Why does the left have such a fetish for doing anything they can to bash, smear, and slander Xtianity? Because they can.”
The play in question is by Terrence McNally, one of our leading playwrights. In fact, the Kennedy Center is currently doing a McNallyfest of several of his plays. And if you knew anything at all about the play, you would realize that it isn’t about bashing Christians at all. And if you knew anything at all about Xmas, you would of course realize that the X is an abbreviation of the greek word for messiah that dates to the 16th century in usage.
“I can see how that’s so, like, you know, totally fair and balanced, and stuff.
For every one of these “notorious” cases of “extreme” right wing censorship, I can google a couple thousand from the left.”
You don’t have to look far. The state of OK just prohibited someone’s license plate that says IMGAY because it offends the political correctness of it citizens, who apparently can’t handle such a statement.
OrenwithanE says it best: “like liberals, conservatives only care about free speech when their ox is being gored.”
March 29, 2010, 5:00 pmTed says:
A pro-choice speaker was banned from my (Catholic) university (about 10 years ago). I don’t think it even made the local news, much less caused a “nationwide protest.” I imagine banning speakers that don’t jive with the mainstream beliefs of a schools’ students is fairly common. I believe it is a outgrowth of the narrow speech permitted in public schools. Children who are taught that certain speech is not allowed, learn that certain speech is not allowed. This is a shame, and only serves to make people believe their own ideas are paramount to others’.
I agree that congress should refuse federal funding to private universities that enact speech codes more restrictive than the 1st Amendment allows. I see no constitutional problems with this. I also don’t ever see this happening, because while the left certainly doesn’t want pro-life wackos speaking to their cherished socialists, the right is equally opposed to communist, anti-Christian, demagoguery affecting their young fascists. (I figured I’d jump on the polarizing-language bandwagon.) The reality is, both sides should recognize the harm that speech restriction causes, but they won’t…ever.
There should be no constitutional problems with a blanket ban on receiving funding if the school enacts speech codes more restrictive that the 1st Amendment. This type of conditional seems to be the exact opposite of suppressing speech, and entirely consistent with 1st Amendment principles. What’s most disturbing is that no such arm-twisting should be needed; the benefits of open discussion in a university setting should be self-evident.
Maybe Dangermouse attended an “alternative” school? And notice he didn’t respond to your prediction. I suspect you’re correct about his attitude shifting according the content of the speech prohibited. Which is really ironic — almost paradoxical — when you think about it.
March 29, 2010, 5:03 pmChris says:
Congress can do whatever it wants. They might get overruled by the courts. More likely Congress would determine that it would be damn impractical to tell universities to “respect the expressive rights of its students irrespective of the politics of the students.” Segregating dorms is easy. Hell, saying you can’t fire someone for reading books on their lunchbreak is easy enough. What you are suggesting is not easy and suggests a multitude of undesirable consequences. Certainly that can’t be the case in the classroom. For what it is worth, tenured professors get close to a free pass and there are a lot of people who don’t like that at all.
March 29, 2010, 5:05 pmUrso says:
When I was in college, at a large state university, one of the officers of the history students’ honor society was an extreme Catholic whose views of feminist morality stretched to the point where she apparently believed a woman wearing pants was sinful. She was quite vocally pro-life, including publicly protesting on campus.
At some point she started putting up flyers about a presentation by the society, with the society’s name on it. The professor got word that she was actually planning on showing some apparently graphic pro-life video, although that was certainly not clear from the flyers. He quite rightly shut this down, as she was strongly overstepping her boundaries and politicizing an apolitical club. I don’t believe it was specific to her pro-life views, as I suspect pro-life would be a strong majority at this university. It was based on a desire to avoid controversy. For all we know something similar happened at Duke.
March 29, 2010, 5:07 pmOrenWithAnE says:
Quite a bit, I’m sure, distributed between grants, student aid, scholarships, stipends. See, for instance, the first result from google, or the second and perhaps third.
No one in the physical sciences retains a position without attracting significant independent funding.
Under Boy Scouts v. Dale, they most certainly cannot prohibit private Universities from choosing their students as they please.
Except when it comes to conservative universities and their speech codes?
March 29, 2010, 5:09 pmShelbyC says:
Well, fire just put out a post on the gay jesus thing. Hopefully they get the pants sued off them.
March 29, 2010, 5:14 pmOrenWithAnE says:
(1) Freedom of association is an important part of expression under the 1A, see, e.g. Boy Scouts v. Dale. That is, an organization membership policy is an integral part of their freedom under the 1A.
(2) The doctrine of unconstitutional conditions (handy flowchart) might change you mind. Specifically, a court might reasonably find no “essential nexus” between the speech code and (for example) an NSF grant, being as the speech code has nothing to do with science research.
March 29, 2010, 5:20 pmChris says:
Do conservatives have a problem with the inconvenient correlation between “good” schools and liberal schools? Maybe people in their formative years skew left for reasons other than propaganda. In any case, you don’t have to send your kid to Harvard. You can homeschool to protect them from liberal prop and then send them off to Pepperdine (which is a pretty good school).
March 29, 2010, 5:20 pmTed says:
This is a valid reason? Why would the right to speak freely be valuable if there was no controversy? If everyone agreed with everyone, what’s the point of speaking at all? We could all just nod our heads.
March 29, 2010, 5:23 pmA. Zarkov says:
How is that? If the university publishes a speech code then they are in obvious violation of federal law. If the codes are promulgated in more devious ways then a student files a complaint with the Federal Office of Student Rights. If that doesn’t work, then he sues and gets his attorney fees paid if he wins. You might as well tell me that we shouldn’t have civil rights laws because they would be too difficult to enforce.
March 29, 2010, 5:24 pmChris Travers says:
But what is at issue here isn’t a speech code. I.e. nobody is saying “nobody can express pro-life activities on campus.” It is just a matter of what sorts of events official student organizations can actually expect the college to host.
So your proposal wouldn’t solve this problem, would it? If so, it seems like a solution in search of a problem….
(This reminds me of post-Lori-Drew anti-cyber-bullying statutes which a) were of dubious Constitutional character, b) wouldn’t have reached the behavior at issue in the Drew case, and c) were hyped by rhetoric relating to Lori Drew. “Something must be done! This is something! Therefore we must do it!” That does not make for good policy.)
March 29, 2010, 5:26 pmCJColucci says:
Except when it comes to conservative universities and their speech codes?
Most of them, I think, don’t have speech codes. They don’t need them. They just do as they please about who speaks on campus, rendering protests and shut-downs largely moot. You can’t picket or shout down someone who isn’t there.
March 29, 2010, 5:27 pmEugene Volokh says:
Thanks for the pointers on the Texas incident. FIRE just posted an item on this, which I quite agree with; I just excerpted it at some length.
March 29, 2010, 5:31 pmA. Zarkov says:
Do the Boy Scouts get federal money? Moreover how does not being allowed to restrain free speech in a viewpoint neutral way interfere with freedom of association? Then again universities are way different types of organizations than the Boy Scouts which are more akin to a private club.
Like I said, I don’t think we need the funding route. If Congress can tell a university that it must provide wheelchair access ramps into buildings and lever handles on the office door of the president, then why can’t it tell the university not to have speech codes? What’s more important, wheelchair ramps or free speech?
March 29, 2010, 5:32 pmA. Zarkov says:
I agree my proposal might not address this specific problem, but it would address a larger and more important one. Give me some time and I’ll fix the problem here too.
March 29, 2010, 5:35 pmPerseus says:
The very existence of Duke University’s Women’s Center (with its tedious, hermeneutically-sealed pablum about “critically considering what it means to be sexed, raced, and historically and culturally situated”) is itself an affront to academic integrity, though par for the course at Duke.
March 29, 2010, 5:40 pmChris says:
Civil rights laws are not all good. The reason we have them is that we needed them to fix a greater bad. I don’t see the same problems in higher education. I agree with you that some schools have ridiculous speech codes that I disagree with but it isn’t like there aren’t a billion schools. I don’t see why the Catholics or Mormons can’t set up schools that represent their values.
March 29, 2010, 5:41 pmRandom Wine Geek says:
And this suspicion about FIRE would be wrong.
March 29, 2010, 5:43 pmMalvolio says:
The problem isn’t free speech, the problem is hypocrisy. Duke explicitly claims to be open to all points of view (dunno about the WC) and that does not claim to be the case.
And canceling an event because of “security concerns”? What better way could there be to say, “we’re just a bunch of ‘nad-less cowards — we’ll do whatever you ask so long as you threaten violence”?
March 29, 2010, 5:44 pmOrenWithAnE says:
Boy Scouts v. Dale was a State Law, so there was no question over enumerated powers, only the dictates of the 1A.
The UCD is weaker than the straight rights granted by the BoR, of course, so I don’t see your point at all.
March 29, 2010, 5:44 pmTed says:
I scanned Boy Scouts of America v. Dale. I don’t see how this case undermines Congress’ ability to limit funding (of any kind) to universities without speech codes. I interpret the court’s opinion as limiting Congress’ ability to regulate free association and the freedom expression promoted by that association. Indeed, the precedent cited by the court seems to preclude regulation of private group membership in order to promote speech. Similarly, conditioning funding on the absence of speech codes seems to also promote speech.
I would agree that Dale could invalidate regulations on admissions of certain students to private universities based on their political views, but I don’t see it having the same effect on conditional funding relating to speech codes that neutrally ban limitations on speech. IMO, the paramount function of a university is to explore ideas — their worth and validity — in a variety of ways. Any other characterization would reduce the “university” in question to a church, whose purpose is to indoctrinate rather than educate. If this is the case, then any university activity would, at its heart, be intertwined with the expression of ideas, even its scientific research.
As to the flow chart, I have no comment. I suppose a court could find that NSF funding has no “essential nexus” to Congress’ interest in prohibiting the suppression of speech through university speech codes. Or it might not. It’s depends on the facts. But it seems that if a private university is indeed an “expressive group,” all its activities would have at least some degree of relationship to the expression of its members, i.e. students.
March 29, 2010, 5:53 pmHenry Bowman, MD says:
Oh, come on, Girls! Grow a pair!
March 29, 2010, 5:58 pmChris says:
If that is the case, I agree. I just don’t think it is this big brouhaha people are making it out to be. My suspicion is that the Duke Womens Center is not a bastion of free speech and so skews towards its constituency who probably lean pro-choice. I totally agree that pointing out that they are hypocrites is perfectly acceptable. I just don’t think this is a problem of free expression. The biggest free expression problems on campus are speech codes where you can be disciplined for having heterodox opinions and classes where heterodox opinions drop your grades.
March 29, 2010, 6:00 pmA. Zarkov says:
They can, and they can blanket the campus with propaganda for their viewpoint. They just can’t be interfering with students expressive rights. Let the students and faculty debate theological and any other questions they want.
March 29, 2010, 6:00 pmRandy says:
Malvolio: “And canceling an event because of “security concerns”? What better way could there be to say, “we’re just a bunch of ‘nad-less cowards — we’ll do whatever you ask so long as you threaten violence”?”
I agree. Which is why the Texas college shouldn’t have cancelled the McNally play. I assume you agree.
March 29, 2010, 6:22 pmShelbyC says:
Well, one man’s education is another man’s indoctrination. Churches explore ideas as well, although in a more limited manner (at least we’d like to think so) then universities.
March 29, 2010, 6:23 pmJiffy says:
Does everyone who supports the constitutionality of a federal statute that prohibits speech codes at private universities recieving federal funds agree that university non-discrimination requirements for recognized student groups should be upheld in the Christian Legal Society v. Martinez case?
March 29, 2010, 6:25 pmChris says:
It’s a great dream but I worry about unintended consequences. Can you be sure that speech codes aren’t there to meet student demand and if that is the case do we want to treat universities like tiny states? Can you really compare Duke circa 2010 to Alabama circa 1963?
March 29, 2010, 6:25 pmerp says:
If the left thinks they have all the answers, why are they afraid of opposing ideas?
Kinda like communists countries need to build walls to keep the residents of socialist paradises inside while capitalists strive to keep too many from overrunning their open borders.
March 29, 2010, 6:31 pmAlexia says:
How can you be private when you’re taking public money?
March 29, 2010, 6:42 pmAnonsters says:
Amen.
Between 1961 to 1966, Alabama went 60-5-1, which included three national championships, four Southeastern Conference Championships, two undefeated seasons, and six bowl berths.
What has Duke football done lately?
Roll Tide!
March 29, 2010, 6:44 pmDougInSanDiego says:
Speaking as a long ago Harvard alumni (NOT undergrad), I would NEVER, EVER send my child to the school. Heck – I’d place Harvard lower on the list that Berkeley. Professors have TOO much power over students; allowable thinking and viewpoints are TOO vigorously enforced. One’s very existence in the school is directly tied to accepting the prescribed philosophy. It would be miraculous for a student to go through four years and not be permanently impaired.
Now, I realize that legal clout was the preferred 2×4 used during the civil rights era to force societies, against their will, to desegregate. Perhaps that is the only way to correct the shameful anti-thought requirement of some “universities”. Still, I would prefer a more consumerist solution.
Heck – how could it possibly be that STUDENTS at this alleged institute of higher education would tolerate this absurdity? Are there demonstrations and building takeovers happening at Duke similar to those recently at UCSD (racial)? If not, WHY NOT????
As a minimum, it should be that every high school guidance counselor in the country be alerted to Duke’s culture such that potential applicants know what they would be getting into. As with my choices regarding Harvard, most parents care about their children and many would not send them away to a “Duke-like” college culture. Thus, Duke’s very behavior would lead to it’s deterioration in admission and perceived educational ranking. That’s a nice way for our system to self-correct.
March 29, 2010, 6:49 pmDougInSanDiego says:
Curious parallel to the scandal in Toronto last week regarding Ann Coulter’s evening speach.
First, the Provost (?) sent Coulter a an “open letter” alerting her to the differences in “free speech” in Canada versus the U.S. A not-very-obtuse warning.
Then, the evening of the talk, several thousand ‘angry students’ armed with pre=made anti-Coulter signs (looking strangely reminiscent to SEIU-made anti-TEA-Party signs) surrounded the hall.
The result: speech canceled “out of concerns for security.”
At least in this case the school did not preempt the speech, but rather only clamped down when an ‘angry mob’ showed up. Now, that is NOT what one would hope for in a University – but it’s light years ahead of the cowardly, communistic behavior of Duke.
March 29, 2010, 7:00 pmA. Zarkov says:
The codes could be there to satisfy the demands of some minority, but I doubt that the student body wants them. We once had a university system without speech codes. Do you think tenured faculty will quit and the universities will close up if they can’t suppress free speech? Right now at some place you can’t tell the wrong kind of joke in your dorm room.
March 29, 2010, 7:06 pmMichael B says:
“freedom of inquiry and the free exchange of ideas” as “essential for the fulfillment of the university’s mission,”
Ah, yes, it’s always nice to be in possession of high-toned ideas, avowals and creeds. Practice, now that’s another thing entirely. Something like the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, excepting the authoritarian/totalitarian motif here is far more latent at Duke University, rather than militantly open, overt and widely accepted.
Otoh another comparison comes to mind at Duke: the phony and trumped-up Duke lacrosse players fiasco vs. the other actual case involving Frank Lombard, the school’s (gay) associate director of the Center for Health Policy.
And no, the parenthetical mention that he is gay is not gratuitous in the least, it reflects the PC climate at large, as does the lacrosse case – i.e. what is edited into the news vs. what is elided out of the news: a trumped-up case vs. an actual case and the publicity that surrounded each of those cases (the lack of publicity in the case of Frank Lombard).
March 29, 2010, 7:28 pmRPT says:
As a CLS member who doesn’t agree with all of the organization’s positions, I have the same question.
March 29, 2010, 7:46 pmTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Pro-Life Speech “Upsetting” and “Not OK” for the Duke University Women’s Center -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Eugene Volokh. Eugene Volokh said: Pro-Life Speech “Upsetting” and “Not OK” for the Duke University Women’s Center: The Foundation for Individual Rig… http://bit.ly/cBS3Gu [...]
March 29, 2010, 7:49 pmTed says:
If you actually believe that, I guess you interpret the two words as synonymous. I don’t. I think the “limitation” you describe between churches and universities is exactly what distinguishes those terms, objectively. If you think that distinction is purely subjective, then just admit “anything is everything and nothing.” See where that gets you.
March 29, 2010, 7:58 pmDG says:
I’ll try. It was an interview piece with an extreme feminist religious leader (Christian, I think). I THINK it was in the context of the anniversary of Roe v Wade. Sorry to be fuzzy, but it wasn’t that interesting until she said that, which I thought was a bit much.
March 29, 2010, 8:04 pmShelbyC says:
How do you think universities came to be, as an institution?
March 29, 2010, 8:19 pmShelbyC says:
Back in the day some feminist type made a comment that if men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrement, if that helps.
March 29, 2010, 8:20 pmrastajenk says:
When was that?
March 29, 2010, 8:22 pmRandy says:
Doug: “The result: speech canceled “out of concerns for security.”
Well, I’m sure Malvolio is disgusted that Coulter cancelled out of a lack of having balls.
Michael B: “(the lack of publicity in the case of Frank Lombard).”
Uh, I think the folks at The Huffington Post would disagree that website lacks publicity.
March 29, 2010, 8:25 pmThe Sanity Inspector says:
A long time ago, William F. Buckley said something to the effect that liberals are forever calling for the airing of other views, but are then shocked to discover that there are other views.
March 29, 2010, 8:41 pmMalvolio says:
Yes, and I think I posted something to that effect on that thread. People who won’t defend their rights barely deserve to have them.
If it was her decision, yes, in a strictly metaphorical sense. (Actually, that woman is psychotically combative, so I doubt it was her decision, but if it was, my opinion of her is thereby lowered.)
March 29, 2010, 8:50 pmRandy says:
And Coulter is the ONE woman I would think actually has balls!
March 29, 2010, 8:57 pmAnonymous says:
Liberals have no principles to contradict. It’s not hypocritical if they tell you it’s not. Advising ‘em not to piss on your leg and tell you it’s raining confuses and angers them.
March 29, 2010, 9:00 pmBarbara Skolaut says:
“Duke is a private university, and under current law they can accept federal funding while suppressing speech. But laws can get changed. If the Republicans ever come back into power, they should put conditions on the money the feds give out.”
Better yet, they should permanently cut off all federal funds to all educational institutions, disband the Dept. of Education, and try working under the enumerated powers for once.
Besides starting to follow the Constitution again, there’d be a added benefit of the cost of college going down.
March 29, 2010, 9:06 pmBemac says:
Does anyone at the Women’s Center at one of the nation’s top universities know what “ascribe” means?
March 29, 2010, 9:09 pmDougInSanDiego says:
Nope.
Coulter apparently was pretty peeved, as you can imagine.
The cancellation was done by the university.
March 29, 2010, 9:09 pmwlpeak says:
Tarleton State University is most definitely not in the University of Texas system. It’s an AG school! With a strong focus on ‘education of teachers’.
March 29, 2010, 9:31 pmMark says:
It is hilarious reading posts from people with quotes along the lines of “I wonder what FIRE thinks of the case in TX”, as if they have caught FIRE with some sort of gotcha, in a pathetic attempt to prove FIRE is some rabid right-wing organization. You know, I wondered what FIRE thought of the TX case too, so I visited their website (boy, that was hard) and found this headline at the very top of their blog:
At Tarleton State University in Texas, Heckler’s Veto Thwarts Student Performance
Those awful, rabid right-wingers at FIRE.
It is freakin amazing that someone’s response to the censoring of speech or silencing of speech is to point a finger at the messenger rather than the thin-skinned morons who are actually stifling the speech. Such an impulse also leads to ridiculous moral equivalency as manifested by certain “geniuses” (and man do I use that term loosely) questioning FIRE’s stance on the removal of Thomas Jefferson from TX textbooks (which is false because I am fairly certain he is in those textbooks). Well, since FIRE concerns itself with higher education, I don’t imagine it has much to say about middle school textbooks. But hey, when you are trying to explain away censorship because it is being perpetrated by your ideological cohorts, it can lead to all kinds of stupid and irrelevant questions. Of course such irrelevant nonsense is to be expected from the same idiot who actually claims that examples of right-wing censorship on campus are as numerous as examples of left-wing censorship. The evidence proffered to bolster the obviously ludicrous “case”? Bob Jones and the cancelling of a “pro-choice” speech at a Catholic School. Because what Bob Jones does obviously equals the speech codes at a vast percentage of public colleges today, most of which are run by self-described liberals. That anyone can even make the assertion that right-wing censorship is as problematic and widespread in higher education as left-wing censorship tells me one thing: the individual who issues such a laughably preposterous statement has made a cave his abode for pretty much his entire life.
March 29, 2010, 9:36 pmChrisTS says:
AHHH. That makes some sense. I find it difficult to imagine any woman – especially a ‘religious’ one – saying that abortion actually is a sacrament.
March 29, 2010, 9:39 pmAndy says:
“We had a very strong reaction from students in general who use our space who said this was something that was upsetting and not OK. So based on that, we said, OK, we are going to respond to this and stop the program”
What if the reaction was that students were upset because the hospital was being used to kill babies…and it “was upsetting and not OK”?
March 29, 2010, 9:40 pmI guess no one (with any power to do anything about it) in the administration at Duke even cares…
Heh says:
FWIW, from an interview Coulter gave to O’Reilly:
COULTER: No, I was no — Ottawa, yes. I was nowhere near the building. I was sitting in a lovely Ottawa club with my bodyguard, waiting for them to tell us it was time to come, because you know, they have to get everyone seated. There was a speaker before me. And the cops called my bodyguard and said it’s been cancelled. And then we found out about the commotion. So, among the many crazy things in some of the reports, it wasn’t me, my bodyguard, or my people who shut it down. I didn’t even know what was going on.
March 29, 2010, 9:48 pmjcm says:
Duke is a private university, and is not bound by the Free Speech Clause. (That isn’t changed by Duke’s acceptance of government money.
March 29, 2010, 9:49 pmCitadel?
Michelle Dulak Thomson says:
Mark,
Bravo! I was wondering whether anyone would make that simple test.
Randy,
And Coulter is the ONE woman I would think actually has balls!
Ah, so you belong to the coterie that think (a) Coulter is a tranny; and (b) there’s nothing wrong about mocking trannies. Good to know.
March 29, 2010, 9:52 pmMerlin says:
I would be against any government action against colleges except elimination of speech codes,but they have attacked colleges before. When they lost a court case on enforcing government rules (the college received no federal money)they stopped students from getting student loans.
March 29, 2010, 10:07 pmJeffersonian says:
Oh my, it seems the DUWC has gotten the vapors from all this life-talk. Someone get them a fainting couch!
March 29, 2010, 10:14 pmOrenWithAnE says:
Briefly, if association is a protected right that Congress cannot condition its receipt unless that regulation has some essential nexus between the benefit and the condition. BSA v. Dale fulfills only the first prong of the UCD — establishing that the school has the right to expel members that it does not approve of under their right to freedom of association.
You might want to reread, since Congress didn’t do anything in Dale.
It promotes the speech of the students but severely curtails the right of the school to expressive association.
Those limitation on speech are enforced (ultimately) by separation from the university, which is precisely the kind of expressive association at issue. That is, you cannot “ban limitations on speech” without saying “the university is forced to continue associating with students”.
An admirable view, no doubt, but that’s not relevant. We are not talking about what a university ought to be, we are talking about whether the government can compel them to be that way.
And my understanding of freedom of expression and association (and related freedoms) is that in this fair land anyone is entitled to set up such a institution, no matter how perverse you or I might find it.
I find it hard to believe, it’s not all that factually dependent. My feeling is that a court will either accept the expressive association claim and let the UCD ride with it or reject it outright on 1A grounds.
By this logic, the UCD is entirely meaningless because there is always “some degree of relationship” between the condition and the funding. The doctrine requires quite a bit more.
March 29, 2010, 10:16 pmerp says:
Barbara Skolaut — my sentiments exactly. Get the feds out of our faces. I’m sick to death of their meddling.
March 29, 2010, 10:38 pmArabella says:
I am a Duke grad. I have been designating my alum contributions to the Duke Library. I may have to stop contributing at all.
March 29, 2010, 10:48 pmMichael says:
The Catholic Gospel for Palm Sunday, yesterday, has Jesus followed into Jerusalem by ‘women from Galilee.’ The previous Sunday story has a woman brought into the Temple area and Jesus is confronted with the rule that she should be stoned for adultery. She is set free by the challenge that ‘He who is without sin should cast the first stone.’ Eventually in the common era, marriage became monogamous religiously for Jews as well as Christians. The quote above including ‘use our space’ suggests that something like Mass is performed there and, indeed, a few might see what is attempted here as an extension of women’s escape from possession by a man which Christianity may at times have meant.
March 29, 2010, 10:51 pmjgreene says:
It’s quite simple, this University doesn’t understand what diversity really means. Diversity of opinion is not allowed on a University Campus with a Code of Politically Correct Thought.
Hypocrites! Poor “children” might be harmed by hearing ideas that conflict with their programming. It’s so sad.
Maybe this should be rescheduled during the week when IslamoFascist Nazis from the Muslim Students Association Branch of the Muslim Brotherhood are having a seminar on clitorectomies for coeds.
March 29, 2010, 11:01 pmsetnaffa says:
What if they “refuse to be associated with people who express certain viewpoints” who were coincidentally gay or black? And why is black or gay more protected than white or straight? Shouldn’t we all be treated equally on the campuses of our leading universities?
Those who exhibit bigoted behavior should lose all Federal funding.
March 29, 2010, 11:05 pmChris says:
Which is terrible, but is it really a problem that needs to be fixed by the feds? Why can’t transparency and public shaming get rid of the speech codes?
March 29, 2010, 11:13 pmgeokstr says:
The left invented the codes because they wanted to indoctrinate the young minds into actually believing in Newspeak, which they believe would be doubleplusgood, on the way to manufacturing the New (Wo)Man. They are now so heavily entrenched in the entire school system, from K up, that nothing short of WMD’s will ever get them out.
March 29, 2010, 11:20 pmgeokstr says:
Oh, please. I may have been a devout atheist for the last half-century, but I was raised Catholic and went to Catholic grade school. Traditional Xtianity frowns on homosexuality as I am sure you are aware. Any play with a gay Jesus is bound to be very offensive to very many Xtians, even if it is supposedly just about warmth and love and light and little puppies. Might as well do one about how Jesus married May Magdalene and had a bunch of little rugrats and lived happily everafter in a loving home and then wonder why the Xtians got p*ssed.
Oh, wait…
I don’t use the short form Xtians to mean anything about Xmas; I just use it to save keystrokes, under which I include all the various sects like Catholics and Protestants, et al.
Gosh, that’s two case of fascism from the right already. How about we google “speech codes”, or “campus protests”, or “speaker shouted down” and see how many sites refer to right wing radicals suppressing leftwing speech?
Well, I call BS. Anybody who says that the school system, from the bottom grades up to the top, are not heavily liberal, is ideologically blindered. Every survey of professors, particularly in the -ology and -ism departpartments, when they are asked to self identify their philosophy, who they voted for and what party they donate to, are overwhelmingly left. So it is quite evident that sometimes one side’s ox gets gored far more than the other.
And, since you rarely hear liberals complain about how they get treated in universities, that in itself tells a lot about who’s getting gored most of the time there.
March 30, 2010, 12:09 amDougInSanDiego says:
BRAVO!
THERE, FINALLY, is someone voting with their wallet/pocketbook.
A MUCH more elegant – and probably effective – solution than, “Let’s sue the bastards!”
March 30, 2010, 2:17 amRandy says:
geokstr: ” Any play with a gay Jesus is bound to be very offensive to very many Xtians”
And such Christians are free to avoid the play if they are so offended. Why the need to prevent others from seeing the play?
March 30, 2010, 2:42 amRandy says:
“How about we google “speech codes”, or “campus protests”, or “speaker shouted down” and see how many sites refer to right wing radicals suppressing leftwing speech?”
Yes, how about we do some research? If you do, you will find that consistently conservatives seek to strike any language or speech that “promotes homosexuality” anywhere in schools or other public places. Although that might seem reasonable on its face, in practice what they really always seek is to prevent any mention of homosexuality at all unless it is described as evil, a ‘deathstyle’ or all the supposed bad things that gays are all about. In other words, a simple statement that gays exist is considered a ‘promotion of homosexuality.’
Moreoever, many schools fight the establishment of Gay Straight Alliances — hardly the support for liberty or free flow of ideas. Many schools networks block availability to any website that even mentions the words gay or homosexuality. I know of several schools in the Washington suburbs that tried to prevent the distribution of The Washington Blade, a newspaper for the gay community. (And no, there is nothing lewd about the newspaper — just the usual reporting of news).
And need I mention the fact that the Texas Education Board just changed the curriculum to strip it of anything that doens’t fit a conservative viewpoint?
So yeah, conservatives do a great job in trying to stifle liberal ideas, especially when it comes to gays. And in fact, even on this thread, you see many people applauding the fact that the play was shut down.
March 30, 2010, 2:53 amDavid M. Nieporent says:
Jibe. Jibe. Jibe. Jibe. Jibe. Not Jive. Speaking of free speech, if I have to kill every living person on the planet who uses this word incorrectly, I am willing to make that sacrifice.
March 30, 2010, 4:28 amDavid M. Nieporent says:
With all this talk about a law banning speech codes at private institutions, nobody has yet commented on the fact that California already has such a law, the Leonard Law.
March 30, 2010, 4:43 amMBC says:
As a private institution that accepts government money, they can not discriminate on the basis of race, religion,…or national origin. To the extent the pro-life views represent religion, Duke could have a problem. Moreover, the official policies of the University may very well represent a type of contract between Duke (and its women’s center) and every student (or at least the parents paying the bill). Again, Duke may face liability. They should be sued and the officials named personally.
March 30, 2010, 8:12 amzipity says:
So…they have a constitutional right to Federal funds…..?
March 30, 2010, 8:48 amOrenWithAnE says:
And many modern Xtians dispute that frowning, as I am sure you are aware.
Out here in the physical sciences, things are far more balanced. I’d say they track the overall population in this region, actually.
As to the sociology and women’s studies depts, of course they are heavily liberal by self-selection. It’s the nature of sociology that conservatives have little interest in (or patience for) it. Economics departments and business school, on the other hand, tend to skew conservative, since liberals generally have little interest in (or patience for) economics or business.
Then you don’t read much about the ongoing protests at BYU much (google for BYU SoulForce) for instance.
I’m not saying that the conservative ox is not frequently gored, I’m saying that this is ripe for a comprehensive solution because the interests of those that value free speech are almost totally aligned. FIRE does fairly well because they have built a credible reputation of being against all ox-goring, they would not succeed if they appeared to be ideological instead of principled.
March 30, 2010, 9:44 amShelbyC says:
As I said upthread, their right to federal funds can’t be conditioned on giving up their right to expressive association.
March 30, 2010, 10:07 amShelbyC says:
Interesting, I had forgotten about that. Seems like kind of an odd law, on its face it appears to protect, say, religious students who shout down the biology professor during evolution class. It’s also worded kind of funny: “…communication that, when engaged in outside the campus or facility of a private postsecondary institution, is protected from governmental restriction by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution…”
Speech is, of course, equally protected on or off campus.
I still think it’s an expressive association violation.
March 30, 2010, 10:18 amSarcastro says:
[Except as per Dale expressive association has to go to the core values of the institution in question, IIRC. It is at least arguable that Duke's core values are not pro-choice.]
March 30, 2010, 10:20 amShelbyC says:
Yeah, I remember the dissent in Dale disagreeing with the BSA about what its core values were. I can see expressive association law taking a really ugly turn if court’s don’t give a large amount of deference to organizations in determining what its “core values” are. What if Duke decides it wants to adopt pro-choicity as a core value? How can it do so in a way that meets judicial scruitny? Is there a limit to how many core values an organization can have? Why would the first amendment protect core values but not other values?
March 30, 2010, 11:40 amTed says:
March 30, 2010, 11:54 amNR says:
I’m a liberal and don’t care if women want to kill their unborn babies, but Duke’s attitude stinks. Seriously, students are traumatized? Feminists are such drama queens. They should get a fucking grip.
March 30, 2010, 1:37 pmSarcastro says:
…
March 30, 2010, 1:42 pmChris says:
As long as speech codes aren’t forced upon private institutions by the government, I don’t see what the problem is. You can’t really write a constitution using terms like “the left”. As long as the left isn’t imposing things with police power to back them up they are just a subset of “the people.”
I buy that, but is it really a good idea to pass laws that target particular institutions. Why not impose the same rules on private businesses?. For the most part (although I concede to being no expert here) Civil Rights laws and the ADA are pretty general with some carveouts.
March 30, 2010, 2:12 pmCJColucci says:
Gosh, that’s two case of fascism from the right already. How about we google “speech codes”, or “campus protests”, or “speaker shouted down” and see how many sites refer to right wing radicals suppressing leftwing speech?
If that’s how you plan to research this issue, you’re going to run into a problem. You can’t protest or shout down people who don’t get invited to your campus in the first place, and you don’t need a speech code to keep outsiders outside or even to discipline students — except in places that bother about having rules and procedures in order to do what they want done. Examples of the most effective forms of ideologically-motivated speech suppression will slip through your google net, and your results will be skewed, probably in an ideologically-predictable direction.
March 30, 2010, 3:44 pmMichael B says:
Michael B: “(the lack of publicity in the case of Frank Lombard).”
Right, Randy, compared to the Duke lacrosse players situation, the massive national publicity; the witch hunt and general presumption against the lacrosse players due to the racial, class based and misogynist cast of the situation; the professoriate at Duke that readily joined in the presumption and witch hunt, and not only at Duke; etc.
And black is white, and white black.
March 30, 2010, 9:52 pm