The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a group whose accounts I have generally found quite accurate, reports (see here for the version with links):
In violation of its own policies, New York University (NYU) is refusing to allow a student group to show the Danish cartoons of Mohammed at a public event tonight. Even though the purpose of the event is to show and discuss the cartoons, an administrator has suddenly ordered the students either not to display them or to exclude 150 off-campus guests from attending....
Earlier this month, the NYU Objectivist Club decided to hold a panel discussion entitled “Free Speech and the Danish Cartoons,” at which the cartoons will be displayed.... Like previous NYU Objectivist Club events, the discussion was to be open to the public.
However, on Monday afternoon, NYU Director of Student Activities Robert Butler sent an e-mail requesting a meeting with the leaders of the Objectivist Club the next day. He also informed them that NYU would now “require that this event be open only to members of the NYU community.” Butler cited “the campus climate and controversy surrounding the cartoons,” ordering the students to inform the “non-NYU people” who had already registered that they “should not plan on attending.” He concluded, “This is not negotiable.”
Following the meeting, Butler sent another e-mail clarifying that the students have two choices: they must either not display the cartoons, or not allow anyone from off campus to attend the event. Approximately 150 off-campus guests are currently registered to attend....
NYU is a private institution, and is thus legally free to limits access to its property however it pleases. But most private universities have generally understood their mission as including enriching the intellectual lives of their students and fostering debate among students, including by helping the students spread the message to the broader community. FIRE reports that NYU has indeed accepted this view: "NYU’s own policies recognize student groups’ right to open events to the public." Events focusing on the Mohammed cartoons should be no less protected by NYU's policies than events focusing on other controversial ideological questions, whether involving race, sex, class, politics, or religion.
Now I understand that NYU might be concerned about the risk of vandalism or violence that might flow from events that display and discuss the cartoons. But it seems to me that leading universities should be at the forefront of defending speech against those who would suppress it, rather than giving in to the vandals' and thugs' heckler's veto.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Message from the NYU Provost About the Mohammed Cartoons Matter:
- How True!
- NYU President Sexton on Academic Freedom:
- We Are All Danes Now, Continued:
- NYU's Explanation of Its Actions:
- NYU Violated Its Own Expressed Policies in the Cartoon Case:
- Latest NYU Panel Development:
- NYU Mohammed Cartoons Event Effectively Closed to the Press:
- Seemingly Troubling Behavior from NYU:
Yep, no subway to get the protesters to the event. Besides, it's not as if they could find parking even if they drove there.
If you want an analogy, America is generally "safe for Jews" because Jews are generally treated with respect here, and generally not discriminated against -- even though American law does not suppress anti-Semitic speech. One can both praise respect for Jews and at the same time criticize coercive suppression of anti-Semitic speech (both if it is done by law and by private university policy). In fact, both David and I would do both.
The comments there have been getting ridiculously venomous, but Charles and his readers are still producing interesting links not available otherwise. Essentially, a post with > 200 comments will be useless, but the longterm readers have good sources and info. No comment can be accurately attributed to suppoprters or detractors of a site, and both left and right have been attacking and trolling each others sites, just as they have been since ARPAnet days.
However I must quibble with your gloss on Prof. Bernstein's question. If Prof. B was really only asking for universities where conservative views are treated with respect and not punished, then the correct answer would be "every university in America, save a terribly small handful, and many of them only if you give apocryphal evidence unusual credibility." But of course there's a canon of interpretation not to interpret to have an unreasable meaning where a plausible alternative will give it a reasonable meaning. You and I both know what Prof. Bernstein meant, that there are universities that are "safe" for conservatives, and a not-insignificant number that are not "safe" for conservatives.
Now of course there are, and there have been, and there likely will continue to be instances of universities that have punished conservative viewpoints, just as there are, have been, and will continue to be instances of conservatives vilifying the Dixie Chicks, New Yorkers being cruel to New Jersey, Coloradans poking mean-spirited fun at Texans and Californians, Dylan fans despising Donovan, and Red Sox fans saying unkind things about Derek Jeter. But the country is still "safe" for Dixie Chicks and Texans and overrated professional shortstops, and I take it from your analogy to America being "safe" for Jews that you'd excuse these incidental failures as well. (After all, the widespread acceptance of our people and the general rejection of anti-Semitism does not mean that no one tells an anti-Semitic joke or draws an anti-Semitic cartoon.)
So... yes, I was sloppy. But your apologia of Prof. Bernstein goes a little too far. And if you weren't making a joke at Prof. B, well, you should have been.
-Jake
Goober: is it not really blatantly obvious which of these examples is fundamentally different from the others, and why?
But if you have a distinction in mind that you'd like to share, please let me know. As it is, I doubt it's a distinction-with-a-difference, but I'm happy to consider.
It's a brownshirt's veto.