That is a great ad, and I hope its placement gives makes schools consider free speech a little more seriously.

Todd Tucker must be ecstatic for the ad.

Trouble is, FIRE's 'gentle touch' corrects the immediate problem but leaves the violators free to violate again... and they do. I still think a good try at putting one Dean in jail, successful or not, would be an excellent way to encourage all the rest to take student rights more seriously.

Not until a dean or a college president is faced with a substantial monetary judgment will this sort of "no thinking allowed here" conduct be squelched.

It should be a front page story on every newspaper in America.

Good to see someone fighting PC-Nazis on campus. Not very surprising to see Brandeis University on the top of the FIRE's red alert list.

Yea, LTR, alphabetical order definitely correlates with the degree to which the institution is deserving of contempt.

@Roger Ford

It's still a five-way tie, don't you think?

I am disheartened to find my undergraduate alma mater still on FIRE's Red Alert list. Recently, whenever they have called asking for money, I tell them "not until they get off of FIRE's list".

They can be shamed, and they can be pressured by alumni and others, but I suspect that any law (federal or state) that attempts to regulate their treatment of students and faculty would itself be found to violate the First Amendment.

California has had the "Leonard Law" since 1992 that forces private post secondary institutions to respect the first ammendment rights of students. The law allows for students to seek civil relief and attorney's fees.

I can respect FIRE's approach, but universities have deep pockets and I think a case could be made that some of these speech restrictions violate the contracts the universities make with students when they promise to allow free inquiry and speech.

It's here. Read the letter that the Affirmative Action Officer sent to the guy. It's flat out hillarious.

California has had the "Leonard Law" since 1992 that forces private post secondary institutions to respect the first ammendment rights of students. The law allows for students to seek civil relief and attorney's fees.

I can respect FIRE's approach, but universities have deep pockets and I think a case could be made that some of these speech restrictions violate the contracts the universities make with students when they promise to allow free inquiry and speech.

Is there any case law here? (So far as I know the speech-code cases dealt with public institutions.)

California has had the "Leonard Law" since 1992 that forces private post secondary institutions to respect the first ammendment rights of students. The law allows for students to seek civil relief and attorney's fees.

Seconding the case law question. You'd think the "leonard law" would violate the 1A itself, no? Private post secondary institutions are inheriently expressive organizations. If I want to start ShelbyC's school for people who believe X, I have an expressive association right not to admit people who believe Y, correct?

Is there any case law here?

Cory v Stanford
Students sued Stanford for its speech code using this law and won.

After reading the original documents, it is clear that the ACLU-IN did have a major part in righting the wrong suffered by Mr. Sampson. But it must be unnerving to have both ostensibly left and right organizations telling you are wrong. It begs the questions of exactly how competent the office of affirmative action is at that school.

Quick research suggests a janitor, rather than a student, was involved. Censoring a janitor's reading on campus is no better than censoring a student's reading, but this appears to be another point of sloppiness by FIRE.

The person was a student worker. So more sloppiness on your reading comprehension skills than on FIRE.

FIRE has repeatedly stated that when private universities like Bob Jones are explicit that they do not respect the first ammendment or care about freedom of speech that they are not FIRE's concern. FIRE cares about public universities that have to respect free speech and about private universities that claim to respect freedom of speech. Students at Liberty University or Bob Jones for instance know what they are getting into when they enroll there since the schools make it very clear what their standards are and they are blunt about their policies restricting student speech and behavior. This distinction seems too complex for many of FIRE's critics to understand

FIRE has repeatedly stated that when private universities like Bob Jones are explicit that they do not respect the first ammendment or care about freedom of speech that they are not FIRE's concern. FIRE cares about public universities that have to respect free speech and about private universities that claim to respect freedom of speech. Students at Liberty University or Bob Jones for instance know what they are getting into when they enroll there since the schools make it very clear what their standards are and they are blunt about their policies restricting student speech and behavior. This distinction seems too complex for many of FIRE's critics to understand

When did Brandise, Hopkins, and Tufts become private? I'd also like to see the quote where Bob Jones, Liberty, etc stated that they "don't respect the first amendment" (I know they're not bound by it legally as private institutions, but "respect" seems to imply something different).

Any reasonable student going to Brandise or Hopkins should also know full well that there going to an institution with a strong adherence to PC speech restrictions, what sort of notice is necessary before it is considered sufficient? Are there any left leaning schools that fall within this exception?

I should have noticed it before (being an anime fan), but I've never seen the series myself. When I heard the name elsewhere it didn't jell, until someone casually mentioned it here a while back and it went completely unnoticed: Calling yourself "Arthur Kirkland" is the equivalent of going to a place where you know nobody's seen Star Wars and calling yourself Luke Skywalker.

Arthur Kirkland is a character from the series Axis Powers Hetalia. The premise of the series is that countries are anthropomorphic characters. Countries are called by their country name but also have a more normal sounding name; Arthur Kirkland is the name for England, which is a cute boy with a crush on another cute boy, America. I am not making any of this up.

When did Brandise, Hopkins, and Tufts become private? I'd also like to see the quote where Bob Jones, Liberty, etc stated that they "don't respect the first amendment"

As far as I know Bradise Hopkins and Tufts have always been private so this question makes no sense to me. If you when did they become public, they are private universities that claim to respect students free speech rights.

Here is Bob Jones Student Expectation page which bans among other things pornography, lewdness, and dancing, and requires chaperons for mixed gender events and requires students to attend nightly prayer meetings.

I am sure that Bob Jones University likes the first ammendment as it allows it to freely assoicate and preach what they wnat, but they are very upfront that certain behaviors normally protected by the first ammendment at public univeristies and permitted at private universities including speech, religious expression (or lack of), and private associations are forbidden at Bob Jones.

(both kings died in England in the same year, indeed two weeks apart, in battles and their names differed by one vowel)

Given FIRE's selective vindication of the First Amendment on campuses, perhaps its 'worst of the worst' list should be attended by an asterisk, to reflect the pass provided to the numerous institutions whose suppression of academic freedom and personal liberty is of a flavor more appealing to conservative and dogmatic tastes. Otherwise, it strikes me as false advertising (but effective fundraising fodder).

The reports I found most quickly identified the reader as a 58-year-old janitor. He also is a student, but most sources provided that information later or did not provide it, perhaps because the book was not assigned reading and was being read at work. A news editor would identify this fellow as a janitor first, student a distant second; FIRE's choice is defensible, although not optimal.

I believe you have the wrong Arthur Kirkland, Ken. I am sure the other Arthur is a splendid fellow, but the real one is easily found, and worth meeting.

pass provided to the numerous institutions whose suppression of academic freedom and personal liberty is of a flavor more appealing to conservative and dogmatic tastes.

And which ones would those be? (Aside from the private institutions who don't claim to support academic freedom, which FIRE says it's not concerned with?

And which ones would those be? (Aside from the private institutions who don't claim to support academic freedom, which FIRE says it's not concerned with?

The point is that by excluding the dogma-enforcing, speech-suppressing, liberty-flouting likes of Hillsdale and Liberty and Grove City, FIRE makes its "worst of the worst" label severely misleading and compromises the value of its list.

The point is that by excluding the dogma-enforcing, speech-suppressing, liberty-flouting likes of Hillsdale and Liberty and Grove City, FIRE makes its "worst of the worst" label severely misleading and compromises the value of its list.

There is nothing bad about a private organization exercising its first amendment right to freedom of association. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a private entity suppressing speech, nor does that in any way flout liberty. Other people exercising their liberties in ways you do not approve is hardly flouting liberty.

FIRE it quite clear that they hold public institutions to the Constitution and they hold private institutions to their word. This is, IMO, the appropriate standard for both. The taxpayers should get compliance with the law. Private organizations should keep their word.

I have been unable to find at FIRE's website a statement of policy that would excuse certain repressive institutions from FIRE's opprobrium. Can anyone help?

This report, for example, would seem to warrant such a disclaimer, yet I can not find one. Failure to include an appropriate disclaimer would place this report somewhere between misleading and worthless on the credibilty continuum, so I hope it is there but eluding my attention.

FIRE it quite clear that they hold public institutions to the Constitution and they hold private institutions to their word.

Presumably published speech codes at private institutions would amount to public declarations that certain speech is off limits, and therefore the limits are perfectly acceptable to FIRE. However, FIRE does not agree when it comes to "sticking it" to liberal academics whenever they can.

It's almost funny that a group put together by conservative donations, staffs mostly conservatives, has almost all conservatives on its advisory board and board of directors (including embarrassing members like CORE's Roy Innis), and nearly always focuses on defending conservatives gets all huffy if someone accurately labels FIRE conservative.

I'd be a lot more supportive about FIRE if I felt they were being more honest about things. (And didn't take credit for things the ACLU did, like in this ad)

ArtherKirkland,

Please read more carefully. The report you cited clearly states on page 02, entitled "Methodology," that private institutions which place other values above freedom of speech are excluded from the report.

NOT RATED
When a private7 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.8
Of the 364 schools surveyed
in this report, FIRE rates 356
schools as red, yellow, or
green light, and has not
rated 8 schools.9

AK

Suggestion: read carefully, think, comprehend.

If I understand FIRE's position correctly, it disregards infringements of academic or personal freedoms if an institution plainly states a policy of infringement . . . except when FIRE dislikes a particular stated policy, in which case it yells "speech code" and excoriates the policy.

Right, exactly. The thing is, you have yet to point out what's wrong with that.

They have a set of rules. They complain about the things that violate those rules. They don't complain about the things that don't. There rules are reasonable.

If you want to argue there rules are unreasonable, you are free to do so. However, I already responded to that argument, and you have yet to respond to my response.

If you want to argue that they don't follow their own rules, you are free to do so. However, you have not done so yet.

So long as their rules are reasonable, and they follow their rules, what exactly is the issue?

You're simply describing their application of their own rules as determining whether they "like" or "don't like" things so that it seems arbitrary or slanted.

It's unfortunate and misleading that the ad suggests that ND is the school involved in the worker incident and that it does not aknowledge the ACLU's role. FIRE, pretty clearly is not to be trusted.

angus:

What ArthurKirkland seems to be saying (and me as well) is that the rules they lay out are flexible enough to shift when FIRE wants them, so that they could criticize a "liberal" institution while giving a pass to a "conservative" institution for the same thing.

It's worse than that. It's that FIRE simply ignores their own rules when it come to a place like Liberty University. MrJustice noted that FIRE said this:

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.

I notice that FIRE explains that Liberty University is off the hook because LU has said this (describing their "distinctive" attributes):

4. An uncompromising doctrinal statement, based upon an inerrant Bible, a Christian worldview beginning with belief in biblical Creationism, an eschatological belief in the pre-millennial, pre-tribulational coming of Christ for all of His Church, dedication to world evangelization, an absolute repudiation of "political correctness," a strong commitment to political conservatism, total rejection of socialism, and firm support for America's economic system of free enterprise.

5. Behavioral standards which include the prohibition of drug, alcohol and tobacco use, coed residence halls, and sexual promiscuity.

6. A modest dress code, reasonable curfews and respect for authority.

[...]

10. Required attendance at convocations and chapels three times weekly. Our student body also attends church services weekly, although church attendance is voluntary. A perpetual spirit of revival pervades the campus.

Where in those words does LU say, "clearly and consistently," that "it holds a certain set of values above a commitment to freedom of speech?" Which words say that, "clearly and consistently?" Where can those words be found? They're not there.

Are we supposed to assume that free speech is rejected because Christianity is embraced? Who said that Christianity rejects free speech? I thought it's the Islamists who want to end free speech.

And it's not just that such a statement (rejecting free specch) is absent. The contrary statement is present. LU says it has "a strong commitment to political conservatism." "Political conservatism" does not embody a commitment to freedom of speech? Really? Feel free to argue that point. And "America's economic system of free enterprise" also embodies a commitment to freedom of speech. And "an absolute repudiation of 'political correctness' " is also a statement in support of freedom of speech, because "political correctness" is all about biting your tongue to avoid offending someone.

But FIRE does not deal with this. They simply say "there is no mention here of free speech." For a moment, let's assume that statement is true. But if it's true, then LU has not met FIRE's own policy regarding exceptions. Because FIRE's policy is looking for a university that "states clearly and consistently that it holds a certain set of values above a commitment to freedom of speech."

According to FIRE, LU didn't even mention "free speech." But if I am trying to state clearly and consistently that I hold a certain set of values above a commitment to freedom of speech, how can I do that in the form of a statement that doesn't even mention free speech?

It's like saying that someone has to state "clearly and consistently" that they oppose abortion, and then presenting a statement which doesn't mention abortion as proof that they have stated "clearly and consistently" that they oppose abortion. The internal contradiction is glaring.

Aside from that, the LU statement did mention free speech (by implication), except in the wrong direction. LU supports political conservatism and free enterprise, and it opposes political correctness. Those are all indications of support for free speech.

Meanwhile, Brandeis says this:

RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES

In the University community it is essential that safeguards be provided for each community member's freedom to teach and freedom to learn. In protection of these freedoms, the University must establish certain standards of personal conduct. The University may apply sanctions or take other appropriate action when the conduct of individuals interferes with the freedom to teach and learn …

Students are … accountable for offenses against the academic community. … These policies and procedures are set forth in writing in order to give students general notice of community standards. … Students who violate campus or community standards may face Conduct action at Brandeis and/or the host institution.

The University reserves broad latitude in defining and interpreting standards of behavior, and in construing these policies and procedures.

(Emphasis added.) And look further at a section called Core Values:

• Respect - Our community is one in which care and concern for ourselves and one another are of paramount importance, and our words and deeds reflect our appreciation for theory and practice, institutions and individuals, tradition and innovation. …

• Civility - Regardless of difference in opinion or background, our conduct must demonstrate courtesy and compassion, and reflect our recognition of the dignity of every human being. …

• Embracing Diversity - Because our lives are richer the more we are exposed to a full range of people and experiences, we celebrate human diversity, and strive for the broadest representation of perspectives in all that we do.

Six "Core Values" are mentioned. Freedom of speech is mentioned this many times: zero. The word 'free' appears in any form, this many times (among the Core Values): zero.

According to FIRE, LU is off the hook because "there is no mention here of free speech." Guess what: the same applies to Brandeis.

FIRE has said this about LU:

our evaluation of Liberty University indicates that Liberty is actually quite open and straightforward about its values, and respect for unfettered freedom of expression does not appear to be among them

Trouble is, Brandeis is also "quite open and straightforward about its values, and respect for unfettered freedom of expression does not appear to be among them." The six Core Values announced by Brandeis pointedly do not include "respect for unfettered freedom of expression." The six Core Values announced by Brandeis do include Respect and Civility, to be interpreted with "broad latitude." This is a warning to any student that they need to look elsewhere if what they want is "unfettered freedom of expression."

Where would a student be likely to find "unfettered freedom of expression?" A place that supports political conservatism and free enterprise and opposes political correctness and socialism is exactly where I would expect to find "unfettered freedom of expression," right? Unless someone wants to come along and argue that socialists support free speech and conservatives don't. I just can't wait to hear that argument.

FIRE is a joke.

Sure FIRE is selective, but no organization (the U.S. government included) is big enough to cover everthing. FIRE has to prioritize. It it reasonable to go after Brandeis and not Liberty because it is more likely to change behavior at Brandeis than at Liberty. You pick your battles.

As a San Antonio Spur fan and of George Hill, UIPUI is a public university, therefore is under the cited Indiana law, and is pronounced Oo-ee-poo-ee.

Also, UIPUI is shorter than Notre Dame.

It is fine for FIRE not to go after the universities that freely advertise that they don't respect the freedom of expression. It is also very nice of them try to "name and shame" the ones that claim to do so through press releases about each one individually. However, if it is going to publish a list of "worst of the worst" universities violating these freedoms, it should include the ones that perform these violations openly at the top of that list. They might put an asterix that indicates their openness about it. Otherwise, it is quite misleading for the readers who will be given the impression that Brandeis is worse than even Bob Jones or Liberty.

The ad is exquisite. Congratulations to whoever designed it and whoever gave the go-ahead at FIRE to publish.

@Arthur Kirkand and JBG, you want them to be inconsistant so bad you can taste it, don't you?

They go after instituions that claim to support academic freedom on the one hand, and suppress it on the other. What would be the point of saying, "Hey, Bob Jones suppresses freedom of expression in order to promote a Christian world view!!!" Bob Jones would just say, "Yup, that's what we do."

But Brandeis, for example, probably would claim to disagree with the statement that "Brandeis suppresses freedom of expression in order to promote a PC worldview". Many universities that have speech codes claim that they don't have speech codes. So if FIRE believes that they do, they call them out. Not very complicated, unless you are so caught up in an ideological lens that you don't see things clearly.

Always enjoy your comments, JBG. Thanks as always.

tatil:

It is fine for FIRE not to go after the universities that freely advertise that they don't respect the freedom of expression.

Except that LU (for example) does not "freely advertise that they don't respect the freedom of expression." Unless you want to claim that socialists respect free speech and conservatives don't. Because LU claims to embrace conservatism and reject socialism. LU also supports "an absolute repudiation of 'political correctness.' " Which is another indication that they (allegedly) respect free speech.

Let us know when you find the place on the LU site where they "freely advertise that they don't respect the freedom of expression." I don't understand the assumption that Christianity inherently rejects freedom of speech. Is that what the social conservatives mean when they say the US is a Christian nation? Are they trying to tell us the US is a place that rejects freedom of speech?

On the other hand, Brandeis, unlike LU, explicitly states that they value Civility and Respect. Which is indeed an announcement that this is a place to avoid if you're looking for "unfettered freedom of expression."

===============
danger:

God forbid that Brandeis is smacked down for punishing someone for reading a book.

There's nothing wrong with Brandeis being smacked down. It would just be a lot better if some of the smackers weren't brazen hypocrites.

===============
shelby:

What would be the point of saying, "Hey, Bob Jones suppresses freedom of expression in order to promote a Christian world view!!!" Bob Jones would just say, "Yup, that's what we do."

I haven't paid close attention to what Bob Jones says on their site, so I'm not interested in switching examples. For the moment let's stick with LU.

LU does not acknowledge that they 'suppress freedom of expression in order to promote a Christian world view.' On the contrary. They explicitly claim support for "political conservatism." There is a problem here, unless you want to claim that suppressing free speech is a principle of conservatism. If support for free speech is a principle of conservatism, then LU has announced their support for free speech.

But Brandeis, for example, probably would claim to disagree with the statement that "Brandeis suppresses freedom of expression in order to promote a PC worldview".

The Brandeis Core Values statement clearly communicates that Respect and Civility are a priority, which means that those values sometimes have to take precedence over "unfettered freedom of expression."

And let's note that your argument embodies the idea that political correctness is a form of suppressing freedom of expression. If you did not believe that, you would not have written the words you wrote ("Brandeis suppresses freedom of expression in order to promote a PC worldview"). Trouble is, LU supports "an absolute repudiation of 'political correctness.' " Now, you can either claim that political correctness is not a form of suppressing freedom of expression (i.e., you can contradict your own statement), or you can admit that LU (allegedly) supports freedom of expression. You don't have any other logical choices.

Not very complicated, unless you are so caught up in an ideological lens that you don't see things clearly.

The one who is failing to see things clearly is you. Feel free to answer the many questions I asked which no one has answered.

===============
virginia:

The University may apply sanctions or take other appropriate action when the conduct of individuals interferes with the freedom to teach and learn …

That sounds like a pretty resolute committment to free speech to me

"Freedom to teach and learn" is not necessarily the same thing as free speech, or unfettered free speech. I think Brandeis would say that when unfettered free speech interferes with their values of Respect and Civility, that you have interfered with someone's freedom to teach and learn. Because an atmosphere of Respect and Civility is a prerequisite for feeling free to teach and learn.

===============
slim, thanks for the kind words.

an absolute repudiation of "political correctness," a strong commitment to political conservatism, total rejection of socialism, and firm support for America's economic system of free enterprise.

And you say that is consistent with suppression of free speech? Hypocricy is seldom so transparent.

An uncompromising doctrinal statement, based upon an inerrant Bible, a Christian worldview beginning with belief in biblical Creationism

Maybe I need to learn more about the "Christian worldview," but I didn't realize it rejects the concept of free speech. Can someone point me to the Bible and show me where it's written?

I thought it's the crazy Muslims who are trying to outlaw cartoons and other forms of speech. The "Christian worldview" also embodies that offensive concept? I had no idea.

And let's note that your argument embodies the idea that political correctness is a form of suppressing freedom of expression. If you did not believe that, you would not have written the words you wrote ("Brandeis suppresses freedom of expression in order to promote a PC worldview").

No. Just because it's possible to suppress freedom of speech to support X worldview doesn't mean that X worldview involves the suppression of freedom of speech.

No, Liberty University doesn't state explicity that its application of its interpretation of Christian values is more important than freedom of speech for its students. It doesn't need to. No reasonable person could look at the pervasive restrictions Liberty imposes on student life and expect that its religious mission doesn't trump freedom of expression, academic freedom, and free association.

For example, the Liberty statement quoted by FIRE references a "modest dress code." Liberty's code of conduct illustrates what that means to Liberty:

Standard of Dress for MEN
Hair and clothing style related to a counterculture (as determined by the Student Conduct Review Committee) are not acceptable. Hair should be no longer than the middle of the ear. Hair should be cut in such a way that it will not come over the collar or eyebrows at any time. Ponytails for men are unacceptable. Earrings and/or plugs are not permitted on or off campus nor is body piercing.

Standard of Dress for WOMEN
Hair and clothing styles related to a counterculture (as determined by the Student Conduct Review Committee) are not acceptable. Dresses and skirts should be no shorter than the top of the knee (sitting or standing). Skirt slits should be modest; open slits should be no higher than the top of the knee, closed slits should be no higher than two inches from the top of the knee. Shoulder straps should be no less than two inches wide. Anything tight, scant, backless, see-through, low in the neckline or revealing the midriff (in any position) is immodest and unacceptable. Slips should be worn under thin material. Earrings and plugs are permitted in ears only. No other facial piercing or plugs are allowed, including tongue.

Dress code violations are punishable by 4 reprimands and a $10 fine under Liberty's reprimand and fine based disciplinary system. Other activities are subject to more severe sanctions. For example, attendance at, or possession or viewing of an "R" rated movie or participation in an unauthorized petition or demonstration are punishable by 12 reprimands and a $50 fine. Upping the ante, possession or viewing of an sexually explicit movie, obscene, profane or abusive language, or being present in a motel room with a member of the opposite sex without permission are all punishable by 18 reprimands, a $500 fine, and 18 hours of community service.

Restrictions on student associative and expressive activities deemed inconsistent with Liberty's interpretation of acceptable Christian behavior represent a pillar of Liberty's code of conduct. And it makes no claims that freedom of expression or association or academic freedom are important values that contradict that position, which is unusual for a college or university and represents a statement of relative value in itself.

Just because Liberty doesn't state "We care more about our religious values than we do free expression" doesn't make its position any less clear.

JBG:

Maybe I need to learn more about the "Christian worldview," but I didn't realize it rejects the concept of free speech. Can someone point me to the Bible and show me where it's written?

I thought it's the crazy Muslims who are trying to outlaw cartoons and other forms of speech. The "Christian worldview" also embodies that offensive concept? I had no idea.

I know you are aware of crazy fundie Christians and some of their beliefs, so this is just trolling. LU, FIRE, and you all understand what their statements on religion are code for. The fact that you can identify other possible Christianities has little to do with the one these people have chosen.

And since you bring up their dedication to conservatism, how does that compare to Brandeis and its stated dedication to diversity of perspectives?

I just don't see why FIRE is so hated by the left. When they point out 1st Amendment violations, are they doing something wrong or immoral?

Nah, they just are dishonest in claiming that they are non-partisan, when they usually only support conservative students and look the other way when liberal students get tromped on. In other words, to neutral observers they are motivated as much by the politics of campus culture wars as by a principled defense of free speech.

Anyway, this entire thread is strange. I just don't see why FIRE is so hated by the left. When they point out 1st Amendment violations, are they doing something wrong or immoral? People compare them with the ACLU like it's a highlander situation and there can be only one, so we have to choose. We don't. Both can exist, and I think that both can do good.

The libs hate FIRE because FIRE stands up for Christian organizations being able to select their own membership, for instance. Libs hate Christains and want state universities to be able to squash those kinds of organizations. Just take a look at some of the "top cases" that FIRE is involved in:

https://www.thefire.org/cases/topcases/

Most of their cases involve protecting students that satarize or criticize liberals or leftist causes. Libs can't stand dissent (it's not the highest form of patriotism to dissent from liberalism), as witnessed by their numerous attempts to impose speech codes on campus, institute speech codes via the Fairness Doctrine, etc., so FIRE is anathema to them.

Of course, libs have no problem protesting and criticizing issues and organizations that THEY don't like. So it's a bit rich for partisan libs like Arthur, Juke and others to complain that FIRE is hypocritical. Liberalism is the embodiment of hypocrisy, because for decades now a big part of liberalism has been about suppression of speech that is incompatible with its precepts.

Why any professor would associate with an organization that takes credit for others' work, [...] or states falsehoods

But isn't your statement that they take credit for other's work demonstrably false? They clearly state what work they did, and what work the ACLU did. They take credit for the final letter, but I can't see where they're taking credit for the ACLU's letters. Before you accuse others of stating falsehoods...

There seems to be a trend here to arguing that FIRE is flawed and therefore its efforts are despicable, where their real sin is a lack of ubiquity (and forcefulness, IMHO). But surely others could carry the same torch into other places.

If FIRE is biased, then the solution is to set up a similar group with complementary biases. If FIRE does good where it does anything, then, say, WIND could do the same good where FIRE is absent.

Presumably published speech codes at private institutions would amount to public declarations that certain speech is off limits, and therefore the limits are perfectly acceptable to FIRE. However, FIRE does not agree when it comes to "sticking it" to liberal academics whenever they can.

Published speech codes would indeed say that, except that because the schools also claim to respect free speech, the "published speech codes" are virtually all vague, making it impossible to tell what exactly is allowed and what is forbidden, amounting to a denial of due process (something FIRE also focuses on).

It's almost funny that a group put together by conservative donations, staffs mostly conservatives, has almost all conservatives on its advisory board and board of directors (including embarrassing members like CORE's Roy Innis), and nearly always focuses on defending conservatives gets all huffy if someone accurately labels FIRE conservative.

It focuses on defending people on campus. Since campuses are overwhelmingly liberal and PC, conservatives are more likely to need assistance. However, FIRE does not discriminate in who it defends. And your claim that it has "almost all conservatives on its advisory board and board of directors" is the actual lie.

I do not propose that private institutions be required to abandon their speech-suppressing, dogma-inflicting principles. I do not see a principled reason for FIRE to give them a pass, however.

Then you're not too bright. It's not a violation of anybody's rights for a private institution to hold people to previously announced standards. People go to Bob Jones because they want an institution that does these things.

If one is going to list "the worst of the worst" among entities that discriminate against Jews in employment, it would make sense to list the state of Minnesota, or Exxon or Apple (if those entities did discriminate against Jews); it wouldn't make any sense to list the Catholic Church, even though it definitely does. The Catholic Church is open in acknowledging that it prefers many of its employees to actually be Catholic.

The problem with places like Brandeis, et al., is that they tell prospective students that they're all about academic freedom, open inquiry, etc., but then do a bait-and-switch after students get there.

And you say that is consistent with suppression of free speech? Hypocricy is seldom so transparent.

Of course it's consistent with the suppression of free speech. Conservatives believe in private property, and on private property -- such as Bob Jones or Liberty -- private property owners can allow or forbid whatever speech they want.

The problem with places like Brandeis, et al., is that they tell prospective students that they're all about academic freedom, open inquiry, etc., but then do a bait-and-switch after students get there.

Based on the material that JBG posted, there's no bait and switch. Brandeis never says or implies that students have unfettered freedom of speech, and in fact it clearly warns students that they'll face sanctions if they violate administratively defined conduct norms.

I've always liked FIRE. I'm happy when anyone protects free speech, whether or not that organization defends all cases or only cases from one side of the aisle. All 1A protection is good.

Still, if VC commenters are right that FIRE fights attempts to establish pc speech codes, that means liberal schools can never get the "Bob Jones" exemption. How is Kucinich U supposed to warn students what to expect without establishing a speech code?

FIRE can decide who it wants to exempt. But be honest about it.

jukeboxgrad:

"I want them to make their actions congruent with their stated policy, or vice versa."

Why is that so important to you? Why not judge them on the the good (or the bad) they have done. As far as I can see, they have helped a lot of students-- what's wrong with that? Not that I necessarily agree with your assertion about their fidelity to stated policy. Can you name one case where you think they supported the wrong side?

@jukeboxgrad, ArthurKirkland, and others bashing FIRE:

You really should take a look at their website. And by that, I mean read it. As someone who's seen their work up close at UNC, I think that the negative comments are undeserved.

1. Regarding FIRE's nonpartisanship: http://www.thefire.org/article/7975.html

2. Regarding Brandeis University's violation of Professor Donald Hindley's Freedom of Expression and Academic Freedom: http://www.thefire.org/article/8854.html

3. Regarding Liberty University &FIRE's expectations of private universities: http://www.thefire.org/article/10689.html

4. FIRE has often worked directly with state ACLUs, and was co-founded by a former President of the Board of the ACLU of Massachusetts. Further, the ACLU of Virginia’s position regarding Liberty University was the same as FIRE’s: http://www.acluva.org/opeds/Jun22009LibertyUniversity.html.

It is false to claim that FIRE has somehow "taken the credit" for the ACLU-IN's work in the IUPUI case. The ACLU-IN's work was acknowledged in FIRE's victory press release. (http://www.thefire.org/article/9255.html) The ACLU-IN's letters to IUPUI administrators are hosted on FIRE's website. (http://www.thefire.org/case/760.html) Keith John Sampson, the student-employee, has stated that FIRE's involvement cleared his name fully ("I really believe if it wasn't for FIRE, I would never have received an apology letter from Chancellor Bantz"; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZHnB3jyrHI at 10:40.)

@ArthurKirkland:
"Why any professor would associate with an organization that ... slants research methodology dogmatically, or states falsehoods -- all bad acts in the world inhabited by professors -- eludes me."

You mean, except for all the other organizations that various professors associate with which provide slanted research methodology, dogmatism, and blatant falsehoods? As organizations go, any acts by FIRE which approach these points pale in comparison to myriad other organizations professors proudly associate with.

And pointing out what you just pointed out is also irrelevant. Where did I say someone had to use that "exact phrase?" Answer: nowhere. Try responding to what I've actually said, and not some straw-man fantasy you pulled from your imagination.

Where did I say that you said that someone had to use that exact phrase? Answer: nowhere. I didn't say that. (See how far we can play this game?) I said that you were holding them to that standard, without explicitly stating it, which is what you do in this post. The fact that you were doing so without explicitly stating it doesn't make your pattern-matching approach any less incorrect.

By the way, here's a hint which would clear up all your confusion: FIRE, as a legal-focused organization, doesn't focus on advertising copy, but on actual school policies (e.g. here (*)). Vague statements on a website about "respect" as a "value" don't overrule a formal statement of policy under which a student can be disciplined. (In fact, even within the four corners of a formal policy, vague statements about "respect" are problematic to FIRE, as they provide no real notice to students as to what expression is allowed or might lead to discipline.)



(*) Which are the sorts of documents you should be looking at. Not generic statements on the website.

The ACLU-IN's letters to IUPUI administrators are hosted on FIRE's website. (http://www.thefire.org/case/760.html)

Not all of them. In particular, the ACLU's March 24 letter written before FIRE's involvement is not. This is the letter that caused the Chancellor to respond. The above ad FIRE does take credit for the ACLU's work. This is similar to thier taking credit in thier own year end review, without acknowledging the involvement of the ACLU.

"... a strong commitment to political conservatism, total rejection of socialism ..." would seem to me a clear statement that the College Democrats would not be supported, and that anyone considering the school would be aware of that. (I might quibble with whether or not the Republicans meet that standard, but it is at least debatable.)

The problem with your analogy is that nobody consents to be tortured. If the countries not on the list only tortured those who freely consented to be tortured, your analogy would be perfect, but it would also show precisely the opposite of what you want it to show.

David, legally one cannot consent to an assault. This is why early prize fights were sometimes prosecuted as crimes.

I am sure that some of those pointing to FIRE's supposed hypocrisy would tell you that no one can rationally consent to receive a Christian education or to be taught from a perspective of conservative politics.

elocke:

"... a strong commitment to political conservatism, total rejection of socialism ..." would seem to me a clear statement that the College Democrats would not be supported, and that anyone considering the school would be aware of that.

I see your point, but the problem is that it's not clear. I think it can be read both ways. A reader could say either of the following:

A) LU says they have a strong commitment to political conservatism. This means they wouldn't allow a Dem club on campus, because the Dems are opposed to conservatism.

B) LU says they have a strong commitment to political conservatism. This means they would allow a Dem club on campus, because conservatism embodies the idea of free speech. And the LU statement repudiating political correctness also implies support for free speech. Likewise for the LU statement expressing support for free enterprise. Free enterprise requires free speech.

The problem is that there is ambiguity. Meanwhile, FIRE's policy is this:

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.

Since a reader has good reason to be confused about whether to choose A or B, the "clearly and consistently" condition is not met. On the other hand, if you want to grant broad latitude with regard to "clearly and consistently," then the Brandeis statement about Respect and Civility can also be seen as "a certain set of values" that take precedence over a pure "commitment to freedom of speech."

It looks like FIRE is trying pretty hard to construct an excuse for LU. Trouble is, constructing a similar excuse for Brandeis requires no greater effort.

FIRE defends LU by saying "respect for unfettered freedom of expression does not appear to be among" the values expressed by LU. But where does Brandeis express "respect for unfettered freedom of expression?" Where does any college do such a thing? I'd love to see an example. What Brandeis implies is what I think most colleges probably imply, which is that freedom of expression is never "unfettered," and there are always going to be valid reasons for imposing limits. This is also what common sense tells us.

And consider the following reciprocal situation, which takes your argument and puts the shoe on the other foot. Many or most universities show support for AA, in both their words and actions, right? And the GOP generally opposes AA, right? Imagine that one day University A decides to derecognize the campus GOP club, because the GOP opposes a stated policy of the school: to promote AA.

FIRE would have a fit, right? But how is it different from what LU did?

=================
yankev:

neither Iran nor Saudi Arabia promotes PC speech, but neither of them allows freedom of expression

They don't promote PC speech, but they also have not said that they believe in "an absolute repudiation of 'political correctness.' " And if they did make that statement, we would laugh at them, because "an absolute repudiation of 'political correctness' " implies support for free speech.

PC speech codes are simply one means of restricting free speech, not the only means nor the most brutal

You are correct that "PC speech codes" are just one of many ways of suppressing free speech. But if someone tells me they support "an absolute repudiation of 'political correctness,' " it is fair for me to infer that they support free speech.

It's amazing that some people seem to have trouble grasping this. Pay attention to an article written by FIRE's two founders. The whole premise of the article is that political correctness (as reflected in speech codes) is a threat to free speech. And that's why we see the following definition:

Political correctness is censorship endangering free speech by limiting what is acceptable public discourse, especially in universities and politics.

If you can come up with a better definition of political correctness, I hope you'll tell us what it is.

Conservatives have announced over and over again that political correctness is wrong. Why? Because it's a threat to free speech. (Try some googling with variations on the phrases 'politically correct' and 'freedom of speech' and you'll see countless examples of how conservatives connect these two ideas.) Then comes LU, announcing that they absolutely repudiate political correctness. And this does not imply that they support free speech? That's a bit ridiculous.

Political correctness has a certain accepted connotation. JBG is ignoring that connotation and using PC to mean any restriction on expression.

No, I'm not "using PC to mean any restriction on expression." I'm using PC to mean the commonly used definition of PC, as I just cited, and as implied in the article written by FIRE's founders.

What do you think PC means? I think there are really only two possible definitions you can choose from:

A) Political correctness is censorship endangering free speech by limiting what is acceptable public discourse, especially in universities and politics.

B) Political correctness is censorship endangering free speech by limiting what is acceptable public discourse, especially in universities and politics. But only when those limits are imposed by liberals. Because "limiting what is acceptable public discourse" is only a problem if liberals are doing it.

I think you are explicitly arguing for your right to ignore definition A and use B instead. Do you really not see how absurd that is? It's like saying censorship isn't censorship if I happen to share the political views of the censor. Or like saying racism is only racism when white people do it.

And here's what your phrase "a certain accepted connotation" really means: 'we're so used to accusing liberals of promoting political correctness that we have no capacity to even contemplate the logical possibility that the accusation could be accurately applied to a conservative.' Or to realize that a conservative who allegedly repudiates political correctness should not be taken seriously when they proceed to impose their own flavor of political correctness. FIRE decided to be blind to this contradiction, which is a reason to not take FIRE seriously.

Yes, FIRE has taken some cases which put it in a position to claim nonpartisanship. But these seem to be exceptions. Therefore I don't find the claim very convincing. What I find more relevant is that most of their funding sources are right-wing foundations. As the saying goes, follow the money.

1) Why on earth would that be "more relevant" than what they actually do?
2) That link, as is so often the case, does not actually show anything like what you claim it shows. Even if it were a reliable source -- which obviously it isn't, as it's some sort of ideological wiki -- it does not even purport to show "most of their funding sources."

You should explain that to FIRE, because what they cited here to support their argument were what you call "generic statements on the website."

False as usual. They cited that as an illustration of Liberty's lack of commitment to freedom, not as their criterion for determining it -- something which, contrary your implication, that link you cite does not purport to be. There is a difference between citing something as an illustration of a phenomenon and using it as the basis for evaluation. They also cited "The Liberty Way, Liberty University's student code of conduct."

The main problem with your argument is that, contrary to your pathetic "gotcha" approach to life, this link is a press release, not a legal brief. FIRE is explaining its conclusions, not trying to prove them to a tribunal.

But that's not honorable or sincere, and FIRE should not be winking at LU's insincerity.

It should be ignoring it entirely; FIRE couldn't care less about LU's "honor" or "insincerity," and neither could I. It's not the slightest bit relevant to FIRE's mission, which, as the name implies, is about "individual rights in education," not "judging the moral character of people who run universities."

That page is interesting in that it helps expose your hackery, however; you pretend that FIRE gives a special pass to right wing institutions that don't value freedom, but in addition to Liberty, it cites Bard -- a left-wing institution -- as one to which it does not hold to a free speech standard.

I said nothing to imply that I was holding them to a standard of using an exact phrase, and your claim that I was is a pure straw man.

Your post implied that you were holding them to a standard of using an exact phrase. Unfortunately for you, you're not the Supreme Court, you don't get to judge everyone else while denying anybody else the ability to judge you.