Robby Soave at Reason has the story; here's the opening, but you should read the whole thing:
Iowa State University has reaffirmed the free speech rights of conservative students initially under fire for tweeting an edgy comment—thus provoking the ire of several ISU journalism professors who demanded the students be punished.
A few days after the 2020 election, the Twitter account of ISU's College Republicans made this statement: "Everyone, you must arm up, expect these people to try to destroy your life, the elites want revenge on us."
The tweet may have been hyperbolic, but it did not endorse violence. It did not call for violence or encourage armed resistance. At most, it was a trollish right-wing talking point alongside a call to purchase guns.
Nevertheless, ISU interpreted the tweet as a "suggestion of armed activity," in possible violation of university policy. An ISU spokesperson told The College Fix that the matter would be investigated.
This drew the attention of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), which defends the free speech rights of students and faculty members. In a letter to ISU, FIRE correctly explained that the tweet was protected by the First Amendment, and the public university could not punish conservative students for their sentiment. "Although the university may legally punish 'true threats'—serious expressions of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence against a particular individual or group of individuals—it may not punish expression that fails to rise to this narrow category of unprotected speech," wrote FIRE….
The university rightly backed off, but two professors decided to demand speech suppression in response:
On November 12, Assistant Professor Kelly Winfrey and Associate Professor Novotny Lawrence of ISU's journalism school circulated a petition signed by more than 750 students, faculty, and alumni. "We are appalled that the Iowa State University administration has decided it will not invoke disciplinary action on…the Iowa State University College Republicans … for a tweet that, having nothing to do with the political nature of the organization, incites violence and creates a campus climate that feels threatening to and isolates students, faculty, and staff of marginalized and historically oppressed populations," they wrote. "Privileging the free speech of those causing harm over the safety of the historically marginalized members of our community furthers the damage."
Here are the key parts of the university's response, which strikes me as generally quite right:
Demand 1: Punishing student organizations
At the core of this demand is a disconnect between the law and First Amendment freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution, and the desire by many in the campus community to punish those whose comments are hurtful to others.
Iowa State University, as a public institution, has a total and complete obligation to abide by the First Amendment. Its five freedoms – religion, speech, press, peaceful assembly, and petitioning the government for redress of grievances – are bedrock principles upon which our nation was founded...
Demand 2: Changes to the Student Code of Conduct
Student codes of conduct at other universities that have attempted to punish students for speech deemed "hateful," "derogatory," "threatening," "insensitive" or described with other such terms have consistently been struck down as unconstitutional...
No comments:
Post a Comment