Interesting People mailing list archives
Re: UCSD Chancellor bans 'disparaging' email and re: Stanford's
From: David Farber <farber () central cis upenn edu>
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 13:17:07 -0500
From: jmc () SAIL Stanford EDU (John McCarthy) Date: 14 May 1993 01:23:22 GMT FREE SPEECH PROTECTED IN SCHOOLS Linda Seebach Students in California have a new defense against over- zealous administrators out to ensure that no one is offended, ever. A section added to the state's education code in January guarantees students the same First Amendment rights on campus that they have off campus. The law applies to both public and private colleges and universities (with a narrow exception for schools operated by religious denominations), and even extends down into the high schools. To ensure that schools pay attention, the law provides that students who sue their institutions for infringement of their free-speech rights and win can collect court costs and attorney's fees. Two institutions have settled suits filed by students rather than risk an almost certain loss in court. At California State University, Northridge, officials lifted a 14- month suspension imposed on the fraternity Zeta Beta Tau for fliers advertising a Mexican theme party that mentioned "Lupe," the title of a vulgar song about a Mexican whore. The fliers did not quote the song, but it had earlier caused an uproar at UCLA, where it had been found in a (different) fraternity's songbook and published in a feminist magazine. Campus activists had demanded the expulsion of the Northridge fraternity from campus, and greeted news of the settlement with demonstrations and protest vigils. Occidental College agreed to rewrite its sexual harassment policy to be consistent with the First Amendment after students in the Oxy chapter of Alpha Tau Omega filed suit against the college and several individual professors. The policy went beyond the usual definition of sexual harassment to forbid written and spoken material that offended a third party who happened to come in contact with it, as well as voluntary relationships that might cause someone else to perceive a possibility of prejudicial treatment. ATO had been threatened with a variety of sanctions for a limerick published in its newsletter and a "nude run." Although the college administration had agreed to take no action against the fraternity for its poor taste in poetry after its attorney informed them of California's new law, agitation for punishment had continued. Attorney John Howard of San Diego acted for the students in both cases. Howard, who likes to describe himself as a "First Amendment vigilante," took the cases _pro_ bono_ for the Individual Rights Project, which is sponsored by the Center for the Study of Popular Culture. The Center also publishes the irreverent monthly magazine "Heterodoxy," under the editorship of David Horowitz and Peter Collier. ____________________________________________ Linda Seebach is a writer for the Los Angeles _Daily_ News_. She wrote this article especially for _Measure_. -- John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305 * He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense. ---------- A recent Calif law (SB 1115, 1992) added the following language to the California Education Code. "(Chapter 3.3, Section 94367) Private postsecondary educational institutions shall not make or enforce any rule subjecting any student to disciplinary sanctions solely on the basis of conduct that is speech or other 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 Consitituion or Section 2 of Article 1 of the California Constitution."
Current thread:
- Re: UCSD Chancellor bans 'disparaging' email and re: Stanford's David Farber (Feb 06)