FC: More on FIRE and the state of America's campuses after Sep. 11

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

********

From: "Gabe" <stryfer () mediaone net>
To: <declan () well com>
References: <20011024162932.C22187 () cluebot com>
Subject: Re: FIRE on post-Sep. 11 attacks on liberty on America's campuses
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 18:38:43 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal

> * At Central Michigan University, an administrator told several students
to
> remove various patriotic posters (an American flag, an eagle, and so on)
> from their dormitory.  On October 8, a Residential Advisor told them that
> their display was "offensive," and that they had until the end of the day
to
> remove the items. As one student said, "American flags or pictures that
were
> pro-American had to be taken down because they were offensive to people."
> FIRE has contacted President Michael Rao, along with the Board of Trustees
> and officials in the Office of Residential Life, to insist that this
public
> institution not violate its students' free speech rights.  FIRE awaits his
> response.


I attend Central Michigan University, live in the same dormitory complex,
and have been following this issue closely.  At first glance it seems as if
this is a reasonable issue for FIRE to pick up, but in actuality, it has
been blown out of proportion by rumor and word of mouth.  Flags are *not*
forbidden, in fact there are many outside my door.  Displaying Anti-Arabian
propaganda, such as many of those e-mail forwards we consider to be in bad
taste, are discouraged.

As always...what is an e-mail without a link:
http://www.cm-life.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2001/10/24/3bd64f07b5998

--Gabriel Friedmann

********

From: John Firebaugh <jfire () uclink berkeley edu>
To: declan () well com
Subject: Re: FC: FIRE on post-Sep. 11 attacks on liberty on America's campuses
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 13:58:18 -0700
In-Reply-To: <20011024162932.C22187 () cluebot com>
Cc: thor () thefire org

On Wednesday 24 October 2001 01:29 pm, you wrote:
> PHILADELPHIA, PA---Across the nation, in response to the atrocities of
> September 11, 2001, and to the debates and discussions that have occurred
> in their wake, many college and university administrators are acting to
> inhibit the free expression of the citizens of a free society.

Here at the bastion of liberalism, the University of California, Berkeley,
we're so "PC" that we don't even need university administrators to act as
censors -- the students do the job handily. A faction of the student body has
decided to label any condemnation of any group's culture "racist hate speech"
(excepting condemnations of western culture, of course), and taken it upon
themselves to censor the expression of any argument they disagree with. This
group disrupts scholarly talks and debates by shouting down the speakers,
snips microphone wires at rallies, steals copies of the independent school
newspaper, The Daily Californian, and in general makes an embarrasment of my
school.

later,
John

********

From: "Richard Day" <raday () olg com>
To: <declan () well com>, <politech () politechbot com>
References: <20011024162932.C22187 () cluebot com>
Subject: Re: FIRE on post-Sep. 11 attacks on liberty on America's campuses
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 21:12:16 -0400

Why is it some people just don't seem to understand the right to speak ones
mind?  I wonder sometimes if it isn't better to just ignore someone that
persists in making ridiculous statements.  Sometimes all it does is to make
the matter worse to make a federal case out of it.  How many people must
have said they would like to bomb the pentagon?   I know I sat in a lot of
meetings and thought these people are nuts.  The speech by the Post Master
General saying they were going to irradiate all mail except the junk mail
and magazines was an example of saying too much.  Now the terrorists know
they have to go after the junk mailers and magazines.  Why didn't he simply
say we are going to irradiate the mail and let it go at that.  I know he
didn't call it junk mail rather he refered to mass mailers or something like
that.  When they want to know where is the money to come from fro
irradiating the mail I say raise the cost of the junk mail and that will
more than pay the freight.   My next door neighbor is putting a trash barel
out at the community mail boxes so we can just throw the junk mail in the
trash barrel and not bring it into the house.   I am sure that will make the
junk mailers very happy.  Regards Dick

***********

Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 00:16:24 -0400
To: declan () well com
From: Rich Cowan <rich () organizenow net>
Subject: Re: FC: FIRE on post-Sep. 11 attacks on liberty on America's campuses
In-Reply-To: <20011024162932.C22187 () cluebot com>

Declan,

I want to challenged some of the assumptions behind the FIRE material that
you posted today.

  * At Central Michigan University, an administrator told several students to
> remove various patriotic posters (an American flag, an eagle, and so on)
> from their dormitory.  On October 8, a Residential Advisor told them that
> their display was "offensive," and that they had until the end of the day to
> remove the items. As one student said, "American flags or pictures that were
> pro-American had to be taken down because they were offensive to people."
> FIRE has contacted President Michael Rao, along with the Board of Trustees
> and officials in the Office of Residential Life, to insist that this public
> institution not violate its students' free speech rights.  FIRE awaits his
> response.

Regarding the Cent. Mich U incident, it does not state where the posters
were displayed.  If the posters were on a student's dormitory door,
I find it highly unlikely that the administration would have complained.
This needs to be stated, otherwise this example is weak, unless
of course the statement that the display was "offensive" can be
substantiated.  There are many dormitories in this country where you
can't get away with setting up a display in a public space, whether
it is pro-war or whether it is antiwar.  If this example refers to
a public space, than for some reason FIRE is singling out an instance
where only a prowar public space was criticized.  It would be interesting
if FIRE devoted the same kind of scrutiny it devotes to public colleges
to private conservative institutions like Liberty U and Hillsdale College.


> * At the College of the Holy Cross, in Massachusetts, the chair of the
> department of sociology, Professor Royce Singleton, demanded that a
> secretary remove an American flag that she had hung in the departmental
> office.  The flag was in memory of her friend Todd Beamer, who fought and
> died on the hijacked United Airlines Flight 93 over Pennsylvania.  When she
> refused, Singleton removed it himself.  After unfavorable publicity, the
> College apologized, but the flag in question was moved to the department of
> psychology.

Regarding the Holy Cross incident, it appears from the writeup that the
flag was displayed not on the desk of a secretary, but in an office area
shared with professors.  It also seems that the professor in question
was not proud of his country's actions, and therefore did not want to
have the flag displayed.  Now, this may be an unpopular position,
but it is well-documented that the United States of America helped to
finance (and possibly even subsidized the flight training) of the very
terrorist networks that hijacked flight 93.   So someone who is aware
of this financing, or of US indirect support for the Taliban, etc. might
not feel that the symbol of the U.S. government is the most appropriate
symbol for honoring a victim of the appalling acts of September 11.

If the professors don't want the flag displayed in the public space, why
should they be forced by conservative activists and the media to have it
displayed?  On the other hand, the professors probably should have shown
some sensitivity to their secretary, even though they outrank her and
ordinarily would have the final say.  The blurb here doesn't mention
whether the secretary forwarned her superiors of her planned action to
put up the flag, or whether the fact that the flag was placed there to
commemorate one particular victim was made clear.  My point is that it
is fair game for those folks who are not especially proud of what the
flag has represented to be critical when those folks who are proud of it
make the assumption that everyone else shares that identical view.
Where is it written in the Constitution that if your intention is to
display Old Glory, normal channels you might go through before
displaying any other symbol or ornament are automatically waived?


The danger with the FIRE approach (note that FIRE did not provide an "action"
number and email for their sole article defending the right to express
antiwar views) is that it creates a climate where people feel they
can usurp the normal procedures of any institution in order to take an act
that expresses support for war, or for spending money on the military, etc.

So you have the president creating an "executive order" to create a
department that is anticipated to have a budget over $100 billion.  And
you have another "executive order" saying that the CIA gets another $1
billion in secret funding over which Congress exercises virtually no
oversight.  What ever happened to Article I, section 9 of the US constitution
which states in Clause 7 that:
"No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of
Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts
and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time."

Generally I might have little problem with challenging the established
authority; the problem is the double standard, where the official engaged
in social welfare activities who bends the rules to help "the cause" gets
no support, whereas the official engaged in military-related activities is
labeled a freedom fighter.

I know that groups like FIRE get plenty of funding from conservative
foundations that are themselves tied to the military.  See, for example,
http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any_recipient.asp?1994
But this is no excuse for FIRE latching on to a campaign that only
encourages folks with a particular political view to express those views
in a manner that challenges authority.  If you are really about free speech
and you want to defend one side's right to challenge authority, then it
only makes sense that you need to also defend the other side when it
also challenges authority.

Otherwise, you are advocating a slanted playing field under the guise of
countering bias.

Please feel free to post this.

-rich

[I understand that critics sometimes attack FIRE for being too 
"conservative," as if that accusation means their views should be 
automatically rejected. In reality, (this is from memory) Harvey is the 
former head of the Massachusetts chapter of the ACLU, currently serves on 
their board, and writes a column for the hardly-conservative Boston 
Phoenix. The truth is that defending freedom on college campuses is not, or 
at least should not be, a left-right issue. --Declan]

***********




-------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------