I've got family in town, so blogging will be light over the next few days. But here are a few pieces that caught my eye:

--An Associated Press piece on the history and legality (or lack thereof) of campus free speech zones

--A Chicago Sun-Times piece announcing that the FBI will be investigating a series of racist incidents on Northwestern's campus. In recent months, a number of racist and sexist slurs have been written on the dorm room doors of black students and one Indian student; swasitikas have appeared on the doors of Jewish students. There's more on the story here, and the Daily Northwestern has been following the incidents, covering campus "anti-hate" initiatives and demonstrations, and demanding strong administrative action for months.

--And an Oregon community college that is considering adopting what looks an awful lot like an unconstitutional speech code.

The last paragraph of the AP piece linked says it all to me:

"Sidney Buchanan, a law professor at the University of Houston, argues that speech zones can pass constitutional muster if they are administered fairly. He said the Supreme Court has never explicitly listed universities among other traditional public forums and therefore speech is not as protected as it would be on public streets, on sidewalks and in parks."
(emphasis added)

What in the HELL is a University campus supposed to be if not a public forum for debate and learning?

"What in the HELL is a University campus supposed to be if not a public forum for debate and learning?"

Learning, certainly, along with research. "Debate" of the sorts discussed here - as opposed to directed instruction - is a much trickier question. Certainly it has been commonplace for students to use university campuses as protesting grounds, but I'm not convinced that's what the universities were designed for.

I actually agree with your point Xrlq, I was admittedly being provocative. But I would argue that taxpayer funded Universities, at least, are a public forum.

Inside a University classroom, no of course it does not have the same level of free speech protection as the sidewalk, it's an instructional setting.

But to maintain that a sidewalk on a public university has less free speech protection than any other sidewalk is an insult to all taxpayers, and reveals much about the attitude of the academy.

Free speech for me but not for thee indeed.