Emory University is becoming an unwittingly excellent example of why campus speech codes are an awful idea. You'll recall how exercised the campus became last fall when anthropology professor Carol Worthman described herself and her fellow biological anthropologists as the "niggers in the woodpile" of the profession. Worthman was charged with harassment under Emory's discriminatory harassment policy, found guilty, and formally sanctioned. So was the entire anthropology department, which was sentenced to sensitivity training, presumably for the crime of having Worthman in their midst. When some cried foul, arguing that Worthman's comment fell within the bounds of academic freedom and deploring the punishment of an entire department for one professor's protected if offensive speech, Emory administrators backed down a bit and made the sensitivity training voluntary. You'll also recall how, as a result of the Worthman flap, the Emory faculty determined to revisit the question of whether the university should have a speech code--and then tabled the issue at the meeting where the vote was supposed to take place. And you'll recall how the Emory Wheel undercut its courageous coverage of the Worthman incident by secondguessing its judgment, apologizing for printing the "n-word" twenty-five times, and promising not to engage in such harmful and offensive reporting again.

So it's been a bad year for Emory on the race front, and it's just getting worse. Last week, after a three hour debate, the Emory College Council voted not to grant the College Republicans the $5000 it would cost to bring David Horowitz to campus to speak. Why? Because the last time Horowitz spoke at Emory, he hurt people's feelings by disagreeing vociferously with them, and that kind of threatening behavior cannot be allowed to happen again. The Emory Wheel's detailed coverage of this remarkable meeting is worth quoting at length:

During the Council debate, members of the audience and legislators weighed the conflicting merits of free speech and protecting studentsí intellectual ìsafety.î The dissension was fueled by incidents that occurred during Horowitzís last visit to campus, in October 2002. During a question-and-answer period following his speech in Glenn, then-Black Student Alliance President Candace Bacchus (í03C) and Horowitz argued about his opposition to slave reparations and the fact that Emory students are only ìhalf-educatedî because of the Universityís alleged liberal bent. Black students interpreted the remark as an attack on Bacchusí intelligence.

After his talk, Horowitz attacked Bacchus on the Internet and in the Wheel.

Members of the Council were concerned that without proper restrictions on the structure of Horowitzís speech, something might be said that would ignite studentsí rancor again.

Wearing a blue pinstripe suit, Thayer stood firm in his belief that the first amendment should be upheld at all costs.

ìIím sorry, but Iíd rather go straight to hell than ... muzzle anybody,î he said. ìSpeech is not negotiable ó never forget that.î

But some people were concerned about a repeat of controversy surrounding last yearís visit.

ìItís about the safety of the people who go to this school,î Junior Representative Heather Cole-Lewis said.

Emory is like a family, she said. If a man comes into your house and assaults one of your kids, you wouldnít bring him back, ìeven in a straitjacket.î

Other Council members were opposed to the choice of Horowitz himself and not his opinions.

ìIt is the person, not his ideology,î Senior Representative Priya Bhoplay said.

Many legislators also raised concerns about the possible negative effects of Horowitzís visit on the Universityís reputation, which may also affect admissions.

ìIf you want bad PR, vote this bill down,î Junior Representative Ezra Greenberg said. ìEmory will be labeled as a ëcensorship school.í You think that will help admissions?î

Christopher Grey, assistant director for Admissions, said April is a bad time for a speaker like Horowitz because his speech would coincide with visits by high school students who are making final decisions about where to attend college. To ignite such a controversy at that time may have ìadverse effectsî on their perceptions.

ìThey are expecting Disney World,î he said. ìThey are expecting roses. Thatís what theyíre making their decisions on.î

BSA President Samuel Wakefield said his group did not officially oppose the bill, but it was against bringing Horowitz because of last yearís race-related controversy resulting from his visit.

ìThe Black Student Alliance is a cultural organization, not a political one,î he said. ìHorowitz was a racial issue; thatís why the Black Student Alliance got involved.î

Thayer said legislators were intimidated by having 35 black students in attendance and were ìpanderingî to their minority constituents.

Since the Council voted down the request, Thayer said the College Republicans may try to raise the $5,000 themselves.

ìControversy is a two-way street,î he said. ìVoting it down, the perception is of a muzzling, anti-speech campus. Voting it forward will probably make some people feel uncomfortable.î

Harassment of any person or group of persons on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, disability, or veteran's status is a form of discrimination specifically prohibited in the Emory University community.Ý Any employee, student, student organization, or person privileged to work or study in the Emory University community who violates this policy will be subject to disciplinary action up to and including permanent exclusion from the University.

Discriminatory harassment includes conduct (oral, written, graphic, or physical) directed against any person or group of persons because of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, disability or veteran's status and that has the purpose or reasonably foreseeable effect of creating an offensive, demeaning, intimidating, or hostile environment for that person or group of persons.Ý Such conduct includes, but is not limited to, objectionable epithets, demeaning depictions or treatment, and threatened or actual abuse or harm.

So does the behavior of administrators once they learned Thayer and the College Republicans were interested in bringing in Horowitz to speak. According to Thayer,

Beyond the Dean of Multicultural Affairs addressing the College Council, along with some minor student life administrators, an official from the admissions department was allowed to take the floor during the Horowitz discussion, and testify to the fact that if Hoodwink spoke at Emory in April, it would lower minority enrollment. When challenged to present statistical data to back up his bold assertion, he couldn't present anything but empty rhetoric about "tolerance." I wished I had asked him if white enrollment would drop if a minority speaker addressed the University in April.

I would also like to inform you that prior to last Wednesday's College Council hearing, I was summoned to a meeting with five administration officials, including the Dean for Student Life, the Dean for Multicultural Affairs, and their respectiv subordinates. Because I felt I was outgunned and the meeting itself inappropriate, I brought a Professor who is the advisor to College Republicans along with me to ensure their honesty. However, during this closed door session, the Dean for Student Life repeatedly compared Horowitz to David Duke and Louis Farakhan, and the Dean for Multicultural Affairs asked me why I believed in bringing hate to Emory's campus.

The NAACP and BSA also circulated a petition claiming that the College Republicans wanted to bring a racist to Emory. I emailed a representative from the BSA before the Horowitz bill was made public informing her that I was willing to mediate their concerns and address their issues, however, my two emails were never responded to.

UPDATE: Ralph Luker responds. He disagrees with my post, and suggests I have shown poor judgment in taking the stance that I have--but I think that's because he thinks I am defending David Horowitz. I'm not. I'm defending the idea that political games should not be played in decisions about what speakers will be funded, and I'm particularly defending the idea that when a student group proposes to bring a controversial speaker to campus (be it Horowitz or Michael Moore), the members of that group should not be subjected to administrative intimidation. If we want campuses to be principled places, we can't allow our own political preferences to color our decisions about when we stand up for fair process and when we don't. Do I think the $5000 it will cost to bring Horowitz to campus would be better spent bringing in a more temperate conservative? Absolutely. Does that change my thinking about Emory's conduct in this instance? Not at all.

AND ANOTHER: Tim Burke writes in the comments to Luker's post:

There's really two issues here. The first is, are the reasons against a return visit by Horowitz at Emory being offered by many on the Emory campus sound? The answer to that is no--Erin O'Connor is perfectly right about that.

The second problem is this: how should a deliberative body (say, a student council) decide how to respond to requests from student groups for funding? Do you allocate money based on a strict formula of proportionality (the more members, the more money) or on other grounds (merit of proposed spending, fiscal responsibility of past spending, efficiency of services or value delivered to the campus as a whole, desire to fund a wide range of activities and interests).

The latter is the more typical set of logics used. If the College Republicans and all other political groups have tended in the past to receive a set amount of funding and been regarded as autonomous in their decision to spend it however they like, it's wrong for anyone to intervene in their decision to invite Horowitz for a second round. I might view them as unbelievably boring in that desire, but if the tradition is that groups make those decisions themselves, then you have to stick to that. If on the other hand, student groups always have large funding requests examined on their merits, then I think you could say there is a strictly non-political merit assessment here where you can say, "Listen, we just had this guy here: go back and find another speaker you want who costs the same amount of money." I can't see how anyone could quarrel with that, if there was precedent at Emory for that kind of case-by-case assessment of merit for these sort of events.