Administrators at Southern Missouri State University are trampling the First Amendment in a misguided effort to prove that theirs is a campus that will not tolerate discrimination. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has the details:

Last month, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) publicly opposed Southwest Missouri State Universityís (SMSUís) investigation of the student editor and faculty advisor of its student newspaper, The Standard, after it printed an editorial cartoon that some Native American students found ìoffensive.î ÝIn response, SMSU claims that its procedures respect free speech and federal law. In fact, SMSU has refused to end the chilling of protected free expression in its campus paper and has also refused to rule out further punishment of those who merely stood up for First Amendment rights.

ìSMSU is a place where constitutionally protected expression, if it offends anyone, leads not only to long and chilling investigations, but to possible punishment that hangs over your head indefinitely,î said Greg Lukianoff, FIREís director of legal and public advocacy. ÝìSMSUís refusal to end its investigation of its campus press and to rule out the punishment of a faculty member for defending basic rights of free speech is arrogant, absurd, and a betrayal of both the Constitution and the spirit of a free society.îÝ

The innocuous cartoon depicts two Native Americans presenting a female Pilgrim with a gift of canned corn at ìThe 2nd Thanksgiving.î ÝThe Pilgrim responds, ìGladys, the Indians are here and it looks like they brought cornÖAgainÖîÝThis prompted a campus Native American group to file a discrimination complaint with the campus Office of Equal Opportunity (OEO) against the newspaper, its editor-in-chief, Mandy Phillips, and its faculty advisor, Professor Wanda Brandon. ÝFIRE wrote to SMSU on March 16, asking that it end immediately its investigation and halt its assault on the First Amendment.

SMSUís response to FIRE implied that it reserved the right to punish Brandon as a faculty member for her defense of the student newspaperís rights. FIRE then twice asked SMSU for assurance that it would live up to its constitutional obligations by ending the OEOís intervention and ruling out any possibility of punishment for this incident. SMSU General Counsel John Black wrote that it was ìimpossibleî to rule out punishment of Professor Brandon for this incident and ìimpossibleî to rule out further campus judicial hearings against the campus newspaper and its editor.Ý

FIREís Lukianoff noted, ìIt is outrageous that SMSU will not rule out punishment of Brandon for refusing to participate in an investigation of protected speech. It is still more outrageous because even the newspaperís agreement with the university rules out faculty interference with the paperís content. FIRE expects SMSU to honor its obligations under the Bill of Rights and to end the persecution of Brandon and the campus press.î

SMSU sent a form email response, signed by General Counsel Black, to its many critics, claiming that federal law requires investigation of any charge of ìdiscrimination,î but the publication of unquestionably protected speech is neither discrimination nor a legitimate basis for ignoring the First Amendment. ìIf someone charged a person with ëdiscriminationí for going to church,î Lukianoff observed, ìthere is no investigation, because the behavior is clearly constitutionally protected freedom of religion. In this case, publication of a cartoon is fully constitutionally protected freedom of the press. There is nothing to investigate. Indeed, SMSUís real obligation is to protect such freedom.îÝÝ

SMSU claims that no one, including Professor Brandon, has been investigated or threatened with punishment. That is false. Evidence in FIREís possession shows that Brandon was summoned by the OEO, that she was instructed to bring various materials with her, and that according to SMSU policies, such a step is taken only after a complaint is being formally addressed. Further, according to Standard editor Phillips, the OEO contacted the paper and warned it not to write a story on the complaint, citing OEO confidentiality provisions. ìA newspaper,î Lukianoff noted, ìcould not even report of its own muzzling.îÝ

I think the administrators at SMSU are simply stupid. They don't understand the rules or the laws under which they are supposed to run their school. They are trying to improvise on the fly, while admitting no errors on their part, and are clearly failing badly. They need help. But they seem unwilling to accept help when it's offered. Thus, they are stupid.

They are having a very hard time with the concept of free speech because they do not believe in it. On current campuses, the only free speech is that which is agreeably PC. Everything else is 'hate speech' and should be banned and punished.