Bucknell University is the scene of one of the more coordinated and even-handed movements to alert the public to bias on campus. The Bucknell Conservatives have worked tirelessly to alert all students on campus--not just conservative ones--to the manner in which Bucknell's speech code chills expression at the school as well as to how selectively school administrators enforce the code. They have documented ideological double standards in how the school enacts policies about who is invited to speak on campus. And they have even been featured in the New York Times Magazine as examples of the newer, cooler brand of conservatism that is sweeping the nation's campuses.

Now the Bucknell alumni are organizing as well. At Bucknell Bias, a site addressed explicitly but not exclusively to Bucknell alums, you can download video about political correctness at Bucknell. Recognizing that alumni donations are an important form of currency in the campus culture wars, the people at Bucknell Bias are asking that Bucknell alums take a moment to think about what their money actually supports. Check it out.

Good for them! These young men and women have courage and panache.

In case there is any question, Bucknell Bias is NOT affiliated in any way with the BUCC. -- Charles Mitchell, President

I guess that Bucknell isn't governed by the First Amendment, since it's a private school.

Any Bucknell students out there, have any of the faculty considered proposing a binding resolution of this kind?

"Bucknell University shall accord its students the same First Amendment speech rights that would attain if the University were a public institution."

Perhaps the wording can be made more elegant. The key is to word it simply enough so that opponents are forced to take the position that the First Amendment rights are a bad thing.

Just an idea. (By the way, I underwent Bucknell indoctrination years ago, and managed to survive. Hang in there. Then again, the administration was hauling us up on kangaroo charges any time someone declared themselves offended.)

I'm not rejecting the idea, Bucknell alum, but I'm just interested to know if you have any suggestions for what exactly the remedy would be if that resolution were violated.

First, it would give students a powerful tool if they were ever accused and hauled before the disciplinary board. In other words, it's wonderful for defensive purposes.

Second, it would put enormous pressure on Bucknell's general counsel if, for example, a faculty member protested an overbroad speech code. The general counsel would be bound by the First Amendment case law, and, thanks to FIRE, there is plenty of that out there. In other words, the proposed amendment would prevent bad codes from being enacted.

Third, and this is admittedly a mixed blessing, since I am not a fan of litgation, I imagine that if necessary a student could assert contractual rights if he or she were to be disciplined for free speech. Generally speaking, they would be seeking injunctive relief, not monetary relief.

Finally, it would be very good for Bucknell to be forced to take a hard look at what the First Amendment really means. Talk about a liberal education!

I suspect that in a decade or so, universitites are going to run into real trouble with alumni contributions. Those who have been subjected to oppressive PC regimes are unlikely to have warm and fuzzy feelings about Alma Mater. Ditto for those who have been misled into fields with poor career potential.

Basically, administrators (and some faculty) have been exerting their egos at the expense of the future of the institutions for which they are responsible. The expression "selling the tracks" comes to mind.

Well spoken, David.