Breaking news in the effort to eliminate speech codes on campus:

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) announces the fourth lawsuit in its campaign to rid public campuses of repressive and unconstitutional speech codes. The federal lawsuit was filed June 3 against the State University of New York College at Brockport (SUNY Brockport), in upstate New York, on behalf of students Patricia Simpson and Robert Wojick. The two students seek to overturn policies that violate their rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The suit was filed in federal court in Buffalo, New York, by three pro bono FIRE Legal Network attorneys: Robert A. Goodman and Elizabeth A. Wells, both of the law firm of Arnold & Porter in New York City, and Amherst, New York, attorney David R. Koepsell.

"Oppressive speech codes such at those at SUNY Brockport have no place on Americaís college campuses," said Greg Lukianoff, FIREís director of legal and public advocacy. "Not only does SUNY Brockport tell students what not to say, it actually tells them what they must say and even what they must think. A free society does not tolerate such Orwellian horrors," he continued. "The defeat of this speech codeóand of all other unconstitutional speech codes at public universitiesóis inevitable. FIRE will not stop until students' rights are vindicated and the rights and values of a free people are restored."

The speech code at SUNY Brockport bans expression that is clearly constitutionally protected. The collegeís harassment policy, which applies to students and faculty, lists the following among examples of harassment: "cartoons that depict religious figures in compromising situations"; "calling someone an 'old bag'"; "jokesÖmaking fun of any protected group"; and even merely "discussing sexual activities." "Administrators at SUNY Brockport must have read the First Amendment to some other nation's constitution," Lukianoff added.

SUNY Brockport's regulations have been used to chill the speech and to threaten punishment of the plaintiffs in the case. The Brockport College Republicans, to which plaintiffs Patricia Simpson and Robert Wojick belong, were twice targeted for the content of their expression in the last year. In October 2003, the group passed out a pamphlet that jokingly urged people to "Bring Back the Blacklist" for liberal celebrities. The College Republicans were confronted by an angry faculty member who called the pamphlet "offensive" and demanded they stop the pamphleteering. Fearing punishment under the college's speech code, they halted distribution. Then, in February of 2004, the College Republicans distributed a flier that exhorted members of the college community to "End Liberal Indoctrination on Campus." Yet another faculty member declared the flier "harassment" and demanded that the group either be denied funding or be shut down altogether.

I think my "favorite" category of banned speech in the SUNY-Brockport code is: "Comments and/or questions regarding an individualís physical attributes." All day, I've been coming up with innocuous comments that would still be enforcably disciplined under that stricture. ("New haircut? Looks good." "Harrasser! Disciplinary action!")

Ay yi yi.

Seems like one of the main problems we have in this country is the low quality of academic administrators--both college-level and K-12. My working hypothesis is that people who are good at teaching and research prefer to stay in the classroom and the lab; those who are really good in management go into the private sector (or sometimes the military.) The people who become academic administrators tend to be those who want power without responsibility for outcomes.

I'm sure there are exception, but overall these people seem extraordinarily unimpressive. Any agreements or disagreements?

We definitely need a theory to explain why so many educated college administrators take acts that so clearly violate the First Amendment, and then immediately go down in flames when FIRE sues them. Why are the dictates of the First Amendment so clear to FIRE and to the federal judges, and so impossible to see for the college administrators?

First, we shouldn't be too surprised, because the First Amendment presupposes that people continually want to ban speech they dislike. But why don't the administrators know this as well? I think we need some kind of "group think" theory. There appears to be a self-reinforcing belief on campuses that banning certain speech is appropriate. Which leads me to the second point, namely, that there probably is a lack of true diversity of opinion on our campuses. Robust debate and diversity of viewpoints would inhibit the promulgation of speech codes.

In response to A Reader's comments. I have always thought that college administrators do not lack knowledge about the First Amendment. What they lack is the courage to point that out to the firebrands that promulgate these inane prohibitions in the first instance. '
I suspect they know full well it won't pass consitutional muster - but when they do lose they can say "It wasn't me." CYA at its finest.

They also might have the philosophy that it ain't unconsitutional until a court tells them it is.
Legislators do this all the time.

Good points. You make me wonder about who passes these things. Faculty senates? Administrators? Deans? In a way, I'd be less judgmental if it was errors of group think, since I believe we are all prone to those. If it's a matter of "I know it's wrong but I won't stick my neck out," then it's a sad form of corruption.

A few schools have done the right thing. Did they have strong leaders? More diversity of view points? More candid lawyers?

Anyway, here's hoping that SUNY loses quickly and decisively. Perhaps a string of defeats will get the CYA-types headed in the other direction.

>> We definitely need a theory to explain why so many educated
>> college administrators take acts that so clearly violate the
>> First Amendment ...

One reason is that it's all benefit and no cost for them. They get the approval of the don't-offend-anybody crowd, and it costs them nothing. Even when the codes are slapped down in court, the people who draft and enforce them incur no penalty.

I'm all in favor of the work FIRE is doing, but the cases they're winning never seem to get anyone's attention at other schools. I think they ought to start asking for punitive damages, really punitive punitive damages, amounts that would have state legislators crawling all over their state's universities to make sure the administrators weren't exposing the state to that kind of liability. Amounts that would make administrators throw up as they contemplate the possibility that they might be personally liable because the speech codes clearly exceed their statutory authority. I don't think $10 million would be too much the first time, and it wouldn't bother me a bit to see it jump up into the hundreds of millions if the schools didn't knock it off.

I wonder if you get attorneys fees when you beat the government on a 1st Amendment case. That would provide an incentive for admins to oppose 1st Amendment violations. If there isn't such a law, Congress ought to pass one: if you are a public school, if you're sued on the 1st Amendment, and if you make the plaintiff go all the way through the legal process, you pick up the tab. It's funny how incentives change when you become financially responsible for your own actions, and how irresponsible we can all be when there is no cost to ourselves.

"I think they ought to start asking for punitive damages, really punitive punitive damages..."

If we're talking public schools, I'm pretty certain that no state's sovereign immunity statute allows its agencies and instrumentalities to be sued for punitives.

"In October 2003, the group passed out a pamphlet that jokingly urged people to "Bring Back the Blacklist" for liberal celebrities. "

Have to admit that I found this funnier than other young republican attempts at humor (afffirmative action bake sales, etc.) It would not suprise me in the least if some segment of the Univesity population thought the blacklist reference had 'racist' overtones. It happened in my duaghter's 4th grade class. Their teacher was discussing different types of humor and asked the class for suggestions. One boy (someone I know to be both smart and kind) said 'black humor'. The teacher, who was white by the way, rebuked him to the point of tears about his alleged racial insensitivity and how we don't do minstrel shows any more. Even after his parents came in and painfully and at length defined the meaning of the term "black humor" the teacher's response was - well other 4th graders wouldn't understand - so he should not have said it. She had no response when the mother politely replied - "Well my dear, perhaps you could have used your position as a teacher to actually teach your children what the term actually meant. "
This same 'sensitive' teacher by the way was not above engaging in (real) ethnic sterotypes when it came to her students of Hispanic origin. Geez.

Sigh . . . sigh . . . sigh.

So it's now "harassment" to object to the explicitly political tenor of the college classroom?? Who on Earth thought for one instant that would pass Constitutional muster? That's a genuine head-spinner.

"We definitely need a theory to explain why so many educated college administrators take acts that so clearly violate the First Amendment, and then immediately go down in flames when FIRE sues them. Why are the dictates of the First Amendment so clear to FIRE and to the federal judges, and so impossible to see for the college administrators?"
There are few questions
1)Who's the authority to decide what's right and what's wrong
2)Each one of us has right to think our way.Why can't we speak it out if someone else can.

But we live in a society and so should discipline ourselves so as to fit the society. But alas our's is an undisciplened socity. Such things will keep on happening.

According to Alesse, when a guy talks nasty to a girl, it's sexual harassment. When a girl talks nasty to a guy, it's $3.99 a minute.