FIRE's latest case speaks for itself:

DURHAM, N.H., October 28, 2004óThe University of New Hampshire has evicted a student from housing for posting fliers in his residential hall joking that freshman women could lose the ìFreshman 15î by walking up the dormitory stairs. ÝThe public university found him guilty of violating policies on affirmative action, harassment, and disorderly conduct, and has sentenced him to mandatory counseling and probation along with his eviction.
ÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝ
In appealing his sentence, student Timothy Garneau explained that the flier was intended to make light of the common frustration with people who delay the elevator by taking it for just one or two floors instead of taking the stairs. ÝUNH rejected his appeal, and Garneau was ordered to move out of his dormitory. Garneau reports that he is currently living out of his car.

ìForcing a student into homelessness for posting a satirical flier is not just unlawfulóitís Ýcruel,î remarked David French, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which has intervened on Garneauís behalf. ÝìUNH is demonstrating to its community not only that it will ignore their First Amendment freedoms, but also that it doesnít care about the basic welfare of its students.î

The ìoffensiveî flier included a cartoon picture of a woman in outdated workout gear and the following message:

9 out of 10 freshman girls gain 10 ñ 15 pounds. But there is something you can do about it. If u live below the 6th floor takes the stairsÖ.Not only will u feel better about yourself but you will also be saving us time and wont be sore on the eyes. [sic]

Garneau posted copies of the flier in the elevators of his dormitory, Stoke Hall. According to Garneau, a resident assistant had removed all of the fliers within less than two hours. When Garneau was approached by the Stoke Hall Director and accused of hanging the fliers, he initially denied responsibility, fearing that he would be punished harshly and embarrassed in front of his peers. However, Garneau soon admitted to posting the flier and was charged with offenses including: ìacts of dishonestyî; violation of ìaffirmative actionî policies; ìharassmentî; and ìconduct which is disorderly, lewd.î

Within a week of the incident, and prior to his hearing, Garneau posted a written public apology for unintentionally offending others in his residential hall and apologized in person to students that he knew had complained.

At an October 8 hearing, the university found Garneau guilty of all charges. ÝDespite Garneauís offers to voluntarily atone for his actions through community service, social awareness projects, and other activities, the university sentenced him to immediate expulsion from student housing and disciplinary probation extended through May 30, 2006. He was also required to meet with a counselor to discuss his ìdecisions, actions, and reflectionsî about the incident, to write a 3000-word reflection paper about the counseling session, and to submit an apology letter to the residents of Stoke Hall to be published in the hallís newspaper.

Garneau appealed these outrageous sanctions on October 21, and quickly contacted FIRE for assistance. UNH promptly denied Garneauís appeal, however, and he was ordered to leave his dormitory by October 24.

On October 22, FIRE wrote a letter to UNH, explaining that administrators had unlawfully punished Garneauís protected expression and misapplied federal law by interpreting the poster as ìharassment.î FIRE reminded the university that this action violated its obligations under the First Amendment.

ìBy severely punishing a student for posting this flier, UNH administrators have revealed themselves as callous bullies with no regard for the law,î remarked Greg Lukianoff, FIREís director of legal and public advocacy. ÝìUNH will discover, however, that free speech doesnít end wherever administrators arbitrarily decide that it should. FIRE will keep fighting until Tim Garneauís rights are fully restored.î

My guess is that if UNH applied the draconian standards employed with Garneau fairly and evenly to all residents, its dorms would empty out pretty quickly. My guess is also that Garneau got treated the way he did because he landed on the wrong side of an ideologue masquerading as an administrator. Men are pigs, after all, not to mention potential rapists, and it is therefore important to make instructive examples of them when the opportunity arises--or so I imagine someone righteously thought when confronted with the damningly sexist evidence of Garneau's flyer.

It would be nice not only to see Garneau reinstated at his dorm (with an apology from the school), but also to see the people who handled his posting of a slightly off-color flyer in such an excessive way held accountable for their actions.

I appreciate the work that FIRE is doing on this case. UNH's handling of this matter is creating a poisonous environment for free speech. Not all speech need be in good taste, and all speech in bad taste need not be regulated and sanctioned.

On another note, I find it odd that college campuses in this country are so hell-bent on making students feel good about being fat. How many people die of being too thin every year? Not many. However, thousands of heavy students break their bones, sleep poorly, and suffer from considerably higher rates of seasonal illness due to their excess weight in addition to digging themselves early graves. I suspect that UNH is using Mr. Garneau as a whipping boy because the message hurts all the more due to the truth it makes manifest. Of course, boys should be asked to take the stairs as much as girls, but that is only my opinion and I hope that I do not get evicted from anywhere for having expressed it.

First off, he deserves to be kicked out of the dorm for the poor grammar of the flier.

Secondly, the kid sounds like a total douche.

Thirdly, if the women of the dorm decided to colelctively kick this wimp's ass, I'm sure he'd be crying to the authorities faster than you can say "personal responsibility."

BTW: What's FIRE doing about the blacklisting of academics by jackasses like Pipes?

I'm going to disagree with you on this one, Erin.

I did not find the suggestions "snide" in any sense of the term. In fact, if I had seen such a flier as that when I was in school I would have laughed, and then taken the stairs.

What is wrong with people?

(and what should Heywood be kicked out of for his/her poor spelling?)

Incidents such as these make me glad to no longer be on a college campus. When are, if ever, college administrators going to wake up and remember that the remedy for speech you disagree with is more speech not suppression of speech? How hard is that to understand? Further, what kinds of idiot students are we raising if they leave college firmly convinced of their right to not be offended (I forget what article of the constitution or bill of rights this is but it clearly has to be in there) or their right to suppress speech by recourse to some kind of power mad little tribunal.

I do fear for our society sometimes and when I get some free time (like that's going to happen any time soon), I think I'd like to do some pro bono work for FIRE.

This student is currently living out of his car?

I wouldn't be surprised if this campus has, in the past, included "homeless awareness" events, and sees no irony in the juxtaposition of the circumstances.

Bet they didn't refund his housing fee, either.

First off, the poor boy is illiterate. I cannot stand people who write "u" and mean "you".

Second, he's sexist. He should have pointed out that all freshmen students pack on the weight at college, not just females.

Third, he's engaging in free speech. That's his right as a citizen of the United States.

Fourth, besides trampling the illiterate lad's right to free speech, the college doesn't appear to have much faith in its female student body if it thinks they're going to be permanently damaged (or whatever) by this boy's relatively flaccid "hate speech".

Fifth, were I a chick student in that dorm, I'd be down at the admin's offices bitching like hell that they thought I was such a fragile flower of womanhood that I couldn't buck up under the weight of a not-very-amusing poster made by an illiterate wanker.

I thought we were done with political correctness... that's so 1990's.

"He was also required to meet with a counselor to discuss his ìdecisions, actions, and reflectionsî about the incident, to write a 3000-word reflection paper ..."

I just finished reading "Darkness at Noon", and the similarities of Mr Garneau's punishment with the "re-education" systems of a certain failed European political system are way too close to ignore. It also brings to mind the "re-education" systems of a certain oriental nation, which made the unfortunate choice to follow the European system.

Mr Heywood might be able to explain what he means by "What's FIRE doing about the blacklisting of academics by jackasses like Pipes?" - but I doubt it. First off, "blacklisting" needs a bit of explanation. I would personally do everything I could to "blacklist" someone like David Dukes - there are some ideas that have been proven over and over again to be bankrupt; we don't need to hear it again and again.

Second, "jackass" isn't a term I'd apply to Pipes. Only someone with a severely malfunctioning moral compass would do so.

Just a brief note to "RP" above: I'm a senior college administrator...and a big supporter of FIRE. I consider myself extremely liberal and have been chagrined to see that most oppression of speech on campus comes from the left.

I once brought up material provided by FIRE at a senior staff group wrestling with a harassment policy and was told by the faculty chair that FIRE was a bunch of right wing fanatics. Well, when FIRE stepped up to the plate on Sami Al Arian's dismissal that told me all I needed to know.

Time to send FIRE another gift.

Alumni, psrents, corporations...anyone thinking about making a gift to a university needs to *stop* and think about giving the money to FIRE instead.

Why subsidize one of the major sources of totalitarian thinking in our society?

Wow, what a kneejerk reaction to a stupid undergraduate joke. If there's one thing I've learned as a prof, it's that undergrads (in the traditional 18-22 y.o. category) are never going to get any smarter. The kid made a mistake (both in putting up the flier and in thinking that he was really funny). Yes, it was tacky. Yes, it was tasteless to single out one gender. However, I would hope that female students would be strong enough to see this flier for what it is--the ramblings of a particularly immature kid. And as a female, I get annoyed by administrations coming to "my" defense over trivial items.

This issue is typical of the problem with trivial harassment cases--the little things get blown out of proportion, watering down the seriousness of the larger, more important cases. As I tell my students: pick your battles wisely. Lash out at every little thing, and you demonstrate Chicken Little Syndrome.

Anyone else disturbed by the idea that a student would have to publish the results of his therapy session? Seems like a huge violation of privacy to me.

Publishing the results of therapy sessions? HIPPA anyone?

Sheesh.

Surely not.

Ah, I misread. Looks like he has to publish an apology, not his therapy results, but he does indeed have to write a paper about his therapy. (The article doesn't mention who will read the paper, but it still seems like a violation of privacy.)

If he had left off the "sore on the eyes" comment, his flyer wouldn't be all that different from exercise-promoting advertising on any college campus.

That said, I think a more appropriate punishment for the guy would be for women on campus to band together and make a no-dating-this-guy pact.

All too often, the enemies of "political correctness" try to cast sophomoric little jerks like Mr. Garneau as Heroes of the First Amendment. It is refreshing to see that most people are refusing to do so in this case. Yes, of course we have to protect Mr. Garneau's rights. But this is a story without heroes.

As for FIRE, they are certainly at their best in protecting free speech on campus, though I sometimes wonder if they would do so with quite the same enthusiasm if the ideological positions were reversed (and, yes, I know they take some cases on behalf of leftists; that doesn't change my point).

Where I have trouble with FIRE is in their seeming assertion that the free exercise clause of the First Amendment trumps the establishment clause. Public universities are obligated to permit respect religious speech. They are not obligated to subsidize it, either directly or indirectly, with tax dollars. (Indeed, if either clause of the First Amendment trumps the other, it seems logical to assume that the establishment clause was meant to trump the free exercise clause. That is, you have an unfettered right to free religious worship and expression unless and until you try to involve the state or public funds.)

oops...that should be "permit and respect".

x:

Of course, proving "quite the same" enthusiasm is impossible to actually prove, especially to someone who seems proud of being impervious to the corrupting power of evidence.

As for religious speech, if the college is in the business of subsidizing student speech in general, religious speech should not be off-limits. If you're calling for the general prohibition of university funds for student activities, then fine, but I don't see how viewpoint discrimination in student activities is legal under the First Amendment.

"I don't see how viewpoint discrimination in student activities is legal under the First Amendment."

Exactly. "X" seems to think that the Free Speech Clause and the two Religion Clauses of the First Amendment are in conflict and thus one always has to trump another. That's nonsense. As one of the longstanding canons of construction that the framers of the US Constitution would have been familiar with, a legal document is supposed to read in pari materia, such that all its provisions can be applied simultaneously. This is because it's absurd to presume that the drafters of a single document, let alone, as here, of multiple clauses of one section of that document, would make it internally self-contradictory.

Well, if a kid gets kicked out of the dorm for a cartoon that wouldn't be out of place in a family magazine--

Wait, I decided to look it up. I've been following drinking on campus this year--there's been an unusual number of deaths.

1. http://www.thechamplainchannel.com/wnne/3875963/detail.html

"The severity of Garneau's punishment took into account an earlier, unrelated incident when he gave a false name to a UNH staff member investigating dorm drinking, according to university documents. Garneau was placed on probation for that violation."

2. http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041029/NEWS01/110290082/-1/news

"Since FIRE became involved, Garneau received an e-mail from UNH Wednesday offering to remove the harassment and disorderly conduct charges, he said. Yet Garneauís still out of a place to live and the money paid to live there."

I'd sure like to see the offensive image. I bet it was something like the figure on the right hand side of this page:

http://www.flylady.net/

I just finished reading Soft America Hard America, Barone's somewhat interesting but in the end vapid article (which got inflated into a book)..and then this comes up. Evicting a guy for poor taste? Jeez, not just soft, jello-ey.

A college campus should be a place where corrective speech is the remedy to offensive speech (though of anyone was seriously offended by the cartoon as described, they're oversensitive.)

On our campus, all political speech is proscribed. Really! The governor made all state employees take online "ethics training" to the effect that no state resources can be used for personal gain or political purposes. The state attorney general told the campus general council that this meant "no political activity on campus" extending to the wearing of buttons or any other overt expression of one candidate over another. Presumably, this would even include conversation.

Where does it end?

> held accountable for their actions

If that's a euphemism for "demoted or fired", then I concur. Otherwise, who needs the Reno-style "accountability" that has no actual consequence?

This is a bit late, but there's probably a very good reason why he singled out women in the flyer: most college housing segregates the genders by floor and keeps women off the lower floors (or alternatively encourages this behaviour in the literature) on the theory that they're more vulnerable to instrusions and criminal activity. Since the lower floors are otherwise in high demand, it's quite likely that there's a lot of women concentrated in the 2nd-6th floors, which seems to be the target of his ire.