Northern Kentucky University has repudiated the censorious actions of English professor Sally Jacobsen, and has issued a ringing endorsement of free speech along the way. But how much of that endorsement is pure rhetoric? NKU has a speech code that grants people like Jacobsen the right to be offended by the speech of others, and that promises to punish those who are thus offensive. It would seem that now is the time to get that unconstitutional code off the university's books.

I think FIRE needs to check itself:
"Only six percent of administrators and two percent of students correctly named freedom of religion as the freedom that the First Amendment addresses before all others. Worse yet, only 36 percent of administrators at private institutions and 50 percent at public institutions reported that their administrations took the view that religious individuals should spread their beliefs "by whatever legal means they choose." Students were similarly intolerant of those who would communicate their religious views: only 32 percent of all students surveyed believe that religious people should use any legal means to spread their beliefs."

Students that don't want the narrow, bible-thumping, earth is 6000 years old, god hates fags view crammed down their throats are intolerant? Let's be honest--the students most likely to spread religious beliefs are the above kind. Why didn't the survey ask if it were okay for students to have religious beliefs? I'm betting that had FIRE asked that, the answers wouldn't have been so scary. Most people are okay with people having beliefs; few like to be preached to, nor do people like to be converted. I say be as religious as you want; however, I don't have to listen to it. (These are also the same people trying to legislate everyone's lives based on their religious views--which is the establishment of a religion--which is covered by the first amendment.)

There was a big stink at the Air Force Academy recently: cadets were being bullied to convert to evangelical christianity. Any cadet of differing beliefs was harassed--not just by other cadets, but by evangelical staff members as well. This wasn't handing out pamphlets, nor was it rallies and writing on the sidewalk; this was harassment--which isn't protected by the first amendment. I wonder why FIRE didn't sound the alarm bells about that? Where was the self-righteous rhetoric?

Hmm. I guess there are different types of freedom, or (to butcher Orwell) some people are more deserving of freedom than others.

"I wonder why FIRE didn't sound the alarm bells about that?"

So Jason what are you saying? Alan Kors and Harvey Silvergate have just gotten baptized and become Evangelical Christians? When did this happen? Did they do it together or separately? Does anyone else know about this?

Maybe the answer to your question is that Fire has limited resources. Maybe no one complained to them. So iif this bothers you so much, write them a check so they can go after this sort of thing.

Bravo to the university. Something similar happened at Dartmouth when 10 students were suspended 10 years ago for dismantling shanties in support of black South Africa.

http://burketobristol.blogspot.com/2006/04/feminists-show-hate.html

Allan-I'm not saying that at all. I just find their reaction to the survey ridiculous. Instead of asking about people having religious beliefs, the survey asked about spreading of those beliefs--not can they, but should they--I'm surprised they got as many positive responses as they did.

How would a Jew feel about a radical Muslim spreading his views?

The "limited resource" line is really a cop out--they have no trouble finding out about these other issues--maybe because they only look in a certain direction. If they want to focus on abuse of conservative views that's fine, but their doom and gloom attitude is a bit silly, especially in response to the survey linked in Erin's original post.