Attack on free speech at Tufts U

I mentioned this matter on "Tongue Tied" on 13th May

In another instance of what has become a predictable and frequent assault on conservative campus publications, The Committee on Student Life at Tufts has censured the The Primary Source, a student magazine, for running satirical pieces that offended, in two separate instances, some black and Muslim students. Instead of actually functioning as marketplaces of ideas-"a place where controversial expression is embraced," and "an open campus committed to the free exchange of ideas," as described in Tufts' own student handbook-universities continue to punish what they categorize as offensive speech that does not conform to the acceptable, liberal views of politics, race, or sexuality.

While Tufts' official policy extols the merits of unfettered speech, suggesting that students "should cherish the opportunity to be learning in a place where controversial expression is embraced," it turns out that in reality that embrace is a somewhat deadly one for anyone whose controversial comments are aimed at groups perceived to be too vulnerable and sensitive to confront offensive speech with expression of their own views. The offending Primary Source piece, "Islam-Arabic Translation: Submission," which satirized Tufts' "Islamic Awareness Week" with a series of factual points about some of Islam's violent characteristics, "made the Muslim students on campus feel very uncomfortable and unwelcome," according to some of the complainants, and "was uncalled for and demean[ed] all of the work we put into our Islamic Awareness Week." The publication's punishment includes the prospect of being de-funded and the requirement of now having all stories and editorials signed by authors (a requirement that no other Tufts publication has), presumably so victims can henceforth know exactly who to drag before the Committee for any future offenses.

There are troubling issues here, putting aside the basic question of fairness of punishing a student publication with repressive speech control because it exhibited loutish behavior. The publication was sanctioned, not because it displayed actual illegal harassing or intimidating behavior, but because some individuals were `offended' or `intimidated' by speech that they were perfectly free never to read. Students have a right to be offended by the speech-even hate speech-of their fellow students and speak back to that speech with speech of their own, but their fellow students also have a Constitutionally-protected right to be offensive, provided their conduct is within the bounds of the law.

When political correctness first began to engulf our campuses, of course, racist or "hateful" speech was attacked as just that: speech which was unacceptable to those "victim" groups who were perceived as needing protection from freely-spoken opinions-generally members of racial, ethnic or sexual minorities. As a result, speech codes were frequently called for to insulate such individuals from speech that was deemed "hate" speech.

The courts, however, have consistently struck down attempts by public universities to install speech codes, precisely because they deprive students of First Amendment rights they would enjoy without restriction off campus. Universities have therefore had to take a new approach in their attempts to suppress speech whose content they do not approve of: as they did in the current Tufts case, they now deem offensive behavior and speech to be `harassing' and `intimidating,' not merely expressive. But the courts have seen through this strategic misrepresentation. In fact, says attorney Harvey Silverglate, co-author of The Shadow University: The Betrayal of Liberty on America's Campuses,

"Codes banning pure speech are unconstitutional, and, to the extent that speech-by virtue of the time, place and manner of delivery, or by virtue of its physically threatening nature-is harassing, the society's laws are more than adequate to redress violations. Universities . . . do not have the obligation, nor indeed the power, to ban pure speech, no matter how offensive, on the basis of content or point-of-view."

Moreover, Silvergate notes,

"Speech codes, prohibiting speech that `offends,' protect ideologically or politically favored groups, and, what is more important, insulate these groups' self-appointed spokesmen and spokeswomen from criticism and even from the need to participate in debate."

So it was revealing that at the one-sided hearing of The Committee on Student Life, while Muslim students were allowed ample opportunity to described how they felt "intimidated" and `harassed" by the content of the Primary Source's satire, there was never a discussion of whether the satire was valid, or, if there were inaccuracies or libelous statements, what those were. Instead, the Committee unilaterally determined that this particular and specific speech was unacceptable-and would always be so at Tufts.

For Tara Sweeney, senior program officer at the Foundation For Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a Pennsylvania-based advocacy group that defends campus speech controversies and has contacted the Tufts administration on behalf of the Primary Source, "Printing a parody, no matter how objectionable to some, is in no way tantamount to `harassment.'"

In ruling campus speech codes to be unconstitutional, courts have therefore understood the real intent of cases such as the current one at Tufts: not to suppress all speech and attitudes, but merely those ideas with which the moral gatekeepers disagree, those ideas, views, and political beliefs that are unfashionable. Even when speech is seemingly blasphemous, irreverent, or anti-social, the Supreme Court in the 1989 Texas v. Johnson case stressed that the "First Amendment does not recognize exceptions for bigotry, racism, and religious intolerance or matters some deem trivial, vulgar, or profane."

In fact, other groups and individuals at Tufts regularly engage in expression that might cause some people to feel intimidated, harassed, or insulted. One example is the annual "Gaypril" celebration sponsored by the school's Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Center, replete with such events as "Queer Sex Now," involving "erotic trends, including the explosion of queer porn, the development of public sex spaces, and the growing exploration of alternatives to monogamy," and other sex-obsessed narcissism that may well intimidate or cause harassment to students on campus who do not embrace or have religious or philosophical issues with this lifestyle or level of effusive sexuality. Of course, no one could ever speak in opposition to a month of homosexual festivities on campus, nor obviously could their complaints about how it harassed or intimidated them ever cause the Committee on Student Life to end funding for the event or cancel future celebrations.

Nor were Tufts faculty members and students ever silenced in 2002 when many of them signed a divestment petition to urge economic sanctions on Israel, an effort to destroy the viability of the State because they had decided that it was an apartheid, colonial settler nation that tramples the rights of victimized, long-suffering Palestinians. Could these very public denunciations of the Middle East's single democracy-political speech by Tufts faculty and students-have possibly been intimidating to Jewish students on campus, Israel's supporters, and others who have a different, more positive view of Israel and its role in the world? Yes, of course, they could have had that effect, but no one at Tufts attempted to suppress what David Frum has referred to as the "genocidal liberalism" ingrained in these political statements.

Administrators and some students at Tufts seemingly hold the notion that free speech is only good when it articulates politically correct, seemingly hate-free, views of protected victim or minority groups. But great legal minds, including such jurists as Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., have always fought for the protection of unfettered speech, where the best ideas become clear through the utterance of weaker ones. For Holmes, the protection of free speech was of particular importance, not only to allow discourse of popular topics, but, even more importantly, in instances where unpopular or hateful speech is deemed offensive and unworthy of being heard. He observed:

"If there is any principal of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principal of free thought-not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate."

Source





Wonderful educational standards in Texas

After Failing Test 38 Times, Dumb Principal Finally Loses Job. Why was she given even a third chance?

A San Antonio school principal tried again to pass the test required for her job. She recently took that test for the 38th time. The results were not good and now she is out of that job.

A spokesperson for the San Antonio Independent School District says Elizabeth Rojas is no longer the principal at Smith Elementary.

She took the state exam required for her job again just a few weeks ago. It was her second attempt since we revealed in February that she'd already failed it 36 times before, more than any other educator in the state. Rojas failed again for the 38th time.

The district has now removed her from that job and given her the position of administrative assistant at Smith. She now makes just slightly less than her nearly $78,000 a year principal's salary.

When we called the school and asked for Rojas Thursday, we were told she was still the principal and in a meeting with teachers. The district says the interim principal is Billy Terrell who retired from the district last year. He told us by phone today, that he is now running the school - not Rojas.

The district declined to comment on camera about Rojas' reassignment but parents at Smith had plenty to say. "If you can't past the test, you don't need to be in that position." "Well, I think she should be removed because she does need that certification to be a principal." "She's a very good principal here at Smith. I'm sorry she's going to leave."

The district says the school will have a new permanent principal next year. Rojas will be moved to some other job inside the district she is certified to do.

Source





Top Australian universities to tackle languages dieback

Hmmm... I am a bit dubious about this. Although I am myself a great dabbler in languages, it is undisputable that acquiring a native command of a foreign language is a rare feat that is usually accomplished only under conditions of total immersion in that language -- and even immersion is often not sufficient. So most students of a foreign language are wasting their time if they expect a useful outcome from it. It is however a good cultural experience. For me, being able to understand Schubert Lieder in the original is sufficient recompense for my studies of German. So I think availablity of foreign language study should be there but I would oppose any compulsion or mandatory requirements

Leading universities are demanding radical action to tackle a crisis in the number of Year 12 students graduating with a foreign language, which has dropped from 40per cent to six per cent over the past four decades. The Group of Eight universities want a second language to be compulsory for all students from primary school to Year 10, more incentives to study languages at university and an advertising campaign promoting the benefits of learning a foreign tongue.

The Group of Eight, consisting of research-intensive institutions such as Melbourne, Sydney and Queensland universities, say the number of foreign languages taught at the tertiary level has almost halved, from 66 to 29, in the past 10 years. "Crisis is not too strong a word to describe the decline in foreign language education in our schools and universities," Group of Eight executive director Michael Gallagher said. "Despite many positive efforts from committed teachers and language experts, the percentage of Year12 students graduating with a second language has fallen from 40per cent in the 1960s to as low as 6per cent in some states in Australia today."

He called for a national approach involving schools, universities and state and federal governments. "Our national deficit in foreign-language capability is something we can no longer afford to ignore," he said. "It is Australia's great unrecognised skills shortage, and the one most directly relevant to our competitiveness and security in an increasingly global environment."

A planning paper released yesterday by the Group of Eight found that most schools, public and private, do not require students to take a second language. It says this lack of emphasis on foreign languages at school put pressure on university language departments. "The number of languages taught at our universities continues to fall," it says. "Of the 29 languages still on offer at tertiary level, nine are offered at only one Australian university and only seven are well represented across the sector."

The Group of Eight found only five universities offered courses in Arabic and fewer than 3per cent of university students studied an Asian language despite Asia representing 70per cent of Australia's largest export markets. The Group of Eight proposals include more funding to strengthen language education, especially at universities. Targeted funding to boost the morale, skills and number of language teachers was also recommended, along with the expansion of bonuses for students who took languages in Year 12.

Source

***************************

For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL schools should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the poor and minimal regulation.

The NEA and similar unions worldwide believe that children should be thoroughly indoctrinated with Green/Left, feminist/homosexual ideology but the "3 R's" are something that kids should just be allowed to "discover"

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here.

***************************