A couple of hours ago, our old pal Matt Coker of the OC Weekly posted a story about a community college in North County: CYPRESS COLLEGE RECOGNIZED FOR MUZZLING FREE SPEECH.
According to the Cokester, an organization named the “Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression” (TJCPFE) has placed the administration of Cypress College on its list of Muzzlers of Free Speech.
They took the #6 spot. They received this dubious honor
"for calling police to arrest members of the pro-life group 'Survivor' claiming that they were creating a disturbance by passing out literature and discussing their pro-life views with students…."
The Cypress college paper reported the incident a year ago, explaining that five members of Survivor were handcuffed and placed in the back of patrol cars before being cited for trespassing.
Sheesh.
At the time, the college president defended the action, noting that the college has "designated free-speech zones," and the protesters refused to move their demonstration to those venues.
But the director of the protesting group argues that Cypress' so-called free-speech zone is “more like a confining pen.” According to the TJCPFE,
At the time, the college president defended the action, noting that the college has "designated free-speech zones," and the protesters refused to move their demonstration to those venues.
But the director of the protesting group argues that Cypress' so-called free-speech zone is “more like a confining pen.” According to the TJCPFE,
"…the Survivors were told they could speak only in a 'free speech zone' so remote from the campus center that their message would have had little impact and reached few listeners.” The activists were specifically charged with disturbing the piece, "although there appears to have been no disorder beyond the controversial message and the administration's response, and no evidence that classes or other vital functions were disrupted," ….
This years recipients of the TJCPFE’s award include
• The administrations of Texas' Lone Star College (for refusing to allow the Young Conservatives of Texas to distribute a tongue-in-cheek flier featuring "Top Ten Gun Safety Tips") and Tarrant County College (for banning students from wearing empty gun holsters as part of a protest against laws forbidding concealed weapon license holders from carrying guns on college campuses).
• The administration of Yuba Community College (Yuba City, CA), for threatening to arrest and expel a student who wanted to express his Christian message through tracts, a sign and conversation on campus.
• The administration of the Academy for Arts, Science & Technology (South Carolina), for preventing the distribution of the school newspaper because of an editorial supporting same-sex marriage.
Starting about a dozen years ago, faculty and students at Irvine Valley College battled then-President Raghu P. Mathur and the SOCCCD district over similar issues, leading to a string of high-profile, successful lawsuits. The district spent shitloads of taxpayer money defending itself for thwarting student and faculty free speech (including the free speech of Yours Truly).
I'm pleased to be able to report that, in recent years at the college, various groups—including fundamentalist Christians and noisy, photo-wielding pro-life Jeremiahs—have routinely visited the campus, unmolested by the police. As far as I know, no incidents or problems have occurred.
See? Free speech isn’t so bad, now is it? And it's cheaper, too.
10 comments:
Dripping with irony, college campuses that are touted to be places of free thought and expression.
9:27, where's the irony? In this case, as in our own situations at IVC, the administration, not the faculty, were the enemies of free speech. Pay attention! When Mathur clamped down on peaceful protests, our conservative board backed him up then and through a series of lawsuits, all of which the district lost. So where exactly is this "irony" of which you speak?
You can't be that stupid, Chunk. Speech codes, political correctness, and narrow-mindedness permeates academia. Take Chapman University and their asinine initiative to eliminate the word retarded from the lexicon.
Conversely, your personal experineces simply enforces my original assertion and for that I say bravo.
But lets be real. Both political leanings have their respective agendas on what they consider "appropriate" speech.
1st, the Chapman pledge concerned, not the use of the word "retarded," but the use of the noun "retard" to refer to people. 2nd, you've ignored my point: that the censorship cited by TJCPFE was done by administration, not faculty. I agree that "speech codes" and the like are a bad idea. I've never been to a college that has had a speech code. You've been hoodwinked by demagogues who point to such practices at some colleges and assume that they are embraced at all colleges. Not so. "PC" is another matter (though I agree in opposing it), but conservatives often ignore the fact that there is conservative PC just as there is liberal/progressive PC. If a historian dares state the unpleasant facts of, say, Columbus' treatment of aboriginals or the founding fathers' attitudes towards aboriginals or blacks, some conservatives go apeshit. No, the mythic past must be preserved!
My community college has a "free speech zone," too. Apparently, first ammendment rights don't exist outside of this specially designated area.
Sheesh, indeed.
--100 miles down the road
10^2 mi. down the road,
The girl did some research project on these little areas at UCI. Apparently they are located in places where people are often not and they are sized small so large crowds can't gather.
Now you know! *little rainbow star thing*
Ah yes, but don't forget that IVC engaged in self-censorship--when it caved to threats by members of the local Vietnamese community who sought the removal of the Vietnamese flag among the "flags of the world" hanging in the student services building. Evidently, having to see that tiny square of cloth hanging twenty feet in the air along with a hundred other flags was just too painful to be endured.
I'm from Cypress College, and while I didn't witness this event, I've seen religous groups (sometimes even with megahorns) making a lot of noise from the center of the campus for extended periods of times. People also walk around with clipboards asking for donations, and commercial stands selling consumer products satuate the campus on all days other than Sunday.
Basically to be actually arrested I'm sure these people were to cite you, 'disturbing the "piece."' Probably they were told to leave quietly after a while of harrassing students and shouting, and they refused because they wanted this publicity. For the other 7 commentors I'll say this: if you haven't attended Cypress College and have not witnessed those annoying people who are regularly allowed to give "free speech" to you every time you want to simply walk from the library to the Math and Science building unimpended, keep your mouth shut.
2:46, why so defensive? Most (certainly many) of our readers teach or work at college campuses, and they are very familiar with the phenomenon of noisy or assertive people with religious or other messages. Such indecorous squawkers don't just hang out at Cypress. At my college (IVC), administration once had a history of playing hardball with protesters and demonstrators, including our own students. In fact, overreaction and violations of 1st Amendment rights are common on college campuses. So don't get your nose out of joint when, prima facie, we see yet another instance of overreaction and free speech-suppressing measures. Putting up with inconvenience and annoyance are the price we pay for living in a free society. That can be a hard lesson to learn. Sticking these people somewhere where they can't be seen or heard is a typical tactic, but, in the end, it is the tactic of people who don't really believe in free speech, for they believe in it only when it does not strike them as obnoxious. Looking back at my own reaction to our Holocaust Denier trustee's "forum" on the Warren Commission/JFK Assassination (1997), I see that I did that very thing, joining in an effort to thwart free speech instead of embracing it. I should have joined the voices of those who said: let the fools have their forum. As J.S. Mill would have argued, doing so would have compelled the rest of us to become even clearer about the absurdity of loony JFK assassination conspiracy theories and the like.
The EdCode allows Districts to determine time, place and manner of activities on campuses. The intent of this law focuses on maintaining order for the overall safety of the campus and for providing a conducive learning environment to exist for the faculty and students. This is the genesis for designating "free speech areas." So, in the process of ensuring the rights of free speech and the rights for a safe and conducive learning environment, administrations walk a fine line when it comes to ensuring these two rights. Bottom line is administrations cannot regulate speech (unless the speech enters into the area of the "Fighting words doctrine"). However, they can regulate disruptive behavior on campus, so when the "free speech" occurs in an area on campus where it becomes unsafe or disruptive, the administration can take action to reduce or eliminate that disruption, vis-a-vis, law enforcement if the participants involved in the disruptive behavior resists the direction of the administration. Hope this helps to bring some additional understanding of the complexity of the situation. Public perception is often times a snapshot of what's really happening.
Post a Comment