Punishing UC Irvine's Muslim Student Union

.

     Terry Francke, the general counsel of Californians Aware and the OC Voice’s “open government consultant,” today offers his view regarding UCI’s recent disciplinary action (now being appealed) against the so-called “Irvine 11” and the Muslim Student Union:

A First Amendment Lawyer's Take on Punishing the 'Irvine 11' (OC Voice)

     Brief summary: in Francke’s view, though these eleven students certainly have a right to speak, they do not have a (1st Amendment) right to prevent someone else from speaking. Further, it appears to be a fact that the relevant interrupting actions (of the Israeli Ambassador, at UCI, Feb. 8) were a concerted effort of the MSU, and thus disciplining that organization is justified. Finally, the suspension of that organization does not take away the voice of Muslim students, for they can continue to speak or to be represented by other organizations.
     Francke’s argument seems compelling. I do, however, believe that there is a further consequentialist consideration against UCI’s harsh action. That is, in my view, the consequences of this action could be very unfortunate to the community, and that fact also needs to be taken into account (given that failure to take the harsh disciplinary action that UCI took would not harm anyone or violate anyone’s rights*).
     The harm I see is the potential that this entire incident, ending with the one-year suspension of the MSU, will further polarize and divide the opposing camps.
     Sometimes, an honest attempt at discussion or discourse about an issue (e.g., the Feb. 8 event) can make further useful discussion less likely, at least for a time.
     Nobody said that “free speech” guarantees progress.

*I suppose that one could argue that the failure to discipline the MSU would be an act of inconsistency on the part of the University; hence, it would be unfair to some. Hence, it would do harm to some.