|
|
 |
|
The
views expressed
on this page are soley those of the author and do not
necessarily
represent the views of County News Online
|
 |
The Daily Signal
What These 2
Ohio Lawmakers Are Doing to Kill Colleges’ Censorship
Jonathan Butcher
October 17, 2017
The storm of censorship on college campuses continues to swirl around
the country.
In just the past two weeks, students in Texas sought to shout down an
invited speaker, and Oregon students silenced their own college
president.
But on college campuses and in state legislatures, defenders of free
speech are pushing back. With some adjustment, a new proposal in Ohio
looks promising.
Last week, Ohio lawmakers assigned a bill to committee to help preserve
free speech on Ohio’s public college campuses. Sponsored by state Reps.
Wesley Goodman, R-Cardington, and Andrew Brenner, R-Powell, the
proposal prohibits state-funded schools from disinviting campus
lecturers based on the content of their expression.
The proposal maintains that public colleges and universities must
commit themselves to being bastions of free speech:
It is not the proper role of a state institution of higher education to
shield individuals from expression protected by the United States …
including, without limitation, ideas and opinions that the institution
finds unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive.
The Goodman-Brenner bill draws on ideas from the Goldwater Institute’s
Campus Free Speech Act, which serves as a legislative template for
state lawmakers to use in protecting free expression on public college
campuses.
The Goldwater model, designed with Stanley Kurtz of the Ethics and
Public Policy Center, says that state universities should allow anyone
who is lawfully present on a public campus to demonstrate or protest in
public areas, like sidewalks and spaces outside of buildings.
It also says colleges should make clear during freshman orientation
that they are in favor of free speech and eliminate restrictive speech
codes and so-called “free speech zones” on campus.
North Carolina lawmakers passed a law this summer based on the
Goldwater model, and two weeks ago, the Wisconsin state university
system governing board voted in favor of similar policies.
State representatives in Louisiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, California,
Tennessee, and Virginia have considered similar legislation this year.
Recent activity in courts of law demonstrates that the threat to free
speech on Ohio college campuses is real. In 2012, a federal court
struck down portions of the University of Cincinnati’s speech code,
arguing that the school’s restriction of protests to free speech zones
violated the First Amendment.
Today, Ohio State University has a restrictive speech code in the form
of a “Bias Assessment and Response Team.” This part of the school’s
code allows individuals to anonymously accuse others of “bias acts,”
which are defined as acts that “contribute to creating an unsafe,
negative, or unwelcome environment.”
Campus officials can pursue investigations based on these anonymous
tips.
More than 200 colleges and universities across the country have bias
response teams. Their activities are both ridiculous and frightening.
Earlier this year, the University of Arizona announced it would pay
students for secretly reporting on their peers. (The university later
removed the job posting and said it would change the title of the
position after media reports criticized the school’s actions.)
The University of Michigan announced a new position to coordinate the
school’s bias response team activities, which included “cultural
appropriation prevention activities.” That job listing has also since
been removed.
The Ohio proposal begins to address restrictive speech codes like this,
but it is missing key provisions meant to stop free speech violations.
Legislators should include consequences, including suspension and
expulsion, for individuals that block others from expressing their
ideas.
Such measures date back to at least the 1970s, when a Yale University
commission recommended sanctioning students for violating the First
Amendment.
The Goldwater model includes language to accomplish this, along with
due process protections for those accused of violating someone else’s
free speech. It is vital that these provisions be included along with
sanctions.
Students who are accused of materially and substantially infringing on
other people’s rights to free expression should be informed of the
charges against them, given adequate notice of when hearings on their
case will be held, and given the ability to find representation.
Free speech is the cornerstone of a free and civilized society. It
should not be controversial, especially on college campus.
State lawmakers and university officials should protect all students’
rights to express themselves. They shouldn’t have to wait until the
rumblings of censorship are at their door for policymakers to act.
Read this and other articles at The Daily Signal
|
|
|
|
