You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Speech’ category.
Yesterday I tweeted a link to a photo of a 1967 sit-in at Duke University, but it wasn’t until just now that I followed up to see the story behind the protest.
Wow.
In the fall of 1967, the Duke student government proposed a regulation that would have barred student organizations from patronizing segregated off-campus establishments. The regulation was put to the Duke student body in a referendum … and it failed by a 60-40 margin.
In response to the vote, members of the campus Afro-American Society staged a sit-in in the hallway outside the offices of the university president, and the university senate quickly agreed to impose the ban that the students had rejected.
The Civil Rights Act banned discrimination in public accommodations in 1964, but Duke had not enrolled its first black undergraduate students until the fall of 1963, and the university did not hire its first black professor until 1966, so it’s perhaps not surprising that the college’s white student majority would still be so hostile to integration in 1967.
Shocking, perhaps, but not surprising.
Chris Quintanilla, a 14-year-old eighth-grader in Peoria, Arizona, says he was told by his principal to remove a rainbow wristband that carried the slogan “Rainbows Are Gay.”
The student’s mother says that when she talked to the principal about his action, he told her that some teachers found the phrase offensive.
This is not the first time Natali Quintanilla and the principal have clashed over the school’s treatment of her son. She says that when she told him that Chris was being harassed at school for being gay earlier this year, she was told that he wouldn’t be picked on “if he didn’t put it out there the way he does.”
Unable to secure protection of her son’s free-speech rights directly through the school, Natali Quintanilla took the issue to the ACLU.
The ACLU sent the school district a three-page letter reminding them of students’ free speech rights in school, and asked them to “confirm … within 10 days” that “the District will now allow Chris and other students to wear or otherwise display messages or symbols expressing their support of LGBT rights.”
The district has not yet responded.
April 20 update: Quintanilla has been cleared to start wearing the wristband again.
Harvard’s medical student activists are still waiting.
Earlier this month, word broke that a representative of pharmaceutical giant Pfizer had been caught photographing a student demonstration against drug companies’ influence over the Harvard medical school.
In response to the revelations, Senator Charles Grassley set a one-week deadline for to Pfizer to provide him with all internal corporate documents relating to “Harvard medical students demonstrating and/or agitating against pharmaceutical influence.”
Grassley’s demand made headlines, and Pfizer promised to comply. That was fifteen days ago, however, and since then Grassley has made no further public statement on the matter.
We noted last week that University of Montana law prof Kristen Juras had called for censorship of the U of M student newspaper, saying that its sex advice column “affects my reputation as a member of the faculty.”
She was almost right. The sex advice column wasn’t having any effect on her reputation. Dozens of campus papers have such columns, and nobody holds tax law professors responsible for the content of a school’s student newspaper anyway. If she’d just tut-tutted to herself, her reputation would have been just fine.
But she didn’t, and it isn’t.
Juras’ name now appears in eight of the top ten Google hits for ” ‘University of Montana’ sex.” Most of the top hits for her name are references to this ugly story.
So Professor Juras needs help. And Patrick from Popehat (presently number four in a Google search on “Kristen Juras”) is willing to step in:
I’m gravely concerned about Professor Juras’s ignorance of First Amendment precedent such as Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503, 89 S. Ct. 733, 21 L. Ed. 2d 731 (1969), which holds that speech by students in public schools may be infringed only on a showing that it will disrupt the orderly running of the school, or is indecent. (Professor Juras does not make such a contention concerning Ms. Davis’s columns.) I’m concerned that, to the extent that what Professor Juras really seeks is to have the University censor one student, she is asking for constitutionally prohibited viewpoint discrimination under the guise of sometimes permitted content discrimination.
Moreover, and this is what really concerns me, as far as Professor Juras’s reputation is concerned, I believe that any time someone writes, “I respect free speech, but…” and then goes on to ask for censorship, that person looks like an ass, a fool, and a hypocrite.
And so, in order to protect Kristen Juras’s reputation, I am asking to be appointed as an independent monitor at the University of Montana School of Law, with authority over the writings and speech of assistant professors who teach property, business, and tax, and a requirement that all such writings and speech be cleared with me, beforehand, to the extent that they touch on political or legal topics outside the subjects of property, business transactions, and tax. (Because God, I don’t want to have to read that stuff.)
Since Kristen Juras, evidently, is unwilling to protect her own reputation, which is now that of a fool, someone else will have to do it. For her own damned good.
He’s a giver, that Patrick.
What happens when a bright-eyed South Carolina sophomore stumbles into a Leninist rally in NYC?
studentactivism.net 
Recent Comments