Utterly bizarre college speech policy
Dec. 18th, 2006 02:30 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
elfs"If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein." -- Robert H. Jackson, writing for the majority on the Supreme Court, West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnette, 1943.
With that in mind, review if you will the Student Accountablity in Community handout and accompaniy materials. Normally, I think of FIRE (The Freedom for Individual Rights in Education) foundation as being a little too right wing for my tastes, but in this case they're absolutely right. Michigan State University has made it mandatory that students attend an SAC seminar (and they must pay for it themselves as well) for "early intervention" if the student is cited for saying things that imply "a privileged position due to being white, male or heterosexual," or "any action of obscuring, concealing, or changing people's perceptions that result in your advantage and/or another's disadvantage." The SAC states that "humilating a boyfriend or girlfriend," "making sexist, racist, or homophobic comments," "showing disrepect for other students' academic freedom," or "failing to understand how such words might affect others."
There is no appeal process, and students may not attempt to deny or justify their behavior: they must confess their sins in a public forum and speak out loud a formula for "more appropriate behaviors" before they can be released from the risk of expulsion.
While I find many of the beliefs of the religious right appalling, I support the rights of individuals to hold those beliefs (so long as they continue to support my right to challenge them). According to the SAC, claiming that your religious beliefs imply a rejection of homosexuality or sexual equality is a form of "obfuscation" and is punishable.
I love the guidelines for facilitators: "Facilitators may not debate, moralize, or punish seminar attendees." What the Hell do you call it, then?
Do the citizens of Michigan really support this kind of intimidation and indoctrination for their kids?
Hat Tip: Ed Brayton
With that in mind, review if you will the Student Accountablity in Community handout and accompaniy materials. Normally, I think of FIRE (The Freedom for Individual Rights in Education) foundation as being a little too right wing for my tastes, but in this case they're absolutely right. Michigan State University has made it mandatory that students attend an SAC seminar (and they must pay for it themselves as well) for "early intervention" if the student is cited for saying things that imply "a privileged position due to being white, male or heterosexual," or "any action of obscuring, concealing, or changing people's perceptions that result in your advantage and/or another's disadvantage." The SAC states that "humilating a boyfriend or girlfriend," "making sexist, racist, or homophobic comments," "showing disrepect for other students' academic freedom," or "failing to understand how such words might affect others."
There is no appeal process, and students may not attempt to deny or justify their behavior: they must confess their sins in a public forum and speak out loud a formula for "more appropriate behaviors" before they can be released from the risk of expulsion.
While I find many of the beliefs of the religious right appalling, I support the rights of individuals to hold those beliefs (so long as they continue to support my right to challenge them). According to the SAC, claiming that your religious beliefs imply a rejection of homosexuality or sexual equality is a form of "obfuscation" and is punishable.
I love the guidelines for facilitators: "Facilitators may not debate, moralize, or punish seminar attendees." What the Hell do you call it, then?
Do the citizens of Michigan really support this kind of intimidation and indoctrination for their kids?
Hat Tip: Ed Brayton
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-12-18 11:15 pm (UTC)Probably not, but isn't this exactly what happens when victim advocates or any kind of "anti-*insert evil here* activists" manage to get themselves in charge of anything? Combine a single-minded obsession with some cause with the outright exemption from criticism that comes from the supposed goodness of that cause, and this is what you get.
Not that there isn't a role for them, but rulemaking sure as hell isn't it.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-19 08:06 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-19 06:20 pm (UTC)I guess the justification is something like, "Blah blah blah, Marketplace Of Ideas, blah?" :P
no subject
Date: 2006-12-19 06:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-19 07:40 am (UTC)And the basic problem is the sort of social misbehaviour that should have been sorted out before a kid starts High School. Trouble is, this is the sort of bullying incompetence I associate with bad teaching, and it's being applied to students who are, in law, adults, able to vote, make contracts, and all that stuff.
And it's ending up as a thought-crime response.
Doubleplusungood.
Trouble is, when an American says some organisation is "right wing", these days, it conjures up an image of the members having neatly folded brown shirts and armbands in their bottom drawer, just in case. And they're against this policy not because they want freedom of speech, but because they want to be able to express thweir hatred of people like us. I really hope I'm misjudging FIRE, but the past few years of American politics leave me biased: that looks like the way to bet.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-19 01:32 pm (UTC)- Shouldn't they be required to hold a copy of Mao's Little Red Book while confessing their sins, just to keep things historically consistent?
no subject
Date: 2006-12-20 12:38 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-20 12:38 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-20 12:40 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-20 12:40 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-20 12:41 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-20 03:43 pm (UTC)I suppose we can only hope that Michigan acquires the sort of pariah-state status once held by Mississippi...may it be a warning to others!