thefire.org

Arizona State Blocks Access to Change.org

February 3, 2012

Arizona State University has reportedly blocked access to the petition website Change.org, citing concerns with "spam" emails coming from the site in the wake of a petition posted on the site that advocated lower tuition costs at the university. Today, FIRE wrote a letter to the university asking that Arizona State immediately restore access to the Change.org website and assure its students that its IT department does not block access to websites that might host content critical of the university.

Permalink | E-mail comments | Posted on February 3, 2012, at 7:17 PM

At Yale, Political Expediency Trumps Basic Rights

February 3, 2012

Last week, The New York Times ran an article on Patrick Witt, the star quarterback at Yale University whose candidacy for a Rhodes scholarship was suspended after the Rhodes selection committee learned of an "informal" complaint of sexual assault lodged against him within Yale's judicial system. 

Several days later, Yale released its first-ever "Report of Complaints of Sexual Misconduct," part of Yale's effort to overhaul its handling of sexual misconduct claims. The report provides details both about Yale's various methods for handling such claims (including the "informal complaint" process used by Patrick Witt's accuser) and about the actual claims brought. According to the official press release for the report,

The comprehensive report, which exceeds any legal mandate, provides a level of transparency expected to motivate the Yale community to improve the campus climate, administrators said. It reports all complaints of misconduct, including verbal harassment and sexual assault.

The Witt case and the new Yale report paint a picture of a university more concerned with protecting its reputation and its federal funding (which is threatened by the Department of Education's investigation into Yale's handling of sexual misconduct complaints) than with its students' rights to free speech and due process. KC Johnson has a brilliant piece at Minding the Campus on Yale's handling of the Witt affair. Whomever informed the Rhodes Trust about the allegations against Witt most likely violated Yale's confidentiality rules, but according to Johnson,

[T]here's no sign that Yale has undertaken an investigation as to whether a university employee violated Yale procedures and Witt's due process rights, and an e-mail to Yale's P.R. office asking if such an inquiry was planned went unanswered.

Worse yet, Johnson writes, is what the Witt affair and the Yale report reveal about the state of due process and fundamental fairness at Yale:

[T]he informal complaint procedure's ‘goal is to achieve a resolution that is desired by the [accuser]," so that accusers can ‘regain their sense of wellbeing,' even though the process provides no mechanism for determining whether the accuser is telling the truth. In fact, the process seems all but designed to ensure that the truth won't be discovered, especially if the accuser is less than truthful. According to [the report's author, Deputy Provost Stephanie Spangler], Yale wants the informal complaint procedure to give the accuser ‘choice of and control over the process.' This goal is incompatible with providing due process to the accused.

Yale's report sheds additional light on the problems with Yale's system for handling claims of sexual misconduct. The informal complaint system, by Yale's own admission, "does not include extensive investigation or formal findings." Although Yale reserves the right to override the complainant's wishes and require a formal investigation if it feels there are sufficient "risks to the safety of individuals and/or the community," it appears from the report as if all of the informal complaints were in fact resolved informally, with outcomes typically including restrictions on contact between the parties and counseling for the accused on "appropriate conduct." The contact restrictions and counseling were imposed on the accused students despite the fact that, according to the report, "no determination as to the validity of the allegations was made."

I should hope that if any of the informal complaints involved a credible claim of actual sexual assault, the Yale administration would have indeed pursued an actual investigation, rather than setting a potentially dangerous criminal free in the Yale community with nothing more than some administrative counseling on appropriate behavior. The fact that no such investigations seem to have ensued points at least in part to the fact that Yale, by its own admission, uses "a more expansive definition of sexual assault" than required by law—a definition so expansive that, as KC Johnson notes, "per capita reports of sexual assault on the Yale campus were 10-12 times greater than those in New Haven," which the FBI has rated the fourth most dangerous city in the country.

But as Johnson points out, anyone hearing or reading that a Yale student has been accused of sexual assault is unlikely to be aware of this more expansive definition, causing permanent harm to the reputation of the accused student. And while the identities of parties involved in these informal complaints are supposed to be kept confidential, the Witt case—and Yale's response to it—proves that this is not necessarily the case.

The report also reveals that Yale is investigating students and faculty members for sexual harassment based on allegations of nothing more than "inappropriate comments," in direct violation of the right to free speech promised in Yale's own policies (which provide that "[e]very official of the university ... has a special obligation to foster free expression and to ensure that it is not obstructed.) We already knew (from its decision to discipline the DKE fraternity for crude and tasteless but protected speech) that Yale was willing to throw its commitments to free speech under the bus for political expediency, but it is sad to see that trend continued in this report.

While KC Johnson offers the generous suggestion that Yale's sexual misconduct procedures are part of a well-intentioned but misguided effort to encourage more real victims of assault to step forward, to me the totality of the circumstances here paint a more cynical picture—one of a university far more concerned with its own reputation and financial well-being than with the rights of its students.

Permalink | E-mail comments | Posted on February 3, 2012, at 4:04 PM

‘Tulane Hullabaloo’ on Tulane’s Speech Codes

February 3, 2012

Today, the editorial board of The Tulane Hullabaloo, the student paper at Tulane University, has written an editorial in support of FIRE's analysis of Tulane's "red light" policies. The piece quotes FIRE Senior Vice President Robert Shibley and calls for the university to promote free speech on campus.

The editorial board writes, in part:

"There's the concern that it's very difficult to define what is ‘inappropriate'"... Shibley said. "Those are definitions that depend on the opinion of the person you ask, and what's inappropriate to somebody might not be to their friend or roommate."

Efforts to create a positive campus environment should stem from movements like One Wave - the campus-wide effort to make Tulane a friendlier place - not from restrictive free speech policies in the Student Guide of Policy, Procedures and Resources.

Tulane should work with FIRE to ensure that its policies give students real freedom of speech. Though students currently have little or no reason to complain about the administration's actions regarding freedom of speech, we need to protect our rights for the future.

FIRE hopes that the Tulane administration will take the Hullabaloo's request seriously and will seek to revise the policies that restrict the free speech of Tulane students.

Permalink | E-mail comments | Posted on February 3, 2012, at 2:57 PM

‘6 Tips to Protect Your Rights’ Published in ‘The Delta’

February 3, 2012

I'm happy to report that an earlier piece I wrote for The Torch, "6 Tips to Protect Your Rights in College," has been reprinted by The Delta, the national magazine of the Sigma Nu fraternity. This entry, originally published during back-to-school season in September, offers students practical advice on how to protect themselves when dealing with possible violations of their rights or having to defend themselves to campus authorities. (You can read it in The Delta's interactive issue, page 16.)

I encourage all students to read and reread the whole post (and the many other materials we make available to students at no charge), but will reprint the piece's final point here, for any student in a bind:

6. Don't wait—contact FIRE. Don't wait until you've been found responsible for violating campus policies before asking FIRE for help. We have more than a decade of experience defending student rights, and we have won or helped to resolve hundreds of cases involving students. We stand ready to help students whose rights have been violated by their colleges, and we know where to refer students whose cases are outside of our mission. It's usually far better to get us involved sooner rather than later. If you wish to contact FIRE regarding a potential violation of your rights, I encourage you to submit a case to FIRE through our website.

I hope my brief entry can be of help to the Sigma Nu members at colleges around the country, and to all students, and thank Sigma Nu for reprinting it.  

Permalink | E-mail comments | Posted by Peter Bonilla on February 3, 2012, at 2:07 PM

Final Chance to Vote on Best ‘Firefly’ Tweet at Prizes.org

February 3, 2012

FIRE has selected ten finalists for our contest for the best tweet promoting our newest video, about FIRE's case at the University of Wisconsin-Stout, where Professor James Miller was ordered to take down a poster featuring a quote from the science fiction show Firefly. With more than 80,000 views, the video is among FIRE's most popular. $500 in prizes is at stake for the participants, so please go to Prizes.org and vote on your favorite today—on Monday, it's all over!

Permalink | E-mail comments | Posted by Robert Shibley on February 3, 2012, at 11:30 AM

A 'Bake Sale' Protest at Aquinas College (Bucknell, Are You Listening?)

February 2, 2012

A perennial topic of consternation on college campuses is the "affirmative action bake sale" protest that groups opposed to affirmative action hold with some regularity on college campuses. If you don't recall or haven't heard of these protests, they take the form of bake sales where people of different ethnicities are charged different suggested amounts for baked goods, with whites and Asians paying the most and African-Americans and Native Americans paying the least. The different prices are meant to signify the advantage in college admissions that opponents of affirmative action argue such policies give to certain ethnicities.

Probably the most (in)famous of these bake sales happened at Bucknell University, where administrators shut down an affirmative action bake sale protest by misapplying university policies, telling students they could reapply for a permit to hold a controversial event, later denying them a permit on the erroneous basis that such a bake sale would be illegal discrimination, and then telling the students that affirmative action couldn't even be debated on the "public property of the campus." It was truly a low point for free speech on America's campuses, and helped earn Bucknell FIRE's dreaded "Red Alert" status.

Adam wrote last October that Bucknell was looking "dumber and dumber" for this transparently political crusade against those protesting affirmative action, considering that "bake sale" style protests on the subject of affirmative action had recently transpired without legal problems at Berkeley and Fordham, as well as a similar "pay equity bake sale" at the University of Georgia, in which students protested the "gender wage gap" between men and women by charging women less then men for the same baked goods. Now, FIRE has just learned that Aquinas College in Michigan is also holding a pay equity bake sale, under the auspices of the Jane Hibbard Idema Women's Studies Center, which appears to be part of Aquinas College itself. As organizer Nathan Lundy says, "Having a bake sale to demonstrate this gap is a fun, but still an educating way to bring light to this situation." Hear that, Bucknell?

It's long past time for Bucknell to recognize that bake sales are a legitimate form of protest, admit that its motivation in censoring the protest was political rather than principled, and affirm that it will stop censoring its own students. 

Permalink | E-mail comments | Posted by Robert Shibley on February 2, 2012, at 4:54 PM

Will Columbia University Students Respect Jim Gilchrist’s Right to Free Speech This Time?

February 2, 2012

Recent articles in the Columbia Spectator address the recently announced plans of the Columbia University College Republicans (CUCRs) to bring Jim Gilchrist, the founder of the controversial Minuteman Project, to speak at Columbia this spring. Given the melee that ensued when he spoke at Columbia in 2006 (also as a guest of the CUCRs), this is no small event.

When Gilchrist spoke at Columbia on October 4, 2006, several protesters of Gilchrist's and the Minutemen's anti-illegal immigration views and tactics forcibly took the stage to disrupt the event. The protesters' violence was roundly condemned, and several students were ultimately disciplined for their roles in the disruption. Yet while the protesters faced some consequences for their actions, the debacle continues to stand as a snapshot of all that has gone wrong with the quality of campus discourse today, with students—wrongly empowered by the false right not to be offended—seeing no harm in using forcible means to suppress speech and ideas with which they disagree. Adding further insult to free speech, such intolerant actions are frequently perpetrated in the name of preserving a more "tolerant" campus atmosphere. 

From the Spectator's coverage, it seems that Columbia students are determined to do better this time and are eager for a free exchange of ideas around Gilchrist's controversial message. Spectator Senior Staff Writer Yasmin Gagne's January 25 article notes that

Emily Tamkin, CC '12, general manager of Columbia Political Union and a former Spectator editorial page editor, said, "We absolutely support CUCR and any other organization's right to bring any speaker to campus that they feel would further political and civic engagement."

Columbia University College Democrats media director Sarah Gitlin, CC '13, said that the Democrats were not opposed to the visit, despite opposing Gilchrist's ideology.

"The Minutemen are obviously a group of very hateful vigilantes and we object strongly to any of their actions," she said, "but we do support free speech on campus and are not opposed to CU Republicans' right to bring them on campus.

"We do hope that many people will show up to question them on their actions," she added.

Similarly, the Spectator's editorial board wrote that

Columbia's institutional support and longtime dedication to academic freedom should preclude nobody-regardless of his views-from coming to campus and fostering dialogue. Extending an invitation is not an endorsement of the invitee's opinions and Columbia's reaction to previous speakers-such as Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad-shows that it is cognizant of this. CUCR is entirely within its rights to invite a public figure for discussion in an open arena and no group or individual should stop it from doing so.

These statements of principle are welcome, and do not preclude the right of those who fervently disagree with the Minutemen's message to make sure their voices are part of the dialogue. 

Some potential problems still lie ahead for the CUCRs. The Spectator's January 25 article notes CUCR President Will Prasifka estimating that security for the event would cost $1,000 or more. Perhaps Prasifka is pulling that number from a hat, but perhaps also he is forecasting that turnout for the event-including protesters—would be significant, and thus require an able security presence to ensure the speaker's safety. Should Gilchrist return to Columbia, and should Columbia decide that $1,000 is the true cost of the security needed, it had better know that it may not saddle the CUCRs with the costs. FIRE has on many occasions successfully fought back such punitive efforts, in which student groups are hit with outrageously high security fees for speakers deemed controversial- a practice which has the effect of deterring those from bringing speakers whose views may be unpopular on campus ("bankrupting free speech," as I once called it). Should Columbia pull such a trick here, we will be ready to come to the CUCRs' defense.

And, should Columbia students once more resort to vigilantism (ironically, one of their chief charges against the Minutemen) in an effort to shut down campus discourse, FIRE will be there as well.

Permalink | E-mail comments | Posted on February 2, 2012, at 2:28 PM

After Vandy's Ill-Advised Choice, Revisiting 'CLS v. Martinez' Warning

February 1, 2012

Last night, Vanderbilt University held a "town hall"discussion of its decision to require registered student groups to accept all students in leadership positions, barring belief-based student groups from requiring that leaders actually agree with the group's stated mission. According to The Tennessean, more than 200 students participated, and FIRE has received reports from students that the discussion, planned for 90 minutes, ran for over three hours.  

Vanderbilt student publication InsideVandy.com reported that tensions were extraordinarily high: 

This pressure reached its breaking point when starting quarterback for the Vanderbilt Commodores Jordan Rodgers spoke out on behalf of the Fellowship for Christian Athletes, a group currently on provisional status because it restricts its leadership positions to only members who affirm the organization's core beliefs. 

Taking a confrontational tone with the university representatives - Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs Richard McCarty and David Williams, vice chancellor for university affairs and athletics, general counsel and university secretary - Rodgers delivered a defense for religious organizations before walking out with a small group of audience members. 

Considering how much control schools generally demand over student athletes'expression, it's  stunning indeed that this happened. 

As Robert discussed here on The Torch yesterday, FIRE strongly opposes Vanderbilt's decision. Last week, we sent an open letter detailing our concerns and posing questions to Chancellor Nicholas Zeppos about how the policy will be enforced. (The open letter also appeared as a half-page advertisement in yesterday's edition of the Vanderbilt Hustler.)  

We've received a video recording of the proceedings, and we'll have more on it in the days to come.  

Meanwhile, the debate at Vanderbilt has reminded us here at FIRE of the letter  we sent to 271 universities across the country in August 2010 regarding the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, a closely-watched case in which a divided court upheld the constitutionality of "all comers"policies at public universities. (Our FAQ on the case is a good place to start if you aren't familiar with the decision.) 

In our letter, FIRE reminded campus administrators that the Court's holding in CLS was a narrow one, and warned them of the difficulties implementing an "all-comers policy"would present in practice. I've included the text of our letter in full below, using the copy we sent to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill as our sample:

This letter was sent by FIRE to 271 colleges and universities. 

August 13, 2010

Chancellor Holden Thorp
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
103 South Building
Campus Box 9100
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599-9100

 

Dear Chancellor Thorp:

As you may know, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision this June permitting a public law school to deny official recognition to a Christian student group. The law school relied on an "all-comers" policy that requires all recognized organizations to allow any student to become a voting member or leader, whether or not they agree with the ideology of the group. The case, Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, has been remanded to the lower court to determine whether the school unequally enforced its policy against the Christian group.

FIRE disagrees with the Court's ruling and believes it will actually lead to increased discrimination against viewpoints unpopular on campus. To prevent this illiberal result, it is crucial to recognize that the Court's decision was very limited in scope and to properly understand what the opinion does and does not say. Importantly, the majority opinion:

• Does not require that colleges and universities adopt "all-comers" policies. To the contrary, the ruling emphasized that maintaining such a policy, if evenly enforced, is an action a university may choose to take, not one it must or even should take.
  
• Does make clear that if a school adopts an "all-comers" policy, it must be evenly applied across the board to all groups. Any school allowing some groups, but not others, to choose members on the basis of belief will violate the First Amendment.

For many reasons, adopting an "all-comers" policy is highly inadvisable.

For one, an "all-comers" policy renders colleges powerless to stop members of rival or opposing student groups from joining, spying on, taking over, or simply diluting the messages espoused by other groups. For example, under an "all-comers" policy, atheists cannot be prevented from joining a Muslim group, voting themselves into leadership positions, and then voting to disband the group. In the coming election season, members of the College Democrats would be unable to stop College Republicans (and vice versa) from listening in on strategy meetings or even casting critical votes about strategic decisions. Actions like these would obviously lead to increased bitterness and rancor among groups on campus, yet they would be almost unavoidable under an "all-comers" policy.

Further, an "all-comers" policy would be nearly impossible to fairly enforce. Any college adopting such a policy must prevent La Raza from excluding students who are hostile to Mexican immigration and an environmentalist student group from denying voting membership to global warming skeptics. Meanwhile, conservative and progressive newspapers alike will be attacked by their critics, who will bring into question whether such time-honored publications have a right to exist at all under an "all-comers" policy. Unless a college is absolutely confident that it has addressed every such requirement in every recognized student group, it risks legal liability for violating CLS v. Martinez's mandate that enforcement of an "all-comers" policy be evenhanded.

Perhaps most importantly, an "all-comers" policy ultimately subjects freedom of association to the limits of tolerance among campus majorities, impairing the intellectual and cultural diversity among groups that is vital on college campuses. A liberal education progresses in great measure through learning from different groups with distinct identities and opinions as those groups express their unique messages on campus. Diluting those messages through an "all-comers" policy contracts rather than expands the marketplace of ideas across campus. As John Stuart Mill wrote about censorship in On Liberty: "If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error."

Imposing an "all-comers" policy on your campus will lead to increased hostility among student groups, increased chaos within those groups, and a greatly increased need to police groups for compliance-all while increasing, not decreasing, the likelihood of a lawsuit. The way to maintain harmony and genuine diversity among student groups on campus is to continue to allow student groups to form around shared beliefs in order to maintain their ideological, religious, or political identities.

Sincerely,

Greg Lukianoff

President

cc:
Leslie C. Strohm, University Counsel

Permalink | E-mail comments | Posted by William Creeley on February 1, 2012, at 5:12 PM

Second Chance for New Jersey to Protect Free Speech in Anti-Bullying Law

February 1, 2012

Here is today's press release from FIRE: 

TRENTON, N.J., February 1, 2012—Following a state council's ruling that New Jersey's new anti-bullying law is an unfunded mandate in violation of the New Jersey Constitution, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) notes that the law also violates college students' First Amendment rights. The law ignores the fact that harassment in the educational context has a precise legal definition, crafted by the Supreme Court with specific attention to balancing the right to freedom of expression with the government's interest in prohibiting real harassment. The law also conflicts with recent rulings on campus speech from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, whose jurisdiction includes New Jersey.

"The Council on Local Mandates' ruling has provided New Jersey legislators a chance to fix restrictions on student speech that are both impermissibly vague and startlingly broad," said FIRE President Greg Lukianoff. "This 'anti-bullying' law, as it is currently written, makes opening one's mouth on a college campus in the state of New Jersey a serious risk. FIRE knows all too well that even well-intentioned rules that provide vague proscriptions on speech that challenges or offends are a true disaster for free speech, candor, and robust intellectual inquiry."

While virtually all attention to the law has focused on its impact on K-12 students, New Jersey's Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights also requires colleges to prohibit "harassment, intimidation and bullying." The law defines those terms so broadly as to include "a single incident" on campus that "substantially disrupts or interferes with the orderly operation of the institution or the rights of other students" and "has the effect of insulting or demeaning any student or group of students" or "will have the effect of physically or emotionally harming a student."

Yet in Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education (1999), the Supreme Court of the United States defined peer-on-peer harassment in the educational context as unwelcome conduct directed at an individual that is "so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive, and that so undermines and detracts from the victims' educational experience, that the victim-students are effectively denied equal access to an institution's resources and opportunities." This standard, no more and no less, effectively covers the speech that New Jersey may legitimately ban as "bullying."

In contrast to the Davis standard, New Jersey's law fails to define "emotional harm" and gives students no way to predict what fellow students will perceive as "emotional harm." Such highly subjective terms effectively leave the state's adult college students guessing at what speech is and is not outlawed on campus. That kind of uncertainty leads to a chilling effect on speech, as rational students decide to self-censor rather than risk punishment.

In addition, by prohibiting speech that "has the effect of insulting or demeaning any student or group of students" in such a way as to "substantially disrupt[] or interfere[] with the orderly operation of the institution," New Jersey has in effect sanctioned the "heckler's veto." If the College Republicans were to stage a disruptive sit-in because the College Democrats had harshly criticized them for being Republicans, New Jersey's law would subject the Democrats to punishment for the Republicans' disruption. In other words, New Jersey has incentivized overreaction to any perceived insult, since the "victim's" disruption of the orderly operation of the school automatically shifts the blame to the speaker.

The New Jersey law also is at odds with binding precedent from a federal appellate court. In DeJohn v. Temple University (2008), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit struck down Temple University's restriction on "generalized sexist remarks and behavior," holding that the policy "provides no shelter for core protected speech" and concluding that "[d]iscussion by adult students in a college classroom should not be restricted." In McCauley v. University of the Virgin Islands (2010), the Third Circuit struck down the University of the Virgin Islands' prohibition on conduct causing "emotional distress." The court found the policy "entirely subjective" and noted that under this vague restriction,
"[e]very time a student speaks, she risks causing another student emotional distress," resulting in a "heavy weight" that does "substantial" damage to free speech on campus.

Now that New Jersey's Council on Local Mandates has ruled that the anti-bullying law must be revised, this is an opportunity to fix the First Amendment violations in the law as well.

"In the aftermath of tragedies like Tyler Clementi's, it is understandable that people rushed to pass this new law," said FIRE Director of Legal and Public Advocacy Will Creeley. "But we can't let a tragedy serve as justification to roll back the First Amendment. Poorly written laws should not silence protected speech."

FIRE is a nonprofit educational foundation that unites civil rights and civil liberties leaders, scholars, journalists, and public intellectuals from across the political and ideological spectrum on behalf of individual rights, freedom of expression, academic freedom, due process, and rights of conscience at our nation's colleges and universities. FIRE's efforts to preserve liberty on campuses across America can be viewed at thefire.org.

CONTACT:
Will Creeley, Director of Legal and Public Advocacy, FIRE: 215-717-3473; will@thefire.org

Permalink | E-mail comments | Posted on February 1, 2012, at 2:17 PM

Former FIRE Intern: UNC Should Not Be Comfortable With Unconstitutional Policies

February 1, 2012

David Deerson, a former FIRE intern and current University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill junior, penned an excellent letter to the editor published in today’s edition of The Daily Tar Heel. His letter responds to an article from Tuesday, which reported that UNC’s vice chancellor for student affairs Winston Crisp is comfortable with the school’s “yellow light” rating from FIRE. David writes: 

TO THE EDITOR: 

It is disturbing to read that Winston Crisp is comfortable with UNC’s yellow light rating from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. 

UNC is a state institution and it receives funding from both local and federal governments. If the institution’s policies stand in violation of the Constitution, it doesn’t matter much whether UNC administrators are comfortable with them or not. 

The fact of the matter is that UNC has certain policies that have already been declared unconstitutional at other universities. What makes UNC’s complacency with its problematic policies especially frustrating is that the solutions to them are so simple. For example, the Supreme Court has already laid down a clear definition of student-on-student sexual harassment in the educational context. Why not simply borrow the court’s language and ensure that the University’s policies do not violate essential freedoms? 

Linda Foulsham of Appalachian State University completely missed the point when she said that instances would only be determined to be sexual harassment after applying the facts of a particular situation and individual review. 

The last thing we should want is a policy so vague that it puts the determination of guilt entirely in the hands of administrators. Policies should be as clear as possible, so that individuals know exactly what constitutes a violation.

For more information about the problematic policies, I urge concerned readers to visit FIRE at www.thefire.org, and read my open letter to Dean of Students John Sauls at http://www.unclibertarians.com/2012/01/open-letter-to-dean-sauls/ 

David Deerson
Vice President
UNC-CH College Libertarians 

FIRE agrees that the UNC community should not take a complacent view toward policies that violate students’ First Amendment rights. Like David says, Crisp’s apparent comfort is especially regrettable because it is very possible to craft workable policies that respect campus speech rights. The College of William & Mary, the University of Virginia, Arizona State University, James Madison University, and the University of Mississippi are all major public universities like UNC that are not just “comfortable” but proud of their green light policies. The changes UNC needs to make to protect student rights are simple but significant, and when UNC decides to become a green light school FIRE will be happy to help.

Permalink | E-mail comments | Posted by Jaclyn Hall on February 1, 2012, at 2:07 PM