From the Providence Journal (registration required):The flap began when the College Republicans published a series of articles and images in their newspaper, The Hawk's Right Eye, that accused "militant homosexuals" of trying to squelch free speech by pushing for hate-crime legislation. Another article, entitled "The Thought Police," asserted that a well-known gay-rights group indoctrinates students into homosexual sex.
The stories were accompanied by a brief article from WorldNet.Daily that describes, in sexually graphic language, the rape of a young man by an older man.
"Homophobic stories are always dwelt on," the article says, "but when homosexuals are the culprits, the news is swept under the rug."
The Republican group was responding in part to the campus appearance of Judy Shepard, mother of slain Wyoming homosexual Matthew Shepard, during freshman orientation this fall.
When university President Roy Nirschel saw the newspaper, he sent an e-mail to the entire campus on Oct. 9. In his letter, he said that the Republicans had crossed over the lines of propriety and respect.
"In the past, this organization has flirted with racist and anti-Islamic rhetoric," Nirschel wrote. "The most recent issue of their publication is pornographic in nature, puerile, mean-spirited and stereotypes gay individuals as child molesters, criminals or deviants.
"While we affirm the right of campus organizations to hold different points of view and to disagree," he said, "the university will not condone publications that create a hostile environment for our students. We are a university too busy to hate."
The administration temporarily froze funds for printing the student newsletterYesterday, Mattera defended both the tone and content of his articles. . . .
Provost Edward Kavanagh, a self-described conservative, denied that Roger Williams's actions are an attempt by a liberal university to suppress a contrarian point of view.
"Should we have a conservative publication? Absolutely," he said. "Should we have someone who takes unpopular points of view? Absolutely. But this is not gutter politics. It should be done with the decorum and ethical standards expected of a university." . . .
"I have been attacked by College Republicans," said Winter Lavier, who sits on the Student Senate . . . . "They called me a rabid jackal and a homosexualist. Attacking me personally is very unprofessional."
Lavier said one student group, Sexual Advocacy For Everyone, has filed a formal complaint with the Student Senate, arguing that the Republican newsletter targets homosexuals. And Lavier has sponsored a bill that would withdraw university funding from the College Republicans.
Lavier called some of the material in the newsletter pornographic because, she said, it contains sexually explicit material that has no social, political or moral value.
"We want to protect the student body from such a hostile paper," she said. "We don't feel we have to pay for their free-speech rights. They can pay for it themselves." . . .
Meanwhile, Kavanagh met with the five leaders of the College Republicans on Friday and told them that their funding would be restored as long as they allow their adviser to review their work before publication. While this has always been an informal policy, the university now says it's necessary to put it in writing. The guidelines will apply to all student publications. . . . Well, Roger Williams University is, I believe, a private school. It isn't bound by the First Amendment, so its actions aren't illegal. And I disagree with the viewpoint of the student publication, which is apparently available here, and think that at least some of the argument is sophomoric.
But should a university that aspires to be a place for debate and learning -- a university that claims to endorse professors' duty to "protect [their students'] academic freedom" -- operate this way? The withdrawal of funds is obviously an attempt to get the newspaper to stop saying things the administration dislikes. The requirement of faculty prescreening confirms that RWU wants to censor student views. And if the speech really creates a "hostile environment," then the University wouldn't just be claiming a right not to fund it. After all, according to the Student Handbook, "harassment" (which "hostile environment" generally refers to) is actually grounds for disciplining students -- the Handbook prohibits, in relevant part,Harassment of an individual or group, where the action is a course of conduct . . . which seriously . . . alarms a person or group. Likewise, according to the RWU computer use policy, students may not use RWU computers to, among other things:a. Infringe upon the rights of another person. Harass, intimidate, threaten, or slander any individual or group.
b. Transmit or make accessible material, which in the sole judgment of the University, is abusive, offensive, pornographic, profane, or sexually offensive. . . .
e. Harass via sending or posting annoying, threatening, libelous, sexually, racially, or religiously offensive messages. . . . So the university is trying to stop groups from expressing viewpoints that the university concludes contain "hate" or "create a hostile environment" (note again the lingo of hostile environment harassment law, spreading from workplaces to universities and beyond) for certain groups -- which presumably means messages that "seriously alarm" groups, "slander" them, or are "sexually, racially, or religiously offensive" (since that's what the University seems to view as "harassment").
Somehow, the university claims that this can coexist with "the right of campus organizations to hold different points of view and to disagree," but obviously there are certain points of view and certain disagreements that the university wants to banish. If you criticize homosexuals -- if you are "anti-Islamic" -- if you express views that the university thinks are "racist" (I wonder exactly what those are) -- you risk defunding, being labeled a harasser (one who creates a "hostile environment"), and, if I read the Student Handbook right, potential discipline and loss of computer access.
This is not, it seems to me, how debate on gay rights, or for that matter on race or on Islam should proceed -- by trying to shut out one set of voices, while supposedly "affirm[ing] the right of campus organizations to hold different points of view and to disagree."
--
Posted by Eugene Volokh to The Volokh Conspiracy at 10/29/2003 10:02:23 AM
Powered by Blogger Pro
|
