Several New York legislators want SUNY @Brockport to disinvite convicted cop killer Jalil Muntaqim, but the school must stand firm in its decision to allow the speaking appearance to continue as planned.
It is the university’s responsibility to place its First Amendment obligations above the calls of detractors, regardless of the level of controversy or the volume of calls for censorship.
SUNY @Brockport defunding an appearance by a faculty-invited speaker is unacceptable, regardless of the speaker's past or beliefs. FIRE is contacting SUNY Brockport to further explain why this violates the university's First Amendment obligations.
@Brockport Today, we wrote to @Brockport explaining that its viewpoint-based revocation of funding violates the university’s First Amendment obligations:
FIRE is looking into the severe disruption of a @YaleLawSch discussion on a Supreme Court 1A case. Protesters stomped, shouted, and pounded the walls. Forcing the cancellation of speech you disagree with isn’t free speech—it’s an illiberal heckler's veto.
2/ It’s disturbing to see those studying at a prestigious law school prevent the discussion of civil liberties and free speech issues. Effective legal advocacy requires engaging with opposing viewpoints, even those that are unpopular or offensive.
3/ FIRE would happily defend protestors displaying signs, hosting competing events, and engaging opposing speakers during Q&A sessions to express their disagreement. But preventing speakers from being heard by shouting them down and drowning them out is not free speech.
The university says it's “committed to the highest ideals of Christian education,” but it also says its mission “demands freedom of inquiry and expression”?
The result?
Faculty may be blindsided by punishment for speech they had every reason to think was protected.
And OC's policy regarding outside speakers?
"A faculty member may invite speakers of all political ideologies to speak in their classes on topics relevant to their subject matter."
@UWyonews Some have pointed out that because the language also prohibits the institution from expending funds from any source to “academic programs,” not just gender studies programs, the language could be literally construed to close the institution’s academic programming.
@UWyonews The amendment functions as a curricular ban on gender studies, and would limit academic discussion of gender in any class, whether offered as part of a “gender studies” program or not.
@GWtweets President @PresWrightonGW backs down, writing that he "responded hastily." He says his response and the removal of the posters were "mistakes".
"I support freedom of speech—even when it offends people," he writes.
@UW@uwcse Professor Stuart Reges learned this the hard way when a land acknowledgement on his syllabus was censored by administrators because it didn’t match a university-approved statement.
@UW@uwcse The university's suggests land acknowledgement statements as a best practice.
That the statement could be adapted seemed clear – until a professor wrote one that administrators didn’t like.