Skip to main content

#4: UW-Madison Adopts Dangerous New Policy

Universities have historically been an institution where students have the freedom of thought and expression. As pointed out by the ACLU, it is what allows for critical discussion and conversation. As I was reading this chapter, it reminded me of an intense debate I had seen on my news feed this past week. Under the premise of preserving the freedom of thought and expression, the University of Wisconsin Madison has passed a new policy that punishes (even expels) students who engage in violence, protests, and disorderly conduct. With many college campuses adopting codes of conduct and campus speech rules, I would argue that this policy is unconstitutional. In an attempt to "preserve" the freedom of speech, it actually restricts the autonomy and agency of the students. If students were at risk for expulsion, they would not participate in protests in the first place! Furthermore, the language of "disorderly conduct" is extremely vague and could be subjected to many different interpretations. Faculty and administration can utilize this as a scare tactic to deter students from participating in rallies and protests, which does not allow them to express their ideas. 

In the chapter the ACLU mentions how they see campus regulations. "The ACLU opposes all campus regulations which interfere with the freedom of protesters, students and administrators to teach, learn discuss and debate or to express ideas, opinions or feelings in the classroom and in public and private discourse." (Tedford & Herbeck, 208). Protests, especially student led protests, have been a platform for civil discourse for decades from the Vietnam War to the Civil Rights Movement. The steps of Morill Hall at the University of Minnesota held a protest in 1969! If students cannot protest, how are campuses (UW-Madison in particular) protecting their freedom of speech? Does this infringe on their freedom of expression?



Sources:

https://apnews.com/866eec6efb9841088157838281339db8

http://www.theroot.com/university-of-wisconsin-passes-dangerous-new-policy-tha-1819244271

Tedford, Thomas L, and Dale A Herbeck. Freedom of Speech. 8th ed., Strata Inc., 2017.

Comments

  1. AnonymousOctober 11, 2017 at 3:27 PM

    I am really glad that someone brought this issue up in a blog post. This is actually a topic that I am very conflicted about. On one hand I completely agree with you that the vagueness of the language in the policy (especially in regards to disorderly conduct) restricts students agency to protest. It instills fear that if they speak out about issues they will reprimanded for that and possibly expelled; which for a lot of casual activists will completely shut down their desire to engage. However, with that being said I also agree with what I perceive as the intent of the policy. From my understanding this is something that was put in place to counteract the disruption in freedom of expression. Last year in one of my COMM classes we discussed situations in which conservative speakers were either silenced from a disruptive protest or too afraid to come to a campus for fear of backlash. No matter what their political views or the topics they are speaking on are they deserve every right to be heard in accordance with the 1st Amendment. This leads me back to the policy that Madison passed and I agree with the sentiment behind it that we need to allow everyone a platform regardless of their viewpoints.

    It is incredibly more powerful and effective to engage in these speakers with questions at their presentations and to encourage discussion rather than refusing to hear the message. If the intent is to change individual's views in the audience through protest a strong question that leaves a speaker flustered or that they answer insufficiently reflects poorly on them and their credibility. Whereas violent and disruptive protests only reinforce and validate the speaker's message to those in agreement with them.

    I am in agreement that with the way the policy is currently worded and how it will likely be enforced is a complete breach in 1st Amendment rights. However, I also believe that there needs to be some degree of a policy in place in colleges across the country that adequately and effectively allows for the exchange of ideas without fear of personal attack directed toward a credible speaker regardless of their views.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Gamifying Citizenship

The historical context of freedom of speech is an extremely interesting one. Why is it that the concept of free speech has been an undying one and has span the history of human communication. Breaking free speech in to three traditional rationals makes the concept easier to understand and definitely makes sense. These three modes of freedom of speech are philosophical, political and individual. They are easy to distinct from one another and function in completely different ways. From a philosophical level, free speech is a device of truth. That if people are able to speak freely and let their ideas compete, "in the long run the truth will prevail" according to Tedford and Herbeck. I find this interesting, because in my mind, this is the most important facet of free speech. I say this, because I find free speech essential for any kind of societal advancements. If people are not allowed to speak their mind and share their ideas, or discredit others ideas, how is a society supp...
1 comment
Read more

Wedding Cake Court Case (make-up post)

Wedding cake court case involving a gay couple, Charlie Craig & David Mullins, and a cake baker, Jack Phillips, who refused to bake a wedding cake for the couple. Just all around, it's a tricky debate with many different angles due to the baker arguing on the grounds of the First Amendment---its protections for free speech and the free exercise of religion. In the end, I think it comes down to whether we consider baking a cake qualifies an exercise of freedom of expression. I would say that it depends on the situation/context of baking. If Mr. Phillips wants his cake baking to be categorized artistic expression that falls under free expression, he can just go bake a cake on his own. Only then when he's on his own private time does it qualify, but as soon as he offered his skills as a public service via his business, I'd argue he gave that right to expression up. Also, what's stopping other artisans/professional services to deny services? By Mr. Phillip's logic...
Post a Comment
Read more

Why is Freedom of Speech Important in a Democracy

While reading Chapter 15, I got the sense that the book was really coming full circle. In the first week of class, we established a meaning for freedom of speech and that shared meaning allowed us to navigate the classroom together as a classroom and a collective group. Creating a space that also involved mutual respect of opinons but encouraging difference in them as well. This brings me to an article I found about the importance of Freedom of Speech in a democracy. It is a basic human right to be able to express opinions and beliefs in our country. Although that is the main component, just like we established in class the first few weeks, in a government and democracy, Freedom of Speech also consists of the ability to listen to people with difference in opinions. In the article , editor Rachael  Jolly says, “ We are going through a time where people don’t want to be on a panel with people they disagree with. But we should feel comfortable being in a room with people who disagree ...
4 comments
Read more