Blog Home » Archive by category 'Freedom of Speech' (Page 3)

Northwestern’s Quiet Suppression of Religious Liberties

Posted on October 14th, 2011 Freedom of Religion,Freedom of Speech | 2 Comments »

Sharing your faith at Northwestern University just got a bit harder.  ADF was recently notified that last spring, Northwestern (NU) quietly released a list of “ethical guidelines” for religious student groups on campus.  The document, sent to campus ministry leaders, “articulate[s] the University’s expectations for student religious groups with regard to sharing their faith on campus and participation and leadership in student religious groups.”  As a former campus ministry leader, I wonder what caused NU to shut down religious liberties on campus. 

The guidelines require religious student groups to “maintain integrity in publicity” by clearly stating what group is sponsoring an event on campus.  This is not unusual.  But there may be more to the story. 

When I attended NU 10 years ago, there was a questionable off-campus group that tried to start a “Bible study” in one of the dorms.  However, the group was not interested in the Bible.  Instead, it tried to persuade students to drop out of school and devote themselves to the group.  Perhaps NU’s integrity in publicity rule is a result of that experience.  Yet it seems that NU is concerned about more than just that, as their policy goes far beyond “integrity in publicity.”    

NU also regulates when you can share your faith on campus and to whom you can share it.  Under the guise of “respecting privacy” in the dorms, NU now prohibits students from visiting other students to share their faith unless they’ve been invited to do so or they know that the person is interested in their faith.  Students may not distribute flyers, set up an information table, or even “visit” students who have left their dorm room doors open.  No more door-to-door ministry on campus.  You can’t even slip a flyer for an upcoming event under a student’s door without knowing they’d be interested in it first.  (Which begs the question—how do you know whether someone is interested in learning about your faith if you can’t share it with them to begin with??)

NU also instructs students to foster a climate of respect on campus, but informs students that “religious groups should not employ coercion, manipulation, harassment, or exploitation of any kind.”  Well, how do you define any of that?  NU doesn’t, and I suspect that this prohibition will land unsuspecting groups in hot water for simply sharing their faith on campus.  While NU is a private institution and not bound by the Constitution, as a major research university, it should behave much like it state-funded peers, especially when it promises all the same freedoms:  “the University encourages its students to discuss faith, values, ethics, spirituality, philosophy, and religion, and to share their beliefs with others.”  Here’s a free tip to my alma mater:  vague policies that threaten to punish speech do not encourage free discussion and the sharing of beliefs. 

Finally, NU dictates how religious student groups may select members and leaders.  For one, it requires the groups to be open to participation by any student.  But NU also says that groups may specify requirements for leadership positions and participating in religious rituals.  However, those requirements may not violate NU’s nondiscrimination policy, which prohibits discrimination based on “religion.”  In other words, NU religious groups are apparently not allowed to require that leaders adhere to the group’s moral or religious beliefs.  While NU is a private university, its policy flies in the face of controlling legal precedent that says requiring student groups to abide by a public university’s nondiscrimination policy in this manner violates the group’s First Amendment rights.  Not to mention that it flies in the face of common sense, as we could see Muslims as leaders of Christian groups, Jews as leaders of Muslim groups, and Christians as leaders of Jewish groups.  The result?  Student groups at the University of Wisconsin-Madison (another Big Ten school) are freer to speak and associate than religious student groups at NU.  That’s a shame. 

Author

ADF Legal Counsel - University Project

George Mason Law School Dean Says “No” To Censorship

Posted on October 10th, 2011 Freedom of Speech | 1 Comment »

     The correct response to controversial speech is more speech, not censorship.   Daniel Polsby, the dean of George Mason Law School in Arlington, Virginia, courageously demonstrated that principle last week when he rejected a request to ban a speaker from campus because of her controversial views on Islam.  The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) explained in an article that the Federalist Society chapter at GMU, and the Jewish Law Students Association jointly invited Nonie  Darwish to speak at the law school last week.  The Council on American-Islamic Relations asked the school to disinvite Darwish because of her views critical of some Islamic beliefs.

Dean Polsby did the right thing by publicly declining to disinvite her.   He explained that public law schools should be places where people can freely debate ideas without fear of censorship.  Dean Polsby stated in his written statement:

The law school will not exercise editorial control over the words of speakers invited by student organizations, nor will we take responsibility for them, nor will we endorse or condemn them.  There has to be a place in the world where controversial ideas and points of view are aired out and given space.  This is that place.

   Daniel Polsby should be commended for not crumpling under pressure and standing strong for the First Amendment, and for protecting the free exchange of ideas at George Mason Law School.  And the First Amendment protects everyone.  I urge CAIR or others who disagree with Ms. Darwish to organize an event at GMU Law School  to present their side of the debate.

_____________________
Join the conversation Facebook.com/SpeakUpU
Sound off below – Leave a comment!

Author

ADF Senior Vice President; Senior Counsel - University Project

Debating CLS v Martinez at Rutgers: A Transcript

Back in October 2010, I debated Ronald Chen, Vice Dean of Rutgers School of Law, about the correctness of the Supreme Court’s decision in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez.  The Federalist Society recently published a transcript of the debate in the online version of its Engage magazine.  Check it out.

Author

ADF Senior Counsel - University Project

Tar Heel Trouble? Christian Singing Group Faces Scrutiny at UNC

The Daily Tar Heel reports that University of North Carolina officials will investigate whether a Christian a capella singing group violated university policy banning "sexual orientation" discrimination.  The group, Psalm 100, unanimously voted to remove from membership a student whose views about sexual ethics contradicted the Bible's teachings.

According to the article, Psalm 100 is a recognized student group, and the university's non-discrimination policy thus applies to it.  The policy states in part:  "Membership and participation in the organization must be open to all students without regard to age, race, color, national origin, disability, religious status or historic religious affiliation, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression."  The policy also states in part:  "Student organizations that select their members on the basis of commitment to a set of beliefs (e.g., religious or political beliefs) may limit membership and participation in the organization to students who, upon individual inquiry, affirm that they support the organization’s goals and agree with its beliefs."  According to the article, Psalm 100 representatives have stated that the student in question was asked to leave the group because of his views.

______________________
Join the conversation Facebook.com/SpeakUpU
Sound off below – Leave a comment!

Author

ADF Senior Counsel - University Project

Rock for Life Case Shows How University ‘Speech Codes’ Threaten Freedom of Speech

ADF has just completed its appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in a case involving the prolife student club, Rock for Life, at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County.  The case demonstrates the problems with campus “speech codes.”  Many universities have these vaguely worded policies that prohibit students from engaging in things like ”incivility”  or “disrespect” or “intolerance.”  Frequently, these speech codes allow the listeners, and not the intent of the speaker, to determine whether the speaker has violated the speech code.  So, such statements as “abortion is wrong, ” or “marriage is a man and a woman,” or “Jesus Christ is Lord,” can violate a campus speech code if the listeners feel harassed, threatened, offended, or disrespected by those words, no matter what the speaker intended with his words.

At UMBC near Baltimore, the prolife students in Rock for Life experienced the harsh application of “speech codes.”  Rock for Life received permission to display graphic photos of aborted children in an area of campus well traveled by students.  They figured it would trigger debate about abortion among the students if they saw actual aborted babies.   At the last minute before Rock for Life was going to begin its display, university police and university officials moved the prolife display to a deserted area of campus infrequently visited by students – when watching the security video of this area, you would expect to see the occasional tumbleweed blowing through this vacant expanse of campus.

How did the university justify its abrupt order to move the display?  Four overlapping policies regulating student speech.  Several of these speech codes prohibited “emotional harassment.”  And a university official – its attorney – said that he feared students might feel “emotionally harassed” by the display.  Later, he explained that he wanted to protect the students’ “emotional well-being” and prevent them from becoming “emotionally distraught.”  Hence, UMBC moved the display at the last minute.

In court, ADF challenged this ideological exile of prolife speech, as well as the broadly written “speech codes” invoked to justify their actions.  Several federal appeals courts have struck down such vague policies as violating the First Amendment because they give unbridled discretion to government officials to silence unpopular viewpoints and allow them to hide their true reasons for doing so under the vague language of the speech code.  The Rock for Life case has become mired down in some technical issues on whether the prolife students have standing to challenge all of the policies.  We hope the U.S. Supreme Court will grant review and rule that the legal challenge to the speech code can go forward.

But the speech codes at many universities threaten student speech, especially the speech of students advocating unpopular views – nowadays, that frequently means students advocating for life, marriage, or the Christian Gospel.  Speech codes also can “chill” student speech by pressuring them to self-censor their views so that they won’t get in trouble.  Policies that “chill” the free exchange of ideas on campus are also unconstitutional.  If you are experiencing any such problems, please contact us at the Alliance Defense Fund.  A university campus should truly be a free marketplace of ideas.

______________________
Join the conversation Facebook.com/SpeakUpU
Sound off below – Leave a comment!

Author

ADF Senior Vice President; Senior Counsel - University Project

Search the Blog

Stay Connected to Speak Up.

View Posts by Author

Authors

ADF

© 2012 Alliance Defense Fund. All Rights Reserved.