Video: David French 2010 SFLA Conference: Knowing Your Rights on Campus

Click to watch: 2010 SFLA Conference: Knowing Your Rights on Campus

David French spoke at the 2010 Students for Life National Conference on January 23, 2010, in Washington, D.C. With a touch of humor and motivational thought,  he inspired more than 1,000 pro-life students to Speak Up for Life on their public university campus. He encouraged them with the knowledge that when they Speak Up and Stand Up, they are not alone. Behind them stands the strength of an Alliance.

http://www.speakupmovement.org
http://www.facebook.com/SpeakUpU
http://www.twitter.com/SpeakUpU

On this blog, our website, and elsewhere, we have written frequently of the ideological atmosphere on campus, one that is far removed from the “marketplace of ideas” ideal.  From professors who dislike Evangelical Christians, to professors who try to indoctrinate students, to an incredibly hedonistic and increasingly leftist culture, the campus atmosphere is particularly noxious to Christian and conservative ideas.  Nevertheless, the skeptics continue to doubt.

Well, the evidence continues to roll in, this time from the Intercollegiate Studies Institute’s recent study entitled The Shaping of the American Mind.  The first major conclusion from this study is hardly surprising:

American colleges generally fail to significantly increase civic knowledge among their students, but they do influence student opinion on a narrow set of polarizing social issues.

When quizzed on basic civics, college graduates only answered four more questions correctly than high school graduates.  But a college education does make a person more likely to favor same-sex “marriage,” more likely to support abortion on demand, less likely to believe that people can succeed through hard work, less likely to favor school prayer, and less likely to believe the Bible is God’s Word. 

And this shift does not just occur among students.  If a person has taught at the college level, he is more likely to think that America corrupts otherwise good people, that the Ten Commandments are irrelevant today, and that homeschooling is bad than someone who has not.

In short, on far too many campuses today, education is out, and indoctrination is in.  In an environment that fosters a leftward creep among students and faculty, it is vitally important that Christian students and professors remain free to advocate their viewpoints openly and willing to do so boldly.

CLS v. Martinez Debate - ADF Attorney Greg Baylor, Professor Maureen Armour , Professor Linda Eads

Earlier this week, I participated in a debate regarding Christian Legal Society v. Martinez at Southern Methodist University’s Dedman School of Law in Dallas.  I argued that the U.S. Supreme Court should rule that Hastings College of the Law violated the Constitution when it refused to recognize its CLS chapter because the chapter draws its officers and voting members from among those who share its religious commitments.  SMU law professor Linda Eads energetically but graciously advocated a contrary result.

In my prepared remarks, I shared my belief that Hastings’ disagreement with CLS’s counter-cultural positions on religious doctrine and sexual morality was at least in part behind the school’s treatment of the CLS chapter.  Professor Eads essentially agreed with me, but then said something that truly surprised me – that Hastings should have the power to punish a counter-cultural group like CLS in order to promote “the culture it wants to foster.”

As I see it, a private educational institution, such a religious one, does have (and should have) the power to foster a certain kind of culture, free from the restraints the Constitution imposes upon government educational institutions.  But the First Amendment forbids the government from using its power to restrain the expressive activity of a group whose views contradict the government’s simply because of that disagreement.

My experience has been that many public university administrators fail to adequately grasp that the Constitution limits their power – something their  private school counterparts do not experience.  A greater understanding of this reality by America’s public colleges and universities would go a long way towards restoring freedom of speech on those campuses.

Free speech violations manifest themselves in many forms on America’s campuses. Perhaps one of the most frequent—and misunderstood violations—concerns the distribution of student activity fees.

In Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the University of Virginia, and Board of Regents of University Wisconsin System v. Southworth, the Supreme Court explained that public universities requiring students to pay student activity fees must ensure that those fees are distributed in a viewpoint-neutral manner. In other words, the university cannot consider a student organization’s mission, goals, or views when allocating the student activity fee funds.

But all too often, universities ignore this constitutional command. Take, for example, the Student Government Board (SGB) at the University of Pittsburgh. The SGB initially denied Students For Life’s request for $1,515 to attend the National Students for Life Conference and the March for Life in Washington D.C. on the grounds that the group was “proselytizing” for its cause. The SGB President’s reasoning was telling:

“The fundamental purpose of this group is to promote an opinion, traditionally that of a religious perspective. Therefore I would disagree with the fundamental existence of the group, and so therefore, it was my opinion that this group is going to proselytize as a lobbying organization.”

Really? And other groups on campus don’t “promote an opinion?” At Pitt, there are thirty-two “Political & Advocacy” student organizations—not including religious groups—that promote a wide array of causes and beliefs and are eligible to receive student activity fee funding. Even the student abortion advocacy group, Campus Women’s Organization, is eligible to receive student activity funds.

The SGB ultimately reversed course after its discriminatory decision was publicized by the student newspaper. But this situation highlights the double-standard that public universities regularly apply to pro-life and religious speech. Indeed, even a Pitt campus activist who opposes SFL’s message recognized this:

I am disturbed by [the President’s] comment that “[...] I would disagree with the fundamental existence of the group”. On first glance, [the President] seems to be saying that he disagrees with the right to free exercise of religion, which seems unamerican to me. More to the point, his support of a denial of funds to this group appears to be censorious. His words, as included in this article, betray a disturbing lack of faith in democracy.

As a woman who volunteers as an escort for Pittsburgh’s Planned Parenthood (where pro-life students regularly protest) I believe all people have a right to voice their opinions publicly, whether this expression is termed “protesting”, “lobbying”, or “proselytizing”. . . .

I take it as an article of faith in the democratic process that all people may enter into the sloppy, messy conversation that is American politics. I believe that it is only through passionate conversation we as a nation can reach a better future. Censorship has no role to play in our democracy, even censorship cloaked as political correctness.

[The President] does pro-choice students no favors by denying pro-life students their voice. By hobbling Student’s for Life’s expression, [The President] is implying that pro-choice students are so ill-equiped to make their case that the Student Government Board must silence their opposition for them, rather than allow the two communities to debate freely.

This conference is a professional development opportunity, an opportunity for Students for Life to make its case heard in our nation’s capital, and a trip which has historically been supported by the Student Government Board. It is a show of bad faith that this group has been denied travel funds, and speaks against the Student Government Board’s commitment to democratic debate.

This student eloquently explains the proper, constitutional role public universities must take with respect to student activity fees, and student expression in general. It’s time university officials started listening.

ADF Center for Academic Freedom client Mike Adams posted an article today at Townhall.com that humorously highlights the ludicrous implications of the speech code at the University of Northern Colorado.  The speech code bans “inappropriate jokes,” meaning those motivated by any form of bias.  Of course, this leaves students wondering whether blonde jokes, Aggie jokes, political jokes, or even lawyer jokes are permitted on campus.  But then the speech code goes even further, banning anyone from “intentionally, recklessly, or negligently causing . . . emotional or mental harm to any person.”  Under this standard, does a student violate University policy simply by breaking up with his girlfriend?

But more importantly, Mike’s column highlights some of the fundamental constitutional problems with these speech codes, which are prevalent on campuses across the nation.  For one thing, these policies are so vague and expansive that no one really knows what they can and cannot say.  So they tend to be quiet, particularly on controversial issues.  For another, these policies penalize people if a listener gets (or pretends to be) offended.  Yet the First Amendment exists precisely to protect and foster a robust, unfettered exchange of ideas.  The Constitution does not protect people from being offended.  And it is high time for universities to prepare their students to live in a free society and to compete in the marketplace of ideas, rather than coddling them (and silencing them) with unconstitutional speech codes.