We’ve decided to start posting each Friday a roundup of media coverage of ADF Center for Academic Freedom cases. We hope this provides you greater insight into and understanding of our efforts to protect Christian students on America’s college and university campuses.Without further ado, here are the media outlets that covered ADF Center for Academic Freedom cases this week, September 27 to October 2: 

Sept. 28
The University v. Christian Belief - The Christian Post Blog
Despite controversy, FLiC is still a FLO - The Battalion Online

Sept. 29
Spokane Community Colleges Settle Lawsuit Over Discrimination Against Pro-Lifers – Lifenews.com

Oct. 2
Paper’s lawsuit claims OSU bias – The Register Guard
Conservative student newspaper sues OSU over distribution restrictions – The Oregonian

Yesterday, David French discussed the ADF Center for Academic Freedom’s new case at Oregon State University, OSU Students Alliance v. Ray, et al., and the recent settlement in Sheeran v. Shea, et al., on the Michael Medved Show.

You can listen to it here.

Why punish speech after the fact, when you can censor it before it happens? That is the attitude of Los Angeles City College. According to the LA Times and Student Press Law Center, LACC is attempting to assert control over the student newspaper, The Collegian, by combining its operations with the student activities department. LACC cites budgetary concerns, but the student journalists and their advisor are concerned that the move will give the administration editorial control of the paper.  All this comes on the heels of LACC punishing Jonathan Lopez for expressing his religious beliefs on campus and attempts by the administration to belittle student reporters at public hearings.

That’s what happened to a University of Nebraska student in 2006. The student, whose case is now on appeal to the Nebraska Supreme Court, was convicted of breach of the peace after he wrote some rather…er, “harsh” emails to his professor (who was also running for the Nebraska legislature). While I do not agree with the student’s tone, lack of manners, and approach to discussing issues with his professor, UCLA Professor Eugene Volokh (his attorney) is right that the student’s speech is constitutionally protected nevertheless.  Here is a snippet from Volokh’s brief to the Nebraska Supreme Court:

And the approach adopted by the opinion below poses a serious danger of viewpoint discrimination. Just before it found Drahota guilty, the trial court said, “Let’s be a little bit more tolerant, Mr. Drahota, of people who you don’t agree with.” If Drahota had expressed intolerance of people who hold intolerable viewpoints — rather than of a mainstream figure such as Professor Avery — a “toleran[ce]” test (apparently used by the trial court) or “civil[ity]” test (apparently used by the Court of Appeals) might have come out in Drahota’s favor. Judgments about an argument’s civility are often influenced by how sound it seems; even harsh insults may be treated as being within the bounds of civility when aimed at people whom the observer sees as meriting harsh condemnation.

Volokh’s remarks reminds me of the California State University System’s former requirement that students “be civil” on campus. A federal court struck down that requirement as unconstitutional in 2007 in a case handled by the ADF Center for Academic Freedom.

It is interesting that the professor went to the police instead of campus administrators to stop the student’s speech.  Some universities, like James Madison University, believe that no matter where a student speaks, whether off-campus or on, they can regulate the speech.  But University of Nebraska has a green light rating in FIRE’s speech code database, meaning that their student conduct policies comply with the First Amendment. 

So the professor went to the police, the student admitted sending the emails, the student was charged with breach of the peace, and a judge ultimately found him guilty and fined him $250.  On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court will determine whether the trial court went too far in punishing the student’s political speech.

Sometimes, the old adage is true. Behold:

Bins found in storage yard

These are the distribution bins of The Liberty, an independent student newspaper at Oregon State University. After seeking the help of the police to find out what happened to their property after the bins suddenly vanished one day, this is how the students found them–thrown in a heap, one of them broken, all of them covered in mud and debris.

Mud & debris

The bins fell open due to the haphazard way they were thrown on the ground, and around 150 copies of the latest issue of the paper were ruined.

Ruined papers

But the most shocking thing about this situation is who was responsible for it. It was none other than the OSU administration, who decided one day–as part of an effort to “clean up” the campus–that they would take all of the The Liberty’s outdoor distribution bins without giving notice to anyone from the paper (even though the contact information for the editorial staff is clearly listed inside the front page of every issue in the bins). The other student publication on campus, The Daily Barometer, has more than 24 bins at last count, but theirs were untouched by this “clean up” effort.

Not surprisingly, these events are the heart of a federal lawsuit filed by the ADF Center for Academic Freedom on Tuesday afternoon in the United States District Court, District of Oregon. More information about the case can be found here.