Here’s the last fifty years First Amendment rights on campus in a nutshell.  50 years ago the left advocated for the First Amendment rights of students (themselves) on campus.  They then gained positions of power in the universities and now run the show.  So that now when a conservative group stands up for the First Amendment rights of disfavored groups (now generally conservative groups like itself) on its campus, it is the left that dismisses the First Amendment and demands the status quo (the preservation of their own power). 

Young Americans for Freedom has a post up responding to the latest example of this at Stony Brook University.  Earlier this year the Student Government at Stony Brook University denied student activity funding to Young Americans for Freedom.  The funding, generally available to a broad spectrum of other student groups was denied YAF because student government made the subjective determination that it is “too similar” to College Republicans.  Of course, this similarity rule was not applied to prevent funding for an array of left wing groups.  Additionally, student government required groups seeking funding to submit a petition showing the signatures of approximately 800 students supporting funding for the group, including their phone number, address, and student ID numbers – a policy that favors popular groups and disfavors groups whose views are more controversial on campus (i.e. conservatism, evangelical Christianity, etc.).    

These policies clearly violate the First Amendment.  Directly applicable decisions of the United States Supreme Court (Southworth) and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals dealing with policies of Stony Brook’s sister-SUNY school (Amidon v. SUNY-Albany) eliminate any doubt about that.  Thus, in response to my letter, counsel for Stony Brook and its USG reviewed their policies, determined they were suspect, and quickly corrected them without any need for litigation.  Everyone should be happy with this result.  The First Amendment is vindicated, YAF gets the same status as other groups, and the parties were even able to work it out without the assistance of the federal judiciary. 

 “Think Progress,” a left wing magazine at Stony Brook, is not happy with this turn of events.  In an article titled: “Club Funding Drops $175,000 Thanks Largely to YAF’s Lawsuit Threat,” the supposedly “progressive” author blames YAF for any reduction in funding to student groups (while burying the lead – that student gov’t increased funding for itself by $250,000 and expects to make up lost club funding in the fall).  The author notes that the policy changes were required by the Supreme Court in Southworth,  quotes USG members explaining that fact, and then cites USG sources identifying that “viewpoint neutrality as the reason for the budget cuts.”  So, to sum up, the USG began complying with the First Amendment due to YAF’s efforts and this has reduced funding for some groups that received more under the previously unconstitutional system.  And the left attacks the group defending the First Amendment.

Unfortunately, this is unsurprising.  After all, student fee systems were created to increase funding for left wing causes and were serving that purpose well at Stony Brook.  And they would have gotten away with it too if it weren’t for those meddling YAF kids!

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

Back in March of 2010, a federal district court judge in North Carolina ruled that Professor Mike Adams’ columns at Townhall.com were not protected by the First Amendment.  Dr. Adams appealed that decision, gathering support from academic organizations from across the ideological spectrum.  Last week, this effort was blessed with a strong, ringing defense of academic freedom from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.  And so a year after the district court’s opinion, Dr. Adams fittingly announces at Townhall.com today:  “Caution:  This Column Now Protected by the First Amendment.” 

Some told us we should just give up.  Others told us we should simply accept the federal judge’s decision and resign ourselves to the fact that the First Amendment is now dead on our college campuses.  But the Alliance Defense Fund took my case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in January.  And, last week, they issued a landmark defense of First Amendment rights for faculty at public colleges and universities.  For the first time in years, I’m getting love mail from liberals.

And after explaining the Fourth Circuit’s decision in a very easy to understand way (which is well worth reading in its entirety), he puts the entire case in perspective: 

This all means that soon my lawyers with the ADF will go back to court to argue for a trial on the facts of my First Amendment retaliation claim. But thousands of professors in the Fourth Circuit – most of whom do not share my views – have already won a major victory. Their free speech rights once again belong to them as individuals – and not to the state that employs them.

You’re welcome.

This year’s NCAA Men’s Tournament has been very exciting—so far, seventeen games have been decided by five points or less.  But we know you all have really been saving your excitement for our picks for the rest of the tournament, based on the schools’ commitment to respecting the First Amendment rights of their students.  (The guidelines we’re using are the same that Casey used last year.)  Without further ado, here are the picks for the Southeast Region:

Butler v. Wisconsin

Butler University, a small private school in Indiana, won everyone’s hearts last year as the Cinderella team who made it all the way to the championship game and fought valiantly against the Goliath of the tournament—Duke.  The game came down to a desperation heave by Butler’s Gordon Hayward in the last seconds of the game.  (He missed.)  This year, Butler has already exceeded expectations by taking out Old Dominion in the second round in a two point game, and shocking No. 1 seed Pitt with a one-point nail-biter victory in the third round.

Now, everyone (including me) loves a scrappy underdog.  But does Butler deserve to win?  In 2009, Butler actually sued one of its students for writing an anonymous blog criticizing the school.  Now, it’s bad enough when universities punish students for their protected expression, but actually suing one of your students for money damages?  That is truly absurd. 

Luckily for Butler, however, they are playing the University of Wisconsin, one of the country’s most frequent violators of the First Amendment. 

The ADF Center for Academic Freedom has been litigating against the Badgers since 2006 because of its discriminatory student fee system.  Although the University of Wisconsin told the Supreme Court about ten years ago in the Southworth case that it would distribute student fee funds to all student organizations without viewpoint discrimination, the University more recently claimed that the Establishment Clause required it to eliminate funding for religious student expression.  The University of Wisconsin-Madison selectively denied funding to Badger Catholic, the large Roman Catholic student organization on campus because some of the students’ expressive activities contained too much of what the University defined as “prayer, proselytizing and worship.”   In September 2010, the Seventh Circuit reaffirmed that the Establishment Clause does not require such discrimination against religious student speech.  The court ruled that the University must treat religious student groups equally to nonreligious student groups, in terms of granting them funding for their expression and allowing them space to meet on campus.  The University filed a petition for writ of certiorari, but that was recently denied by the Supreme Court.

Even though Badger Catholic has now ended with a victory, we continue to fight for non-discriminatory distribution of Wisconsin student fees in the CFACT case, the third case we’ve litigated against the University’s Madison campus since 2006.  Our winner should come as no surprise, then.

Pick—Butler

BYU v. Florida

I’ll try to remain professional and not vindictively pick Florida to lose just because they managed to defeat my Bruins.  But there are plenty of other reasons why Florida is in deep trouble in this match up.

First, there’s the Gators’ red light rating from FIRE.  Among Florida’s numerous red light policies, we have this gem, their civility code:

A university is a place where self-expression, voicing disagreement, and challenging outmoded customs and beliefs are prized and honored. However, all such expressions and challenges need to be civil, manifesting respect and concern for others.

We’ve got no problem with encouraging students to be polite.  Heck, we like to think we’re pretty polite ourselves.  But requiring civility among adults in the storied “marketplace of ideas” is downright unconstitutional.  (The court in our case a few years back at San Francisco State held as much.) 

A friend and former client who shall remain nameless recently referred to Florida as “God’s school.”  But I don’t think the student members of Gator Christian Life and Beta Upsilon Chi (a Christian fraternity) would agree, since they were derecognized by the University simply because they had the audacity to require that their members and leaders actually be Christians, of all things.

Florida is in deep trouble, y’all.

BYU, on the other hand, as a private, religious school, is not rated by FIRE, through they have had a few minor controversies on campus, and appear to limit speech in outdoor areas of the campus.  But this match-up is much closer than it should have been given BYU’s incredibly oppressive policy of prohibiting flip-flops, at least on their Idaho campus.  (Shout out to my colleague Jenna Lorence for pointing this out!)  As someone who probably didn’t even own a pair of socks during my undergrad years, I think that’s just plain un-American!

Oppressed toes aside, BYU really comes nowhere near to the level of constitutional infractions Florida has accumulated. 

Pick—BYU.

Based on the above, it’s clear that the Southeast region’s representative in the Final Four should be BYU.  Butler’s luck in being paired against the University of Wisconsin runs out when compared to a less egregious offender of the First Amendment, and their second chance at a Cinderella season will be over soon.

Go Cougars!

Check out the Sweet Sixteen of Liberty: Southwest Region

Check out the Sweet Sixteen of Liberty: East Region

Since this is still the first week of the new year, it’s not too late to make some New Year’s resolutions.  Here are some suggestions for college administrators, based on what happened in 2010: 

10.  Surreptitiously confiscating an independent student newspaper’s bins and throwing them in a storage yard next to a dumpster is probably not a good idea.  Giving the independent paper access equal to other student publications is.

 9.  Stop the irrational prejudice against the Future Farmers of America.  You like diversity, remember?

 8.  Remember that forcing a student to change their religious beliefs to stay in school qualifies as indoctrination, not education.

 7.  Make your whole campus a “free speech zone,” as the First Amendment requires.  This would probably only work if you run a university for Smurfs.

 6.  Don’t treat pro-life students like criminals.  Praying on a college campus isn’t a punishable offense either.

 5.  Hire faculty based on their academic credentials.  Being “potentially evangelical” is not a disqualifier.  On that note, spend some time reviewing a little law called Title VII.

 4.  Don’t fire faculty members for teaching their subject matter.  Encourage thin-skinned students “offended” by said subject not to take the class.  Or alternatively, to grow up.

 3.  Repeal your speech codes without waiting to get sued, like the University of Virginia.

 2.  Re-read Supreme Court cases on student fees, especially if you work at the University of Wisconsin.

 1.  Realize that all-comers policies are as dangerous to the marketplace of ideas as Ford Pintos were to the highway.  Not to mention that they would effectively bar single-sex a capella groups, a decidedly huge blow to campus culture.

The First Amendment has been fairly competitive this bowl season.  Through games of December 27 I am 5-4 in my picks for the college football bowl games based solely on the universities’ respect for the First Amendment..  That’s 55% if you’re scoring at home.  Perhaps I’m on to something here.  As the actual on-the-field games improve, let’s take a look at how the next few days of bowl games would play out if the First Amendment had anything to say about it (for full “rules” of the picks below see the prior post linked above).  If not linked directly, references to speech codes can be found at FIRE’s website.  Also see references to ongoing or past First Amendment violations at ADF’s Map of Cases in Your Area. 

Champs Sports Bowl: West Virginia v. North Carolina State – NC State has some problems, including prohibiting student use of religious or political quotes in their own email signature lines and requiring advance permission for any “assembly” on campus (apparently even for a two person “assembly.)”  But per the rules for this contest West Virginia’s bad practice trumps these NC St. policies.  West Virginia has a long history of trampling students’ First Amendment rights – including a court battle defending the limitation of student speech to a couple of tiny “speech zones” (abandoned after a Rutherford Institute lawsuit and public pressure from FIRE and others in 2002).  West Virginia also maintains a red light speech code.  Pick: Pack. 

Insight Bowl: Missouri v. Iowa – Missouri helpfully makes it explicit that its prohibition on “harassment” sweeps more broadly than the First Amendment permits – reaching activity that doesn’t affect the university’s educational environment.  Missouri does, however, get some credit for deciding to continue to allow a Christian fraternity to maintain associational freedom on campus.  Iowa also has a red light speech code, but the administration has now thrice turned back efforts of some students to deny Christian student groups associational freedom – one upping Missouri by also declaring that the University of Iowa’s own Human Rights Policy would prohibit the school from imposing the religion nondiscrimination rule to derecognize CLS as this would constitute religious discrimination.  Pick: Iowa.

Military Bowl: East Carolina v. Maryland – East Carolina prohibits students from “singling out” others on the basis of gender, race, etc.  Maryland says that any “attempt to repress [or] undermine …  any person or group constitutes a legitimate threat to the health and welfare of our community.  … [These will be] dealt with seriously.”  Both policies could easily be applied to prohibit not just true harassment or discrimination, but virtually any comment on gender or other differences a student might make.  If only the NCAA had not adopted the overtime rules eliminating ties.  Pick: Maryland in a squeaker. 

Texas Bowl: Illinois v. Baylor – Is a private Christian college unrestrained by the First Amendment and clear in its expression of its expectations to prospective students.  Illinois, however, is subject to the First Amendment as a government-funded public university.  You wouldn’t know it from the Illini’s policies and practices though.  Illinois recently famously fired a professor for explaining Catholic doctrine on marriage as part of a class he was teaching on Catholic doctrine in the University’s Department of Religion.  UI rehired him in response to ADF’s demand letter.  Pick: Sic ‘Em Bears. 

Alamo Bowl: Oklahoma State v. Arizona – OSU’s yellow light speech codes v. Arizona’s red.  Arizona did eventually permit a pro-life group to be recognized after initially requiring the group to accept pro-abortion members as a consequence of recognition, but it’s a testament to the poor state of the First Amendment on campuses that this would be controversial.  Pick: OSU.

Armed Forces Bowl: Army v. SMU – A military academy against a private university.  Let’s just let this one play out on the field.  But if I have to pick… Go Army. 

Pinstripe Bowl: Kansas St. v. Syracuse – Both are red light schools.  And although more should be expected of the public Kansas State, it’s hard to pick Syracuse right now given its ongoing threatened expulsion of a law student for a satirical law blog.  Kansas State has its own problematic policies, like imposing additional costs on student organization activities that “may be controversial in nature.”  But I’m picking against Syracuse’s ongoing denial of free expression, not for K State.  Pick: Kansas State.

Music City Bowl: UNC v. Tennessee – Easy.  Tennessee is one of 14 schools in the country to have earned a green light from FIRE for its speech policies.  It has also purged itself of Lane Kiffin, making it easier to favor the Vols.  UNC on the other hand fought for years in an effort to deny associational freedom to a Christian fraternity, eventually buckling after a federal judge stopped the school from enforcing its unconstitutional policy.  And it still maintains a prohibition on any decorations on a student’s own dorm room door that another might find offensive on the basis of, among others, religion.  Pick: Vols.

Holiday Bowl: Nebraska v. Washington – Nebraska’s green light against Washington’s red.  And Washington’s red light is well earned.  The school once prohibited education majors from student teaching at religious schools until ADF allies filed a lawsuit.  Pick: Cornhuskers. 

Next: New Years Eve and New Years Day Games…