A pair of bold proclamations in professional sports perfectly define the double standard in which the right of free speech is viewed in popular culture today. Tim Tebow was often ridiculed for openly sharing his Christian lifestyle and told to keep it to himself. Jason Collins was declared a hero for declaring his homosexuality. What’s worse is that Christians have allowed this to happen.

“Announcing that you’re Christian is like announcing that you like cheeseburgers. Sure, there might be one or two people that will look down on you for eating meat, but on the whole, everyone loves cheeseburgers.” This statement, made by a believer, is a common sentiment among Christians today. Too many Christians in the U.S. don’t recognize that they are not the home team any more. Whether it is through “turn the other cheek” tolerance or simple complacency, believers have done little to shore up the slow erosion of their First Amendment Rights.

Perhaps Christian inaction is due to the nature of the attacks on free speech. The methods are more misdirection than brute force and have succeeded in gradually chipping away the foundation of rights Christians once thought unassailable. Most often the terms “tolerance” and “politically correct” are used by organizations who are systematically clamping down on free speech. Don’t pronounce your faith in Jesus, you might offend somebody.  Call a sin a sin in the school commons and you will likely be accused of using Hate Speech. Colleges and Universities across the U.S. have, intentionally or not, removed the “Free” from “Speech” so that no one is offended.

But there are a few students who are pushing back. Just last March Jacob Dagel, a community college student in Iowa, spoke up. He found that the college was going to pay for students to attend Iowa Governor’s Conference on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Questioning Youth. As a Christian he viewed this as wrong, printed fliers and began to pass them out around the school. But Jacob was quickly confronted by campus security. He was told he was free to practice his first amendment rights…as long as he obtained a permit 10 days in advance and remained in the “Free Speech Zone.” Where in the constitution does it say that you must first obtain a permit to practice free speech? But Jacob was bold. He did seek out this fortress of democracy called the “Free Speech Zone.” Unfortunately, it turned out to be a single table in the Student Center.

Jacob recognized that his rights were being violated and he reached out to Alliance Defending Freedom. ADF Attorneys were able to convince the college that the policies were unconstitutional and should be changed.

Jacob’s case is not unique. On campuses across the country students have begun speak up and take back their rights to religious liberty and free speech, often with the help of Alliance Defending Freedom. If you think your Constitutionally protected free speech rights have been violated, contact us and perhaps we can help insure your voice gets heard.

After over six years of litigation, Mike Adams has won the right to present his retaliation case to a jury of his peers.  Back in 2006, he was denied promotion to full professor at the University of North Carolina-Wilmington.  At the time, he had multiple awards and rave reviews from students for his teaching, he had published more peer-reviewed articles than all but two of his colleagues, and he had a distinguished record of service both on and off campus, culminating in earning UNCW’s highest service award.  But to his colleagues and department chair, all of this was inadequate, even though, for most of them, Dr. Adams’ accomplishments surpassed their own.  So—in a process replete with procedural irregularities, conflicts of interests, and vitriolic criticism of Dr. Adams’ Townhall.com columns and his conservative and Christian beliefs—they denied him the promotion he so richly deserved.

Shortly thereafter, Dr. Adams filed suit because it is unconstitutional for public officials, including UNCW professors and administrators, to retaliate against an employee for expressing his views on critical social and political topics.  And at first, his case faced some difficulties when the district court ruled that the First Amendment did not protect his columns.  But after Dr. Adams appealed, the Fourth Circuit disagreed, and not only did it rule that his columns qualified as protected, private speech, but it also ruled that the UNCW officials could be held personally liable if Dr. Adams ultimately won the case.

The Fourth Circuit then asked the district court to answer one question:  Was there evidence that Dr. Adams lost that promotion because of his columns and the views expressed in them?  And in a decision released last Friday, the district court answered that question with a resounding “yes,” setting the case up for a jury trial:

Here, plaintiff has brought forth evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that his speech was a substantial or motivating factor in the decision to deny [promotion] to plaintiff.  The court need not detail the evidence, but plaintiff has produced evidence which . . . shows the following:  (1) his internal evaluations declined after he began the speech at issue; (2) faculty attempted to stop or alter his speech; (3) the denial of his application to full professor was in temporal proximity to Adams’ columns openly criticizing the University on certain political and social issues; (4) the written comments of the faculty on the [promotion] decision committee show hostility toward plaintiff’s speech; and, (5) a faculty member who had accused plaintiff of harassment was allowed to participate and vote on the plaintiff’s application for promotion.

At trial this fall, a North Carolina jury will hear evidence supporting each of these points, plus several more.  And when it does, we are confident that it will uphold a simple principle articulated by Jordan Lorence:  “No university should refuse promotion to an accomplished professor simply because it disagrees with his religious and political views.”

At Brooklyn College this week, it seems that everyone is talking about academic freedom.  A student group, Brooklyn College Students for Justice in Palestine, organized an event highlighting the “BDS” movement, which advocates for a boycott of Israel, urges people to divest companies that do business in Israel, and promotes sanctions against Israel.  Holding this event in Brooklyn naturally sparks controversy, and the controversy only grew when the political science department chose to co-sponsor it.

Hoping to quell the critics, President Gould issued a letter outlining her commitment to free speech and academic freedom.  She observed that “[s]tudents and faculty . . . have the right to invite speakers, engage in discussion, and present ideas to further educational discussion and debate.”  She noted that the “mere invitation to speak does not indicate an endorsement of any particular point of view, and there is no obligation, as some have suggested, to present multiple perspectives at any one event.”  Indeed, this is, in her mind, the very purpose of a university:  “Providing an open forum to discuss important topics, even those many find highly objectionable, is a centuries-old practice on university campuses around the country.  Indeed, this spirit of inquiry and critical debate is a hallmark of the American education system.”  Thus, she emphasized that “it is essential that Brooklyn College remain an engaged and civil learning environment where all views may be expressed without fear of intimidation or reprisal.”

Not only is this her position, but the political science department also “fully agrees and has reaffirmed its longstanding policy to give equal consideration to co-sponsoring speakers who represent any and all points of view.”  Those faculty also assured students that they “welcome—indeed encourage—requests to co-sponsor speakers and events from all student groups, departments, and programs.”

While many, such as Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School, may be skeptical, students should embrace the tremendous opportunity the President just gave them.  They now have an open invitation—from the President herself—to put the College to the test.  Does it really treasure academic freedom?  Does it really celebrate vigorous debate of “any and all points of view”—even controversial or “highly objectionable” ones?  Is it really an “environment where all views may be expressed without fear of intimidation or reprisal”?  Or is all of this just empty rhetoric administrators trots out when citizens object to leftist or politically correct ideas?

Well, as they say, actions speak louder than words.  Students can find out what the College really believes by organizing a whole series of events—complete with speakers and panel discussions—in keeping with the “BDS” theme:

Students United for Israel could call for a boycott of the PLO, Hezbollah, Hamas, and other groups that seek to destroy Israel; for the divestment of entities that financially support those racist—and often terrorist—groups; and for sanctions against those entities.

The Newman Catholic Club could call for a boycott of states that endorse same-sex “marriage” (including New York), for the divestment of groups that support same-sex “marriage,” and for sanctions against Catholics who stray from the Church’s teachings on this subject.

Chinese Christian Fellowship could call for a boycott of China due to its forced abortion policies and religious persecution, for the divestment of companies doing business in China, and for sanctions against China.

Brooklyn College Intercollegiate Studies Institute Group could call for states to boycott the Obamacare exchanges, for the divestment of groups that supported Obamacare (e.g., AARP), and for sanctions against Obama administration officials for implementing Obamacare.

The Coptic Christian Club could call for a boycott of the Muslim Brotherhood due to its persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt, for the divestment of companies that do business in Egypt, and for sanctions against that country.

Intervarsity Christian Fellowship could call for a boycott of Planned Parenthood because it provides abortions, for the divestment of all businesses that support Planned Parenthood (e.g., Susan G. Komen for the Cure), and for sanctions against Planned Parenthood because of its taxpayer fraud.

Once these groups have organized their own BDS events and invited the speakers, they should ask the political science department—or even the President’s Office—to serve as co-sponsors.  Perhaps it could even be the College’s theme for the semester.

The responses to such invitations would be telling.  If the President and the political science faculty were to decline for one lame excuse or another or if they were to insist on a more “balanced” presentation, students could simply say, in the monotone the National Weather Service patented:  “This is a test.  This is a test of academic freedom at Brooklyn College.”  Then they could call a group that really believes in academic freedom—the Alliance Defending Freedom.

Last October, Angela McCaskill, chief diversity officer at Gallaudet University, the nation’s premier university for the deaf, was placed on administrative leave for signing a Maryland petition to protect marriage.  We wrote to Gallaudet and expressed our serious concern about the many laws the university broke by punishing an employee for clearly protected speech.  After three months on leave, and with her employment uncertain, Gallaudet announced this week that McCaskill is back on the job.

The university correctly reinstated McCaskill, but we are troubled that the university let this drag on so long.  Several years ago, San Francisco State University conducted a seven-month investigation of several college students for sponsoring a speech event on campus.  The university eventually dropped the investigation, but it had already chilled the students’ free speech.  A federal court later enjoined the policy that allowed the university to investigate dubious charges.  No doubt, Gallaudet has accomplished the same result by suspending McCaskill for three months after she engaged in a constitutionally protected activity.  If Gallaudet had been a public university, McCaskill would have a strong First Amendment retaliation claim.  But even though it’s not, Gallaudet was close to breaking several federal and state laws.  We hope McCaskill won’t be dissuaded from expressing her personal beliefs in the future, and we caution that public universities should not follow Gallaudet’s speech-chilling example.

Our latest newsletter highlights the prevalence of university speech codes and the “you can’t say that” atmosphere they create on campus.  These speech codes—which about 65% of public universities have on the books—forbid students from saying anything that university administrators deem offensive, intolerant, or emotionally upsetting.  Taken literally and applied across the board, these policies would shut down virtually all discourse on campus (including even presidential debates), turning the “marketplace of ideas” into a ghost town.  But they are only enforced selectively to silence particular viewpoints, usually conservative and Christian ones.  To university administrators, secular or leftist speech is “provocative” or “challenging” and thus celebrated as essential to the academy.  But conservative or Christian ideas are “offensive” or even “hateful,” threaten the university community, and so the students espousing them must either be silenced or sanctioned.  So in practice, speech codes allow university officials to decide what ideas can be expressed on campus and to punish anyone who says anything that they do not want students to hear.

Of course, one might wonder whether these dangers are just theoretical.  Our newsletter describes how speech codes stifle speech, but Fordham University provides a recent, vivid example of this speech code mentality.  College Republicans at Fordham invited Ann Coulter to campus.  Unsurprisingly, this sparked significant controversy on campus, leading Fordham’s president, Rev. Joseph McShane, to chastise the group publicly.  In a statement, he wrote:  “To say that I am disappointed with the judgment and maturity of the College Republicans . . . would be a tremendous understatement.”  Why?  In his eyes, Ann Coulter’s “rhetoric is often hateful and needlessly provocative—more heat than light—and her message is aimed squarely at the darker side of our nature.”  In fact, it constitutes “[h]ate-speech, name-calling, and incivility,” causing him to feel both “disgust” and “great contempt.”

Sadly, in the face of this campus outrage and presidential belittling, College Republicans wilted, rescinded its invitation, cancelled the event, and apologized for sparking controversy.  And President McShane duly congratulated its contrite leaders because they “acted quickly, took responsibility for their decisions, and expressed their regrets sincerely and eloquently.” 

Of course, as a Catholic institution, Fordham is not obligated to protect free speech like a public university must, but President McShane’s response to this lecture still illustrates the “you can’t say that” mentality embodied in speech codes.  He decided that Ann Coulter’s ideas and method of expressing them had no place at Fordham, and he used the bully pulpit of his office to scold and manipulate students into silencing themselves.  Yet his handwringing about “Fordham’s values” is incredibly selective.  After all, a Fordham professor invited Peter Singer—the infanticide-advocating Princeton professor—to lecture on campus, and some law professors are demanding funding for the theatrical pornography of The Vagina Monologues.  Yet curiously, President McShane has not issued any statements questioning the “judgment and maturity” of these leftists and their events. 

Whether the tool is shaming or sanctions, the goal of speech codes and the mentality that flows from them is the same:  to limit campus discourse only to those voices and viewpoints that academia deems acceptable.  But the First Amendment has a different goal:  to promote full, free, and unfettered debate.  And when students are willing to take a stand, university administrators discover a startling truth:  when speech codes collide with the First Amendment, speech codes lose.

_______________

If you face unconstitutional speech codes on your campus give us a call at 1-800-835-5233 or email us here.