Freedom of Speech???

It looks like “freedom of speech” can be included in Lake Superior State’s banished words next year:

http://www.lssu.edu/banished/

Yes, some of the signs on the door are offensive. But I see much worse than that on left-leaning professors’ doors on a regular basis.

Robert, PhD Student, at 6:40 am EDT on April 10, 2008

What a collection

That door must be huge! I wonder if this would be an issue if he was a minority? Wait a minute, he obviously is on that campus.

Jim, at 8:20 am EDT on April 10, 2008

Hostile is not a “Hostile Environment”

This is a typical misunderstanding of what the “hostile environment” clause of harassment means; it doesn’t refer to anything deemed hostile or offensive. It means an environment that fundamentally changes the working/learning environment for someone. (In addition, because free speech is essential to the academic work environment, it should be essentially impossible for this kind of speech to be actionable.) I should also note that David Horowitz has argued that professors should be banned from putting political cartoons on office doors because it leads to a hostile environment for conservatives. The argument is absolutely wrong, no matter who is being targeted.

John K. Wilson, collegefreedom.org, at 8:30 am EDT on April 10, 2008

Free Speech

I say leave them on the door. It reveals so much about the twisted ideas of the right-wing fanatics who will lose control of our country next January 20. Their value is increased geometrically by being exposed to the light of day.

Yurling, at 8:45 am EDT on April 10, 2008

What next, my Far Side cartoons?

This story prompts two responses:

1) I am one of those “left-leaning” professors mentioned in a previous comment, and while the descriptions of this professor’s cartoons sound offensive to me personally,I find the attempt to censor him suspicious at best, and potentially dangerous for all of us. If this is a case of a conservative professor holding views that are unpopular without attempting to intimidate students or colleagues who don’t share his opinions, I have to support the professor.

2) Having said that, I vividly recall the pictures of aborted fetuses that an ultra-conservative professor, who was also Graduate Director, posted on his office door in my grad school days. I felt harassed and bullied every time I had to walk past his office. To this day I feel that his door materials were a blatant abuse of his power. No student who disagreed with him — and there were plenty — dared to complain, because he made it clear that his views were both righteous and right and that those who voiced different views would be punished.

So it’s back to the old question: where does protected speech end and audience protection begin?

Professor G, at 9:05 am EDT on April 10, 2008

Thanks — I think

” .. The argument is absolutely wrong, no matter who is being targeted.”

So .. it’s no cartoons — or everyone can have cartoons?

Free speech are hard. But non-Democrats/non-womyn can be “boomed” at, and their time-cards random-checked by the $115,000/year administrator — that’s OK, right? And there’s no charge for the workers?

Groovy!

Russ, at 9:55 am EDT on April 10, 2008

Where does it end?

“So it’s back to the old question: where does protected speech end and audience protection begin?”

Fascinating. That comment starts so reasonably and fairly— and yet in the end it too comes down on the side of authority silencing personal opinion in an institution supposedly dedicated to the exchange of free ideas.

If you’re willing to shut up the antiabortion prof because of your feelings, you’re no defender of any speech. That’s where it ends and censorship begins, to answer your question.

Mike G, at 10:00 am EDT on April 10, 2008

Justice William O. Douglas had it right in observing that “A function of free speech is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces...unrest...or even stirs people to anger.” ‘Nuf said.

peter biesemeyer, at 10:15 am EDT on April 10, 2008

Barrier and trivializes

Posting political, religious cartoons, etc. on one’s door trivializes one’s beliefs, but the professor should go ahead and post what he wants.

Here in our apartment building, our neighbors have covered the upper third(!) of their public-hallway-door with pro-gay, pro-abortion, hate-Bush,end-the-war signs, cartoons and buttons. Their door never fails to get the attention of delivery people or visitors, but it is actually more of a barrier to dialogue than anything else.

I’m pretty sure they’re not ’supposed’ to use the public areas in this way, but in the end it just looks kind of ridiculous— regardless of what the message might be.

Amy De Rosa, at 10:20 am EDT on April 10, 2008

Pardon Me, but Your Door Is Terribly Offensive

On the one hand, there are differences between political speech which denigrates religious or other minorities and political speech which criticizes policies; the former is indeed offensive and can be, usually in a longer run, inflammatory and dangerous.

On the other hand, censorship should be an academic measure of nearly the last resort. We should rather, in nearly all cases, articulate just what is wrong with the opinion we judge to be offensive and publically challenge the offender.

Richard Hennessey, Director of the Islamic Studies Program at Merrimack College, at 10:35 am EDT on April 10, 2008

The doors are not the professors — they belong to the university, business, whatever.

If the administration doesn’t want litter posted on the doors, write a policy to that effect. Otherwise, attempting to regulate the litter is(in the case of state-sponsored schools) censoring speech.

Fidel, MD, at 11:30 am EDT on April 10, 2008

“So it’s back to the old question: where does protected speech end and audience protection begin?”

That’s a good question, but it would be better asked after viewing left-liberal bulletin board propaganda (of which there is a lot more), realizing that it’s offensive to those students who are insulted and “intimidated” by it and grasping that it, too, would have to come down.

And -then- asking if it’s worth it.

Incidentally, the whole argument for professor’s defending the institutional slant of universities is that students need to be exposed to alternate and challenging viewpoints. I’d say that argument is entirely hollow if pictures of aborted fetuses on an office door — and certainly whatever “conservative” cartoons this gentleman has — do not qualify.

hitnrun, at 11:30 am EDT on April 10, 2008

“different views would be punished”

Prof G wrote:

To this day I feel that his door materials were a blatant abuse of his power. No student who disagreed with him — and there were plenty — dared to complain, because ...those who voiced different views would be punished.So it’s back to the old question: where does protected speech end and audience protection begin?

Professor G, at 9:05 am EDT on April 10, 2008

The key to this question is the claim about Prof G’s old professor, that “those who voiced different views would be punished". If true this makes the old Prof’s behavior not a matter of free speech but of intimidation and suppression of other’s free speech rights. One can’t tell from Prof G’s account how reasonable this fear was, or if the alleged implicit threat was ever actually carried out.

And yet in the case at hand, we have a professor who was actually punished for exercising his freedom of speech. It seems odd then that Prof G does not come to his defense. Can it be that threats of punishment for speech are an issue if they are directed at Prof G’s side, but actual punishment for speech is OK if aimed at someone else?

Mike M, at 11:40 am EDT on April 10, 2008

Another example to the double standard that exists in our society and in our colleges. I do not really care to the content of the picture discribed in the article however, I see pictures of the conservatives and other groups from the left do not agree with. This whole action is nothing more than silencing the free speech of someone the administration does not agree with.

If a college does not want any political statements than everyone should take down their pictures. College professors should change their lectures. To insure this we can have campus security visit each classroom to insure the proper and political correct content is being taught.

Dana, at 11:40 am EDT on April 10, 2008

Dilbert

Reminds me of my favorite Dilbert cartoon. In panel one, the frowning boss is pointing to a cartoon taped to the outside of Dilbert’s cubicle. “This cartoon seems to be saying that management decisions are a joke,” he says. In panel two, the boss reprimands Dilbert: “Cartoons are not allowed on cubicles. It hurts morale. I don’t want to see this when I return.” In the third and final panel, the boss addresses Dilbert at his cubicle: “I’ve noticed a real improvement in morale since you removed the cartoon.” The offending cartoon has been surreptitiously taped to the boss’s back.

Bob Schenck, at 11:40 am EDT on April 10, 2008

So much for all those self-esteem classes...

Another Professor said: “It is, however, a clear signal to his students who is welcome and who is not to visit during office hours, seek advice or any other such function of faculty.”

Our education system hasn’t prepared students to respect other viewpoints by now? Are they really so ignorant as to believe opposition political editorials on a door is a sign they are not welcome and will not get advice in good faith?

What the hell is wrong with our Ivory Towers?

Fen, at 11:45 am EDT on April 10, 2008

stupid, stupid, stupid

I had to have a look at my door before I responded. I have a “books cause dangerous thoughts poster,” a copy of a friend’s dissertation cover (knock off of Marvel comics, quite good), some bike to work stuff (because I do that—such as “burn calories, not rubber” and other “share the road” bike advocacy stuff) and the 12 warning signs of fascism, that students seem to like to read. Finally, I have my GBLT “safe zone” sticker with resource information. Kinda lefty I have to admit.

Still, it’s nothing but stupid when administrators, or anyone for that matter, hounds people who have ideas they disagree with. I don’t know that the described cartoons are something I find offensive. Maybe overly simplistic like some of my stuff, who knows. But why make a big to do out of essentially nothing? It’s like my wife tells me with our son, pick your battles, and this seems a stupid battle to be picking.

bradley bleck, instructor at Spokane Falls CC, at 11:55 am EDT on April 10, 2008

Not amused

As a Christian, heterosexual male who passes for white, I get tired of seeing those who are different from me being bashed and put down. I am particularly annoyed at those who think they speak for me. They don’t.

David in Darkest PA, at 12:20 pm EDT on April 10, 2008

Well, as a right-libertarian I see stuff on people’s doors that annoys me, and I have all through undergrad and grad school.

And I never felt that I would be unwelcome, or not helped, or whatever, in the office of someone whose political views were obviously completely at odds with mine.

What I learned from those doors was, “don’t bring up politics with this person if you don’t want an argument". It means friendly banter won’t include “Can You Believe What Bush Just Did?".

My advisor when I was working on my master’s degree would have Chomsky books laying around. When she discovered my political affiliation, she didn’t seem to like me as much, but it didn’t affect our working together, because we are ADULTS.

When someone says something that you disagree with, you have three options:

Ignore it.

Argue.

Make it clear that you disagree but that you are not willing to argue.

On campus, I usually pick the third one.

Whining that somebody is saying something you don’t like honestly didn’t occur to me.

Gabriel Hanna, Washington State University, at 1:10 pm EDT on April 10, 2008

offensive to whom

Frankly, while I would not put such material on my own door, the ONLY people to whom the “anti-Muslim” cartoon would be offensive would be Muslims who actually identify with Islamist suicide bombers and who believe that any satirical attack on and lampooning of Islamist suicide bombers is an attack on Islam itself.

Let such people, if there are any at Crandall’s institution, come forward and make their case.

That would be interesting indeed.

prof ethan, at 1:30 pm EDT on April 10, 2008

From Speech to Harm

I think that this is a great subject for debate. A difficulty within freedom of expression controversies is: if I accept all viewpoints, I also accept the views of those aimed at harming myself or others. Should anyone be harmed in order to preserve freedom of speech?

Defining speech is a legal matter, and this has been the implicit focus of the debate within the comments thus far. However, I think that the solution to this debate is not defining speech, but defining aggression (and more specifically harm). Aggression is commonly defined as any action intended to harm by the aggressor and perceived as harmful by the victim. Any exchange meeting the criteria for aggression where aggression is unacceptable should be prohibited (much in the same way that physical aggression is proscribed in many environments). Thus, the specific content of any communication should be irrelevant, or at least of secondary importance; uneven sanctions can be applied across different levels of intended/experienced harm.

AM, at 3:15 pm EDT on April 10, 2008

You think a sign on a door is hositile? Try sitting in a class for 16 weeks listening to instructors inject their political views every chance they get. That’s the problem we have in higher education today; too many activists disguised as professors.

John, at 3:15 pm EDT on April 10, 2008

Being Offended

I forget where I saw this ... it is true:

Being offended is sometimes purely a form of aggression.

quasimodo, at 3:55 pm EDT on April 10, 2008

Satire

Satire runs the gamut from gentle to savage. Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” is a scathing denunciation of early capitalists’ (the Whig party then in power) policy toward Ireland from a Tory (conservative, royalist, late-feudal) standpoint.

I disagree with the administrators’ censorship. I got a huge laugh out of one of the posts on Prof. Crandal’s door. No, none of the anti-fundamentalist Islamic posts, because I cringe at their tendency toward racism, religionism and ethnic stereotyping, etc. I’m sure Prof. Crandall would be happy also to post some satire about Terry Nichols and Tim McVeigh, for consistency’s sake?

I appreciate good satire. It makes us all look at our own foibles.

There ARE obvious limits to free speech. I work for a for-profit university. You’d better darn sure mind your tongue in them there parts. Talk about coercion. There’s no tenure. You’d best not say things critical of “the business model” of education. So I well know how students must feel in the one down position. Listen, I must pay rent and put bread on the table. Students have to get grades. No unions, either. Perish the obscenity.

In a liberal-conservative, capitalist dominated world, non-profit academia seems one of the last, relatively safe, refuges for intellictuals of a leftist bent (if you can get on the tenure-track). By the way, there are many leftist bents. Yes we’re all twisted and bent. Human fallibility. For instance, it is the height of fallibility, in my view, to insinuate that any critique of capitalism must automatically lead to dystopia. It is such a facile, quick, non-thinking way of dismissing discussion of alternatives. Free speech can be about broaching other possibilities, can’t it? I’m all for many of the values conservatives and right-libertarians hold dear, just, perhaps, in a different context. Time for some progressive (not regressive!) cross pollination.

For another example of satire, see Mark Twain’s anti-imperialist “War Prayer” via the link below:

http://www.lexrex.com/informed/otherdocuments/warprayer.htm

Susan Alexander, at 4:40 pm EDT on April 10, 2008

being “offended” as a form of aggression

I agree with Quasimodo that there are religious groups on campus who know very well how to use being “offended” as a form of aggression. Their goal is to gain themselves immunity from the kind of criticism that most other groups, including religious groups, accept, and must accept, as the price of living in a democracy.

In terms of Crandall’s door, I do not mean Muslims in general; but I do mean “Islamists", such as those who control the Muslim Student Association at my own university. Freedom of speech in the university is under assault from this type of “victim", whose evident goal is to throttle and make impossible all criticism of Muslim action, including criticism of the most violent and barbarous assaults on civilians, on grounds that such criticism is “an assault on Islam.” University administrators who accept this argument have a poor view of Islam, it seems to me, for they are accepting an equation of Islam with violent Islamism which (a) is untrue, and (b) injures the efforts of progressive Muslims.

BUT: the problem is that university administrators are trained to react to pressure; the MSA’s know very well how to apply that pressure; and unfortunately on most campuses there are no large, standing and organized counter-pressure groups in favor of the First Amendment—just lonely individuals, and the occasional outside intervention of FIRE.

The pressure against freedom of speech does comes mostly from Islamists in my experience, though Christian fundamentalists are in there too.

prof ethan, at 6:00 pm EDT on April 10, 2008

Define ‘hate’

” .. BUT (again speaking as a liberal), I think putting right-wing hate cartoons ..”

So .. who is the judge of what is ‘hate?’ And what is not ‘hate?’

Let me guess — only lib-burr-als can define hate. Non-libburrals can’t.

Of course. How brilliant. What a tool. How 100%-unsupportable with tax dollars.

Any way, per previous, Willie Nelson said 9/11 was an inside job. So the perfessor is actually involved with fiction — right?

Durn. Free speech are so complicated. Mommy, we need help!

I.M. Laker, at 6:50 pm EDT on April 10, 2008

Professor G— so which story is correct?

Professor G, you’re trying to make it out like I didn’t read you carefully but it’s not so. The first time out you made two specific statements:

“I felt harassed and bullied every time I had to walk past his office. To this day I feel that his door materials were a blatant abuse of his power.”

and

“No student who disagreed with him — and there were plenty — dared to complain, because he made it clear that his views were both righteous and right and that those who voiced different views would be punished.”

The second I find a little hard to believe but in any case clearly constitutes an abuse of power on grounds beyond his free speech, and if he were really denying services to students based on beliefs, there are surely processes in place for dealing with that sort of thing.

The first, however, is what I’m talking about— you clearly seem to think the extremity of someone’s views can be considered as actionably offensive to you, an act of power used against you, just because they express them. That’s what I disagree with, absolutely.

Mike G, at 7:55 pm EDT on April 10, 2008

Rights?

” .. But the world has a long, long way to go in recouping all the lost talent ..”

.. of the 75% of Americans who choose NOT to attend college and wonder how productively their tax dollars are spent. They have rights, too. Believe it or not.

Fini.

L.L., at 8:50 pm EDT on April 10, 2008

liberals, come out and play-ay!

I have read the comments here and am totally unsurprised. This collosal waste of time, whether to reprimand the “professor” for his choice of door decor is absurd in the context of free speech.

Liberals, who would most closely (I hope) identify themselves with the Democrats of old, like Kennedy, have fallen so far, so fast, it is nothing more than a suicidal whirlwind.

Stop and think a second. The strength of the country supersedes any particular individual. That model has bred success historically.

In today’s PC model, the overachieving CEO is no better or worse than the crack-addicted trailer park trash.

Houston, we may have a problem, especially with PC thinking like that.

Higher education in the US needs a near-full enema simply to get back to reality.

Unfortunate, it obviously is.

Mr. Smith, at 5:10 am EDT on April 11, 2008

Again — W. Wilson

Reportedly by Woodrow Wilson, president, Princeton:

“Politics in academia are so vicious because so very little is really at stake.”

Small is, as small does. Just make sure that your timecards are correct and on-time. Like in the “TPS Reports” in “Office Space.” Existence must be justified.

No Student Left Behind, indeed.

Bart, at 11:45 pm EDT on April 11, 2008

LSSU response to “offensive door”

Lake Superior State University declines to comment about confidential personnel matters concerning its faculty or staff. However, it objects strenuously to any suggestion by FIRE or anyone else that the University acted inappropriately concerning the first amendment rights of any of its faculty. Although we will not publicly discuss specific personnel matters, we believe that FIRE materials have mischaracterizedthe situation and presented an incomplete and misleading account to the public.

Tom Pink, Director, Public Relations at Lake Superior State University, at 6:25 pm EDT on April 13, 2008

Venue for Publication or Opportunity for Administrative Growth

The professor ought to get a bonus. His door just generated more discussion and free publicity than a month of efforts by a public relations office. Expressions conveyed by office doors are apparently an emotional topic, and number of comments on this article is impressive. Have just witnessed the inaugural event for the outside of the office door as a hot new venue for publication?

Ors this the event that started offices of Deputy Vice-president for Door Exteriors across the nation? Their mission would be to make university hallways compliant with standards of hotels—no names or cartoons permitted—just numbers. A student would need permission from an IRB board to know who is behind a door. The motto: “The perpetually bored are never the perpetually offended.”

Prof Ed, at 4:50 am EDT on April 14, 2008

Political door decor

My stance is that political commentary of any stripe is inappropriate on faculty doors or in their offices. If an anxious, young, left-leaning (perhaps gay?) student gathers the courage to ask help of his 6-foot-4, gruff professor, and finds the photo of W and Laura hanging over the computer with its waving flag screen saver, and the door plastered with strongly worded, liberal-bashing cartoons. . .chances are his anxiety will not be diminished. Similarly, if the young student with strongly held Christian faith wants to talk to his Geology professor about how to deal with apparent conflicts between science and the scriptures, and finds the door covered with liberal cartoons, including some bashing the court cases involving teaching of evolution in the public schools. . . chances are he will not bother to knock. Politically involved faculty need to send a strong message to the students that the politics end when the students’ academic pursuits begin.

Judith Hannah, Professor, at 10:55 am EDT on April 14, 2008

free speech grows out of the barrel of a gun

Obviously, it doesn’t in the USA, thank the gods I don’t believe in. I’m a social democrat working in an academic library in a decidedly red state. Students have complained about liberal postings on faculty/staff doors and partisan political screeching during classes. While I sympathize, I think any student who comes to a university should be prepared to have her/his beliefs challenged from all sides. I also think that if you get outside the central liberal arts you’ll find the supposed liberal bias is nonexistent. Most business profs aren’t left-wing in my experience and the larger number of hard science faculty tend to lean right according to studies. Regardless of what is posted on doors, everyone should remember that the battle for campus free speech wasn’t fought by the right wing. The Berkeley actions weren’t led by campus conservatives; they played a small part in the struggle. Republican God-King (then saint-prince) Ronald Reagan tried to smash the SLATE and CORE activists, demonstrating how much regard he actually had for freedom. Without the strenuous efforts of the left, the conservative professor under discussion would have had no right to post any political material on his door and possible in his office.

DennisMM, at 11:55 am EDT on April 15, 2008

mostly harmless but

...some of the jokes are offensive because the target of the humor is not someone or some group that the poster represents. Blacks can tell jokes about blacks, Asians about Asians, jews about jews, but an Asian shouldn’t attack blacks or jews. It’s that simple.

Corporations like Exxon don’t apply, since they are owned by EVERYONE.

dave, at 3:45 pm EDT on April 16, 2008