The term censorship is often misapplied; it is the prior restraint of speech by the government. And this case is the real thing.
From the Sound Politics public blog with permission:
Spokane Falls Community College Claims Pro-life Speech Against Washington Law
Not to be believed, but yes, SFCC "threatened Beth Sheeran and members of a Christian student group with disciplinary measures, including expulsion, if they chose to hold a pro-life event on campus to share information with other students because the message was 'discriminatory' and did not include a pro-abortion viewpoint." They were also told it was against Washington law.
Read the whole story from the ADF who is representing the students in their law suit against SFCC.
Here's the offending flyer the pro-life students wanted posted in a display case.
What these pro-life students went through, not only with the school administration but with their faculty advisory is outrageous.
Not only were they told that their "pro-life display was 'offensive' and 'discriminatory,' they were also required to also present the opposite point of view during the event.
But here's another whopper, "Defendant McKenzie (Director of Student Funded Programs at the College) also told SFCF's (Spokane Falls Christian Fellowship) president that Washington is a "pro-choice" state, so SFCF could not use state money for "non-pro-choice" speech events.
And it gets worse, Ms. Kurtz, a professor of English at the College and SFCF faculty advisor, told Ms. Sheeran and SFCF members that the pro-life event violated state law according to Wash. Admin. Code § 132Q-30-242. (Verified Complaint of Plaintiff: pp 10-11 (PDF)) She capped that information off with a lovely, "You don't want to be expelled, do you?"
How did this woman get selected as faculty advisor to a pro-life group?!
A preliminary hearing has been set for April 29 at 3:00 p.m. at the Federal District Courthouse in Spokane. Sheeran will have the opportunity to present her case at the hearing.
Posted by 6p01053614339a970b
If you have doubts the State should allow pro-life students to speak on their campus then read at least the introduction to the complaint filed in court. Here is how it begins:
1. The hallmark of a free society is the ability of people to express theirIf you have doubts the actions are illegal and unconstitutional then read the whole brief. Posted by Ron Hebron at April 06, 2009 09:51 PM | Email This
ideas without government restraint. Nowhere is this freedom more necessary
than on America's public college campuses--the marketplace of ideas.
However, Washington State Community College District 17, the Community
Colleges of Spokane (the District), as well as Spokane Falls Community College
(the College), systematically prohibits religious and political student speech that
is outside the campus political mainstream.2. This case arises from the efforts and policies of a public community
college, through its officials, to restrict the expressive rights of its students and
student organizations. The District, as a public institution of higher learning, is
bound by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution to refrain from
infringing on the free speech rights of those it educates. Instead, the Defendants
in this case have engaged in unlawful censorship. Through a series of
unconstitutional policies and practices, they have attempted to suppress
constitutionally protected expression on campus simply because that expression
offended the sensitivities of some.
Diversity means anyone's point of view that you agree with.
Posted by: Andy on April 6, 2009 10:45 PMWhat's good for the goose...
I was actually considering attending SFCC in the future. Not anymore.
Posted by: Duane on April 7, 2009 03:36 AMWho needs to think for themselves when you can just be a Democrat and be told how and what to think by the prevailing groupthink-attitude at the time...
Posted by: Rick D. on April 7, 2009 06:08 AMAnd it's part of what appears to be a disturbing and growing trend to attempt to censor free speech on college campuses; that in any way disputes the ''politically correct'' dogma of the far left; i.e.:
Anything that does not toe the far-left party line is almost automatically designated as ''hate speech''.
BTW were they threatened with criminal charges by SFCC is this a chargeable offense? Seems like at least extortion on the expulsion threat. Anyone got a view?
Look at the boldness of the left.
Let's not be the British Army in the Revolutionary War here. I'd go on the offensive for civil rights violations, extortion, etc.. Get in the weeds and infiltrate these groups take video take notes and spread it like this post did.
Posted by: Col. Hogan on April 7, 2009 07:19 AMMs. Kurtz, a professor of English at the College and SFCF faculty
advisor, told Ms. Sheeran and SFCF members that the pro-life event was biased,
discriminatory, violated the District's Stop the Hate policy and state law, and if
SFCF held the event, all the members could be punished under District policy
and even expelled from school.
Ms. Kurtz distributed two documents from the District's Stop the
Hate program and said that if the SFCF students and Ms. Sheeran offended
someone, they could be punished under this program and its policies. One
document is entitled "The Details" and states that '[a] bias incident . . . is an act
of conduct, speech or expression to which a bias motive . . . is evident as a
contributing factor regardless of whether the act is criminal.' The other
document, entitled "Pyramid of Hate", defines acts of bias as 'stereotyping,
jokes, rumors, justifying biases by seeking out like-minded people, accepting
negative information, screening out positive information, insensitive remarks and
non-inclusive language.'
This is orwellian stuff from this 'educators' pie hole. So anyone that vocally disagrees with infanticide is committing "hate speech" according to this imbecile? Ms. Kurtz would have made both Goebbels and Hitler proud in 1930's Germany.
Posted by: Rick D. on April 7, 2009 09:02 AMI hope this group wins big and bankrupts the college.
Posted by: pbj on April 7, 2009 09:48 AMIf the 'educator' hates the speech, it's hate speech.
Whatever became of "I may disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it?"
Posted by: Angela in Bothell on April 7, 2009 10:30 AMSilly you, only the right says and agrees with such a philosophy. The left is working hard to throw out the entire constitution. Socialism doesn't work in a Republic.
So it's useless to point out "double standards" or "hypocrisy" when leftists don't hold to meanings of words as rightists understand them. They are trying to destroy the right, the traditional bastion of Western life, and they will do anything--ANYTHING--to do it. Saying, "double standard!" is no counterattack. It's just hot air.
If folks were really serious about liberty on campus, they would just take it--by force, if necessary--not depending on liberals to grant them a bonus privilege of liberty.
I would have said "How is advocacy for one of the possible choices in opposition to the state's position? Choice means more than one option: and we advocate for one of them. Surely you don't mean abortion is the only choice?"
I am sure if you talk with these people you'll find depths of illogic and obduracy that make conversation quite limited.
Posted by: BC on April 7, 2009 12:46 PMCut funding of all schools by the Washington State government. Let them sink or swim in the free market. If they provide a valuable service, people will pay for it. If not, they need to find a new job.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on April 7, 2009 02:51 PMAlways nice to be able to turn something the other side regards as one of their great achievements against them.
Posted by: Heartless Libertarian on April 7, 2009 02:52 PMAccording to the student newspaper The Communicator, the CCS (Community Colleges of Spokane) will be represented by Wash. State Attorney General's Office representative, Jerry Cartwright. Yep. That would be Rob "I will defend a woman's right to choose at every opportunity" McKenna's office.
On the public blog, there were a few who defended the AGG's office, since after all, it is the AGG's job to provide legal counsel to all WA state institutions. Well, isn't it within the perameters of "legal counsel" to advise the client he's wrong, and has no legal basis for defending his actions, and defending him in court would only waste the taxpayers' money?
Posted by: Michelle on April 7, 2009 02:57 PMI think a critical part of this story for SP readers is the fact that McKenna's office has decided the assist in defending the school, rather than advising them that the First Amendment still applies to students. Why would Rob McKenna do that?
It certainly isn't the first time he's come out against the First Amendment. He did it in the case of the board of pharmacy when they sought to deny pharmaacists their First Amendment rights.
Members of the GOP need to think long and hard about whether or not this is someone they want going any higher in the political food chain.
Posted by: Mary on April 7, 2009 11:09 PM1) "Act of Bias": "Justifying biases by seeking out like-minded people";
2) "Prejudice and Bigotry": "De-humanization";
3) "Discrimination": "Harassment, Educational discrimination";
4) "Violence": "Murder, Threats"
5) "Genocide": "The deliberate, systematic extermination of an entire people"
Posted by: Ray J Tuleya on April 8, 2009 05:15 PMI remember back in the 90's when initiative 501 was hot. I was attending Pierce College at nighttime (fresh out of the Marines). The "professors" would spend time railing at the beginning of class that if the measure was passed, that 30-50% of those attending wouldn't be able to.
I got so upset that I started threatening that if they continued to campaign on class time that I would report them to the PDC. Didn't win me any friends, but shut them up (at least while I was around).
Can you tell us why you didn't include the part about Rob McKenna?
IF you shoot in 3 directions at once it's hard to hit anything. I chose to take only one shot. I made my choice and I told you before I posted it and didn't post until I heard back. I do agree with you that he should tell SFCC that his job is protecting the laws of Washington, not the bureaucracy.
Posted by: Ron Hebron on April 8, 2009 06:50 PMWell, not if you're a good shot.
Posted by: Michelle on April 8, 2009 09:25 PMProof of this is the bill of attainder against AIG that recently passed with senators arguing that it's "fair" regardless if it is constitutional or not. Combine this with the countless cases of social marxism such as this case at SFCC and you can see that our constitution is pretty much dead. The argument that you can't "offend" somebody these days sounds just like when people where punished for heresy and blasphemy.
When are we going to form an anti-federalist party...a party of the middle that errs on the side of states and citizens? We should resurrect Jefferson's Democratic-Republican party. The party of anti-federalists dedicated to putting the federal government back within its constitutional boundaries. Whenever the party has a policy debate, the first question should be "is this a constitutional?" followed by "should the government get involved?" Neither of those questions are ever asked by federalists.
I no longer distinguish between Republicans and Democrats. I categorize all national politicians as federalists and anti-federalists based on their voting patterns and what I've found is that there are precious few anti-federalists.
Posted by: blindman on April 8, 2009 10:33 PMI completely agree with you. However, we could still continue taxpayer subsidies for college (a worthy cause I think) through a voucher/scholarship program rather than directly funding the schools themselves. Initially, nothing would change, but as students realize they have the power, all hell would break loose in the intelligentsia.
It's time to break the government monopoly on education at all levels.
Posted by: blindman on April 8, 2009 10:41 PMMs. Kurtz and Ms. McKenzie,
I am writing to express my extreme disgust at your behavior as it relates to the Pro-Life club at SPFF.
Who the hell do you think you are? What right do you have to tell your students what they can and can’t do on campus as it results to speech? SFCC is a publicly funded institution and therefore is not allowed to infringe on first amendment rights? Apparently it’s okay to badger military recruiters, decry the Iraq War and call our servicemen and women baby killers and the like but if someone wants to bring up the horrors of abortion in a pretty non-confrontational way then you threaten to expel them? Again, who the hell do you think you are? I’ll tell you who you are. You are a despicable human being that is only interested in controlling the minds of our impressionable youth. You should be grossly ashamed of yourself and should immediately remove yourself from your teaching post. If you want to believe that abortion is a-ok you have that right (for now). Go out and have as many abortions as you’d like. Drive people to Planned Parenthood all you want. Go protest the “evils” of the Catholic Church in the public square. You have the right to do that. You have freedom of speech. The students under you also have that same right. Just because you don’t agree with them doesn’t mean you have the right to silence them. If that’s the kind of world you want to live in then I suggest you move to Communist China and leave the rest of us freedom loving folk alone.
I suggest you reread the US and Washington State Constitutions and remember those words of Voltaire, “I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it.”