if universities are going to allow criticism of any religion then all religions are fair game.
On May 17, 12:15 pm, Travis <[email protected]> wrote: > http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732358290457848504130476... > **** > Greg Lukianoff: Feds to Students: You Can't Say That**** By GREG LUKIANOFF > <http://online.wsj.com/search/term.html?KEYWORDS=GREG+LUKIANOFF+&bylin...> > **** > > The scandals roiling Washington over the past two weeks involve troubling > government behavior that had been hidden—the IRS targeting of conservative > groups and the Justice Department's surveillance of the Associated Press, > among others. Largely overlooked amid the histrionics has been a shocker > hiding in plain sight. Last week, the Obama administration moved to > dramatically undermine students' and faculty rights at colleges across the > country.**** > > The new policy was announced in a joint letter from the Education > Department and Justice Department to the University of Montana. The May 9 > letter addressed the results of a year-long joint investigation by the > departments into the school's mishandling of several serious sexual-assault > cases. The investigation determined that the university's policies > addressing sexual assault failed to comply with Title IV of the Civil > Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.**** > > But the joint letter, which announced a "resolution agreement" with the > university, didn't stop there. It then proceeded to rewrite the federal > government's rules about sexual harassment and free speech on campus. **** > > If that sounds hyperbolic, consider the letter itself. The first paragraph > declares that the Montana findings should serve as a "blueprint for > colleges and universities throughout the country." After outlining the > specifics of the case, the letter states that only a stunningly broad > definition of sexual harassment—"unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature"—will > now satisfy federal statutory requirements. This explicitly includes > "verbal conduct," otherwise known as speech.**** > > [image: image]**** > > Corbis **** > > The letter rejects the requirement, established by legal precedent and > previous Education Department guidance, that sexual harassment must be > "objectively offensive." By eliminating this "reasonable person" > standard—which the Education Department has required since at least 2003, > and which protects the accused against unreasonable or insincere > allegations—the right not to be offended has been enshrined in a federal > mandate.**** > > The letter further states that campuses have "an obligation to respond to > student-on-student harassment" even when that harassment occurs off-campus. > In some circumstances, the letter says, universities may take "disciplinary > action against the harasser" even "prior to the completion of the Title IX > and Title IV investigation/resolution." In plain English: Students can be > punished before they are found guilty of harassment. **** > > Given that the letter represents an interpretation of federal law by major > federal agencies, most colleges will regard it as binding. Noncompliance > threatens federal funding, including Pell grants and Stafford loans.**** > > The implications for professors and students are enormous. An unsuccessful > request for a date, or even assigning a potentially offensive book like > "Lolita," could now be construed as harassment. As attorney and civil > libertarian Wendy Kaminer commented on The Atlantic's website this week: > "The stated goal of this policy is stemming discrimination, but the > inevitable result will be advancing it, in the form of content-based > prohibitions on speech."**** > > This attack on campus free speech follows the Education Department's > directive two years ago requiring every college in the country that > receives federal funds to lower the standard of evidence in > sexual-harassment cases. The "preponderance of the evidence," the > judiciary's lowest standard of proof, became the required standard. (Many > institutions had previously used the "clear and convincing" standard.) As > former Dean of Harvard CollegeHarry Lewis has noted, the "preponderance of > evidence" mandate means "more convictions—of both guilty and innocent > individuals," which is a troubling result "in a society that values > individual rights."**** > > Last week's letter is part of a decades-long effort by anti-"hate speech" > professors, students, activists and administrators to classify any > offensive speech as harassment unprotected by the First Amendment. Such > speech codes reached their height in the 1980s and 1990s, but they were > defeated in federal and state court and came in for public ridicule.**** > > Despite these setbacks, harassment-based speech codes have become the de > facto rule. Earlier this year, my organization, the Foundation for > Individual Rights in Education, published a study that looked at 409 > colleges and found that 62% maintain codes that violate First Amendment > standards.**** > > The stifling effect of these codes isn't theoretical. In 2011, the > University of Denver suspended a professor and found him guilty of sexual > harassment because his class discussion on sexual taboos in American > culture (in a graduate-level course) was considered too racy. Last year, > Appalachian State University suspended a professor for creating a "hostile > environment" after she criticized the university's treatment of > sexual-assault cases involving student-athletes and screened a documentary > critical of the adult-film industry.**** > > Recent history gives no reason to expect that the government's new > directive on "verbal conduct" will remain confined to sexual speech. At > Tufts in 2007, a conservative student publication was found guilty of > harassment for criticizing Islam. The same happened to a professor at > Purdue University at Calumet in 2012, who faced a four-month investigation.* > *** > > An obsession with political correctness and the expansion of bureaucracy on > campus are key factors in the proliferation of such free-speech abuses. But > the hidden force that pushes schools to overreact to offensive, or merely > dissenting, speech is fear of liability and the federal government. A > growing "risk-management" industry—complete with regular conferences, > conventions and consultants—has arisen from efforts by university > administrators trying to avoid being sued for discrimination or harassment, > and to avoid the costly investigations in which the Education Department's > Office for Civil Rights specializes.**** > > All of this effort and expense ought to be unnecessary. The Supreme Court > already did the work in *Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education* (1999). > Recognizing that workplace standards for harassment were inappropriate for > educational institutions, in *Davis* the court offered a clear, narrow, > workable definition of harassment as a targeted pattern of serious and > ongoing discriminatory behavior.**** > > Adopting this standard would have solved—and would still solve, if > implemented—universities' liability panic, while allowing real harassers to > be punished and avoiding serious threats to freedom of speech. But the > Education and Justice departments apparently don't want to embrace the > Supreme Court's solution. In their letter, they explicitly reject (and > misquote) the court's thoughtful analysis in *Davis, *deeming it > inapplicable for the agencies' "purposes of administrative enforcement."**** > > When the Education Department lowered the standard of evidence for > harassment accusations in 2011, some college administrators complained, but > most meekly accepted the federal mandate. They may be regretting that > submission, now that the government is pushing for even lower standards. > Unless we decide that college should primarily be a social institution > devoted to preventing offense, it is time for universities—as well as state > governments, alumni, students, parents, faculty and citizens—to fight back. > **** > > *Mr. Lukianoff is the author of "Unlearning Liberty: Campus Censorship and > the End of American Debate" (Encounter, 2012) and the president of the > Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.* **** > > *A version of this article appeared May 17, 2013, on page A15 in the U.S. > edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Feds to Students: > You Can't Say That.* > > ** ** > > image001.jpg > 26KViewDownload -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
