From FIRE:
San Francisco State University (SFSU) is investigating its College Republicans for hosting an anti-terrorism rally on campus in which participants stepped on makeshift Hezbollah and Hamas flags. After students filed a complaint claiming they were offended because the flags bore the word “Allah,” SFSU initiated an investigation into accusations of incitement, creation of a hostile environment, and incivility. […]
“At a public university, stepping on a flag—even burning an American flag—is without question a constitutionally protected act of political protest,” FIRE Vice President Robert Shibley said. “The right to protest is at the very heart of the First Amendment, and means nothing if only inoffensive expression is permitted.”
The College Republicans’ “offense” took place on October 17, 2006, when they held an anti-terrorism protest in SFSU’s Malcolm X Plaza. During the protest, several members of the group stepped on butcher paper they had painted to resemble the flags of Hamas and Hezbollah. Unbeknownst to the protestors, the flags they had copied contain the word “Allah” written in Arabic script.
…Students report that OSPLD has the power to dismiss baseless charges after concluding an investigation. SFSU’s student group misconduct procedures also give OSPLD Director Greenwell the option of settling the complaint with an “informal resolution of charges.” Instead, Greenwell passed the case along for trial before SOHP. If SOHP finds the College Republicans guilty, punishment could range from a letter of warning to the revocation of recognition.
All of this seems deplorable to me. Do I like the College Republicans’ behavior? No. It’s a pattern I’ve seen before: Public behavior, calculated to offend and cause a stir, followed by pretend-shock when people are offended.1 But they have a first amendment right to do that without official harassment by the University or the student government.
This is one of those times I’m embarrassed by lefty and liberal authorities on US campuses. Whether it’s a pro-choice professor leading students in knocking down a pro-life exhibit, a pro-Israel professor being fired for his views, or this case in San Francisco, I can’t help but expect better of campus lefties.
Of course, campus left-wingers have been censored too: a professor being investigated by the university for criticizing Israel, a student feminist group having their pro-reproductive rights signs torn down by the university, and an accomplished lefty professor having his appointment to Yale scuttled by right-wing partisan activism are three examples that leap to mind. Not to mention the ongoing use of ironically-named free speech zones to censor mostly left-wing campus activists. Right and left, the pattern suggests that too many academic authorities have too little respect for free speech.
Of course, many SFSU students found the Republican’s flag-stomping offensive while still respecting its right to exist. This isn’t at all surprising — most students are pretty sensible about this stuff, in my experience — but it is something that folks objecting to censorship on campus rarely acknowlege, so I wanted to highlight it. From The Golden Gate [X]Press:
“I guess they have right to protest,” said Blanco, a sophomore and music major. “But that shit means something to people, and stomping on it is disrespectful.” […]
Annette Heully, 21, said a group’s right to protest is covered by the First Amendment, no matter the controversy of the group or its methods.
“It’s a First Amendment issue,” Heully, a junior art major, said. “I mean, chick flicks are offensive, but people are still allowed to make those.”
(Okay, I also had to quote that because the quote about chick flicks is super-cool.)
* * *
By the way, the president of the SFSU Republicans has a very one-sided notion of “free speech.” From an article published shortly after the rally, in October:
“This campus preaches free speech, but unless you are Republican,” Clark said. “We don’t show up and protest their events.”2
Clark seems to believe that free speech is somehow impinged upon if his events are protested, which makes me wonder: Does Clark understand what free speech is? Of course Clark has a right to stomp on a flag and yell in the public square; but other students likewise have a right “to show up and protest [Republican] events.” Until the college administration and student governments stepped in and screwed things up, there was no free speech issue here.
(This misunderstanding of free speech is, in my observation, pretty common among right-wingers.)
Hat tip: Dispatches From the Culture Wars
- Some folks are going to be tempted to accuse me of hypocrisy because I defended Amanda Marcotte earlier this week. But no one, least of all me, is saying that people have no right to be offended by what Amanda writes: I just don’t think Amanda should be fired for it. Just as I don’t think the College Republicans should be punished for their behavior. [↩]
- Clark was also quoted, in the October article, claiming that he and other Republicans were physically threatened while on stage. If physical threats were made, the threateners should be punished. But I haven’t seen any substantiation of “physical threats” against the Republicans; this claim has seemingly been dropped in the more recent articles, making me suspect Clark’s October claim was just hyperbole. [↩]
Pingback: Human Iterations
Pingback: a-blog馬鹿
I have to admit – my first reaction is glee. I absolutely agree with you that freedom of speech protects their right to stomp on whatever they want to stomp on. But I’m gleeful because it was the Republicans who pushed the anti-flag-burning legislation in the first place. What goes around, comes around.
Now, if only this would teach those who want to pass some legislation a lesson about the importance of free speech…
Good post. I would add that it was the International Socialist Organization and a Palestinian student group who were the bright lights that fell for this silly provocation. Maybe people could have simply counte- protested in response to the republicans with the message of something like— “Sign up for the army if your so gung ho for fighting terrorism. ” We know that none would.
Also the embarrassing behavior of the Columbia students a few months ago had the same effect. It made the minutemen look like victims and gave them a national televised platform for their noxious ideas.
but other students likewise have a right “to show up and protest [Republican] events.”
Depends – if the above means simply protesting, fine. If it means disrupting and shouting down people so that they cannot present their views (e.g., the Columbia episode), then no.
Yeah, this whole thing bugged me, Amp. I’m glad you posted about it.
Goddammit, I hate it so much when the left embraces censorship and shutting down free speech. This is my team! We should know better!
“Depends – if the above means simply protesting, fine. If it means disrupting and shouting down people so that they cannot present their views (e.g., the Columbia episode), then no.”
Who decides what sort of protesting is too much, too little, or just right? I’m not saying that protestors cannot act against ethical principles in a general sense – in this sense, the weight of general opinion decides that, and the penalty is harsh feelings and angry looks – but I hope it’s not anything more.
Open Letter to Debra J. Saunders
Please Report the Entire Free Speech Story
by Ian Thomas, Newspaper Editor
February 8, 2007 4:14 PM
Dear Debra J. Saunders,
My name is Ian Thomas. I am the Editor of The Golden Gate [X]press.
I continually appreciate your important and nuanced voice at the San Francisco Chronicle. Thank you for shedding more light on these important First Amendment issues looming at SF State.
It is important for you to know and note the context for which the situation was born. Last summer the General Union of Palestinian Students (GUPS) completed the process to send a mural to President Robert Corrigan for final approval. Associated Students Inc. had approved the mural through a democratic student government process by a 6-2 vote.
Corrigan blocked the mural from going up by immediately placing a moratorium on all new murals, stating the mural is “conflict-centered” and it “runs counter to values that we hope have taken deep root at San Francisco State, among them, pride in one’s own culture expressed without hostility or denigration of another.”
In an October meeting Corrigan reportedly called mural supporters “bigots,” which is the same term some people give to say… the Minutemen, which the Repubs have also rallied for on campus. [X]press supports this expression as well.
A character in the mural, “Handala,” by acclaimed Arab cartoonist Naji al-Ali is shown holding a pen and a key. The key represents the Palestinian “right of return” to what they deem their homeland. Some say that “right of return” represents the destruction of Israel. Through research and interviews I have found that Handala is a refugee child and is a used in many different contexts, depending on the specific use and the viewer. He is normally depicted as poor, with his hands held behind his back, sometimes he is shown throwing rocks.
See the story by Jason Shuffler at: http://xpress.sfsu.edu/archives/news/006759.html
The Golden Gate [X]press supports full freedom of expression to all members of our community, see: http://xpress.sfsu.edu/archives/editorials/007805.html
There is no difference between offensive speech of the Repubs stomping on flags containing the symbol for God or a Palestinian mural calling for a “right to return” in the eyes of the The Constitution. They are both protected expression.
[X]press has recommended that the Student Organization Hearing Panel, the Office of Student Programs and Leadership Development, ASI, and Corrigan dismiss any notion of sanctions against the Repubs.
We call on all stakeholders to drop double standards.
In the lead of your column “SF State- Heckers’ Paradise” (2-8-07) you asked:
“What is San Francisco State University teaching that makes student leaders think that if they don’t like what other students say, they can use student organizations to stifle those with dissenting views? Do they even know about the First Amendment?”
Excellent questions.
In my opinion the story didn’t start with the Repubs, it started when Corrigan limited the free speech of GUPS and the democratic process of ASI. What is he teaching us? I, and many on this campus, posit that Corrigan has set a poor example by limiting expression when he and/or his advisers didn’t like what the mural had to say.
Yes, it was a hypocritical move for ASI to pass a resolution condemning the Repubs for offensive speech. It would now be hypocritical if SOHP and Corrigan do not pass sanctions against the Repubs. This is convoluted due to Corrigan, our president, limiting free expression of GUPS.
It is time for everyone to step back, think, and correct these mistakes.
As a respected member of the San Francisco and national community, I trust that you will further consider, research and report this complex and important story that strikes at the very foundation of freedom of expression and education in our country.
Mrs. Saunders, please help us encourage a truly open marketplace of ideas in the grand tradition of open debate, discussion, and democracy at SF State.
I eagerly await your response.
Who decides what sort of protesting is too much, too little, or just right?
Those who have authority over the place where the protest is taking place. If it’s private property, the property owner does. If it’s public property, then the appropriate government agency does, depending in part on what the intended use of that property is (e.g., what’s appropriate for a campus quad may not appropriate in the middle of the street). In the case of public property and a government agency, any such decision can be reviewed by the courts for possible First Amendment violations.
In no case should a protest (which, after all, is an expression of a particular point of view in a public fashion) be allowed to be employed as a means to prevent someone else from presenting their point of view. If a protest is being employed in such a fashion on public property, then it seems to me that it is legitimate for the government to step in and stop it, especially if the original proponent has obtained permits, paid rentals or fees, etc. so as to secure the use of the area.
As I remember there was an earlier mural controversy that happened in the early 90’s at SF state. That mural was actually painted and was indeed anti-semitic, featuring a dollar signs in the star of David. Most of the left didn’t defend it, but a few tried to argue (wrongly) that the mural was just anti-zionist. Well, the administration gave it the sandblaster, a decision I support. I’d imagine the legacy of that event played out in the more recent controversy.
I would argue that it would be probably be a bad idea, chaotic and completely unworkable if every student group were allowed to go on painting spree pushing whatever issue they thought was important. So were GUPS free speech rights denied, I would say probably not.
The “enemy of my enemy” approach that *some* radical leftists take regarding Islam has always confused me.
Pingback: Reblog: Unread items in feed "Human Iterations" (items 1 to 50)