University of Wisconsin Ditches Faculty Speech Code

This recent move by the University of Wisconsin was unexpected and a move toward sanity on that very liberal campus. I should say this did not come without the nudging of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Most major universities across the country still maintain speech codes restricting faculty and in many cases student from using certain so-called "offensive" words. Political correctness has invaded most campuses resulting in often severe restrictions on what can and cannot be said. All to often, those most restricted by these draconian measures are those on the right. Constitutional guarantees afforded by the First Amendment are tossed aside in favor of political correctness. Unfortunately it takes years for these measures to reach the courts even after they are challenged. This Wisconsin case came as a result of measures instituted by Donna Shalala in 1989, when she was chancellor at that school.

Our great colleges and universities are suppose to have a free and open exchange of ideas, but what has happened over the past years is that there has been a concerted effort by forces on the left to restrict opposing views, ideas, and even words offensive to them and the result has been a lost of academic freedom and a resulting imposition of a single political view point. I contend this was done deliberately and with a full knowledge of the end result. A result that we the tax-payers have funded in the case of our public institutions. Freedom of speech is vital and demanded by the Constitution at public and private institutions. And it is time for the federal courts to accert and demand that constitutional rights be given to all who attend our colleges. To avoid this issue, to neglect this duty is nothing short of treason. Our schools are vital to the future of this country. The change at UW is welcome, but it is only a very small step toward true academic freedom.

U. Wisconsin-Madison Ditches Faculty Speech Code
Eric Langborgh

In a triumphant shout of, "It’s a great day for freedom!" University of Wisconsin-Madison faculty senator Lester Hunt and other defenders of freedom trumpeted the Faculty Senate’s decision to essentially abolish the university’s long-standing faculty speech code. This voluntary action comes six years after the Wisconsin Supreme Court deemed student speech codes unconstitutional.

After 17 months of studying and debating speech code options, the Faculty Senate voted 71-62 to approve legislation to allow "all members of the university to express openly their ideas and opinions."

Jason Shepard, student committee member and a supporter of abolishing the speech code, called the legislation "historic" and stated that "this is the first time a university has voluntarily repealed its speech code."

The faculty speech code had been in effect since 1989, when then-Chancellor Donna Shalala instituted new rules under a section titled "Unprotected expressive behavior subject to discipline."

Wisconsin’s faculty speech code, like many at other universities, had sought to control "offensive speech" through diversity codes under what has come to be called "hostile environment doctrine." Recently, Pennsylvania State University became the latest in a long line of colleges around the country to come under fire for suppressing free speech under this rule. Hostile environment doctrine was also the subject of Alan Charles Kors and Harvey A. Silverglate’s book The Shadow University: The Betrayal of Liberty on America’s Campuses.

Jonathan Rauch, author of Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought and senior writer for National Journal magazine, says that under this doctrine anyone who feels they are in a hostile environment can file suit against the individual or group creating that environment.

This notion came to a head earlier this year when a University of Wisconsin (UW) student accused one of her professors of contributing to a hostile environment by repeatedly offending her. In a case eerily similar to the recent incident in the Washington, DC mayor’s office, Amelia Rideau, a junior, left the class in tears after her professor repeatedly used the word "niggardly."

According to the American Heritage College Dictionary, the word "niggardly" is an adjective used to describe a meager, petty manner. However, Rideau felt that by using this word her English professor, Standish Henning, was singling her out as the only black in the class. "This is a professor who knew that word offended me, and…still repeated it," she said.

Henning decided to use the incident to spur a valuable discussion in his class about the implications of language.

Shepard characterized the incident by saying, "the word ‘niggardly’ does not debase the student on the basis of race. I don’t think it is punishable…even if it is annoying. read full article

Dog Fighting Video and Free Speech

The Supreme Court in wading in on a controversial issue with the ACLU and the NRA siding with one another this should be a good one to watch. The issue simply put is over a video showing dog fights. If this is ruled unlawful then videos of bull fighting and many hunting videos could soon be ruled unlawful. Just a small step from there to outlawing certain fishing videos that show the death of our scaly friends. Although I oppose any form of dog fighting this video was used by the defendant in the case to condemn that so-called sport. As I see it, this should be a clear and easy case for the nine black-robed members of the high court, but then one can never be sure.

As a life long fisherman and hunter I see nothing wrong in video taping my fishing trips and the kill on hunting trips. I still maintain a number of videos taken south of the border at the bull rings. And as I was quick to point out to my grandson recently--they do kill the bulls. For some unknown reason he didn't know that and the young man is now 20 years old--what can I say, a product of our great school system. read more Above image from Patriotic Gentleman
Supreme Court Weighs Free Speech in Dog Fighting Case
Robert Stevens, a dog lover, sold bloody pit bull fighting videos that have raised questions on whether free speech protects the sale of horrific scenes of animal cruelty.

WASHINGTON -- On the first Tuesday of October, the second day of its new session, the Supreme Court will take up the case of a dog lover whose bloody pit bull fighting videos have raised questions on whether free speech protects the sale of horrific scenes of animal cruelty.

Robert Stevens, 69, was sentenced by a Pittsburgh jury in 2005 to more than three years in prison for selling the graphic videos of dog fights. The Virginia man's sentence was harsher than the one NFL quarterback Michael Vick got for bankrolling a dog-fighting ring.

The 1999 law used in Stevens' sentencing "prohibits the knowing creation, sale, or possession of a depiction of a live animal being intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded, or killed" for commercial gain. But the law stipulates that the material must also lack "serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value."

The case centers on a basic fundamental question examining the reach of the First Amendment. Is the law so broad that it also covers some protected speech, thus making it invalid on its face?

A lower appellate court ruled that it was, striking down Stevens' sentence.

Stevens has defended himself against charges of animal cruelty, insisting that he is a dog lover who distributes information about pit bulls to educate the public. Meanwhile, the government defends the decade-old law used to convict Stevens as an effective deterrent to stop animal cruelty, alleging that Stevens is the type of facilitator and profiteer the law is meant to stop. read more