David, I don’t see this as a hard problem for the schools to remedy consistent with the First Amendment and the safety of students.
If I were in charge, this is what I would do.
(1) have a zero tolerance policy for any student involved in a violent act against another student subject to a due process determination of guilt. My guess is tha…
David, I don’t see this as a hard problem for the schools to remedy consistent with the First Amendment and the safety of students.
If I were in charge, this is what I would do.
(1) have a zero tolerance policy for any student involved in a violent act against another student subject to a due process determination of guilt. My guess is that these schools have such a policy already.
(2) require that any student found to have defaced or destroyed property, such as painting a swastika on a dorm room door or someone’s car will be suspended for the following semester.
(3)The school will provide a space where students can gather to protest anything so long as there is no effort to incite violence.
(4) At a different location on campus, at some distance from the first location, students will be permitted to conduct a counter demonstration
(5) Before students are permitted to demonstrate at either location, they must provide notice to the school so that appropriate security arrangements can be made.
(6) students can discuss any topic, but any student who directs hate speech against another student will receive a warning that if such conduct occurs again they will be suspended.
(7) And finally, any student who prevents another student from walking away from any speech, or is followed while attempting to break away from that speech, will be suspended for the semester.
If students believe that they must protest something immediately, TOUGH. All students will be required to sign a statement that they are aware of school policy on speech and if they are unwilling to agree to abide with this policy, they should go elsewhere.
Of course there are other sanctions that can be used to achieve the same result, and regardless of what scheme is chosen, it should be revised if something doesn’t work.
Of course, this policy only applies to hate speech. Students can still conduct a sit-in in the President’s office. They can burn their draft cards anywhere on campus. They can protest any government policy. We don’t want to interfere with tradition.
I don't disagree with most of your proposals. But points (1), (2), (6), and (7) are already in place at most of these schools, and the presidents all testified that harassing or violent actions directed at individuals, like the ones you describe, are subject to discipline.
What is at issue instead are protests where no words or actions are directed at individual students, but people hold up signs or chant slogans like "globalize the Intifada" or "from the river to the sea." Stefanik wants to make participating in such protests subject to university discipline. I disagree.
Regarding your proposal of free-speech zones, the concept sounds reasonable, but historically the implementation has been problematic. See this discussion from FIRE:
David, I don’t see this as a hard problem for the schools to remedy consistent with the First Amendment and the safety of students.
If I were in charge, this is what I would do.
(1) have a zero tolerance policy for any student involved in a violent act against another student subject to a due process determination of guilt. My guess is that these schools have such a policy already.
(2) require that any student found to have defaced or destroyed property, such as painting a swastika on a dorm room door or someone’s car will be suspended for the following semester.
(3)The school will provide a space where students can gather to protest anything so long as there is no effort to incite violence.
(4) At a different location on campus, at some distance from the first location, students will be permitted to conduct a counter demonstration
(5) Before students are permitted to demonstrate at either location, they must provide notice to the school so that appropriate security arrangements can be made.
(6) students can discuss any topic, but any student who directs hate speech against another student will receive a warning that if such conduct occurs again they will be suspended.
(7) And finally, any student who prevents another student from walking away from any speech, or is followed while attempting to break away from that speech, will be suspended for the semester.
If students believe that they must protest something immediately, TOUGH. All students will be required to sign a statement that they are aware of school policy on speech and if they are unwilling to agree to abide with this policy, they should go elsewhere.
Of course there are other sanctions that can be used to achieve the same result, and regardless of what scheme is chosen, it should be revised if something doesn’t work.
Of course, this policy only applies to hate speech. Students can still conduct a sit-in in the President’s office. They can burn their draft cards anywhere on campus. They can protest any government policy. We don’t want to interfere with tradition.
I don't disagree with most of your proposals. But points (1), (2), (6), and (7) are already in place at most of these schools, and the presidents all testified that harassing or violent actions directed at individuals, like the ones you describe, are subject to discipline.
What is at issue instead are protests where no words or actions are directed at individual students, but people hold up signs or chant slogans like "globalize the Intifada" or "from the river to the sea." Stefanik wants to make participating in such protests subject to university discipline. I disagree.
Regarding your proposal of free-speech zones, the concept sounds reasonable, but historically the implementation has been problematic. See this discussion from FIRE:
https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/free-speech-zones