Apropos of our recent discussion of the banning for life of two Klansmen from UofL for offensive speech are two March 2004 posts from Penn professor Erin O’Connor discussing Emory’s attempts to prevent a return visit from David Horowitz.
Following a controversial speech from Horowitz at Emory, the College Republicans tried to sponsor a return visit. In a rather hamfisted move, two Emory administrators came to the College Council meeting where funding for the visit was to be discussed, and pressured, none too subtly, students to deny funding. Following the meeting, CR member Ezra Greenberg wrote an editorial in the campus paper criticizing the speech of Emory Assistant Dean of Campus Life Vera Rorie. An unidentified (presumably non-Emory-related) individual subsequently sent Rorie an email criticizing her attempts to suppress free speech. Dean Rorie responded with a note to Greenberg and CR President Ed Thayer cancelling a planned meeting. In Professor O’Connor’s words:
Notice the logic of suppression that animates this note (because she is offended, she closes off all communication; refusal to engage in discussion is meted out here as a punishment). Notice, too, the hostility to transparency (”outsiders” should never have learned what she said to fellow “insiders”), the peculiarly censorious concept of causality (Greenberg is responsible for what Siles [the emailer] wrote because Greenberg, in accurately quoting Rorie, made it possible for Siles to write what he wrote; Thayer is responsible because, presumably, none of this would have happened if his group had not wanted Horowitz to come speak), and the predictable equation of words with weapons (not only Siles, but also Greenberg and Thayer, are accused here of perpetrating a linguistically-based “personal assault”). You can read Greenberg’s and Thayer’s responses, as well as the letters the CRs’ faculty sponsor, Harvey Klehr, addressed to Rorie, by scrolling down here.
Following the negative publicity, the CRs and other private groups raised money to bring Horowitz to campus, and Emory President James Wagner apologized to the CRs. Quoting a comment from the Volokh Conspiracy’s David Bernstein, Prof. O’Connor notes that
I do agree that the real apology should come from Rorie, and that Rorie’s behavior, both at the College Council meeting, where she openly tried to pressure students into following her ideological lead, and after, when she lashed out at the College Republicans for something they did not even do, ought to give the Emory administration serious pause. If this is not behavior they condone, then Rorie’s record should show that.
This is similar to the UofL situation in many ways - an administrator makes an official statement against free speech and open communication, which a higher-level administrator is forced to furiously backpedal away from, lest the university be seen as opposing free speech. The university can’t get off that easily - it is the job of all administrators to protect an environment that permits open communication of all ideas, even ones that the administrator opposes personally. Ultimately, university presidents are responsible for the actions taken on the university’s behalf. A Courier-Journal editorial today makes the same point:
Maintaining campus safety and keeping campus property free from defacement and clutter are legitimate goals. Anyone who frustrates the university’s pursuit of them should be dealt with. But not in the clumsy, self-defeating and possibly unconstitutional way that Dr. Ramsey has sanctioned Dave King and another member of the execrable KKK.We cite Dr. Ramsey because he’s in charge and responsible for the letter that banned the men from campus for “posting insensitive and offensive material.” And because he’s running Belknap Campus, not Cold-War Bulgaria.
There’s a First Amendment bar against this sort of content-based censorship. In America, government authorities may not single out certain people for exclusion from a public university’s buildings, grounds, facilities and school-sponsored events, for life, or from taking classes, simply because somebody else finds their leaflets, cards, fliers or other materials “insensitive and offensive.”
Are there others who have tacked something up in violation of U of L’s rules or who have hung around without having any particular business to conduct? Were they declared persona non grata for life? You can bet the Klansmen will run, letter in hand, to the nearest federal court to find out.
Klan members may not break campus rules, or falsely yell “fire” in a crowded classroom, or rally students to take the provost hostage.
But they may share ideas — even ideas that most Americans find disgusting. Campuses must protect debate and dialogue over ideas, including ugly, mean-spirited ideas like the KKK’s, as long as everyone obeys the same rules for expressing their ideas.
If Dr. Ramsey didn’t see the banishment letter, he should explain what sort of management system would allow an obviously incendiary and flawed approach like that to be taken without his approval.
If he did know, he should explain how he failed to see the legal issue he was handing to the KKK — or the blow he was landing on free speech.
The C-J, David Bernstein and Erin O’Connor all get it right - universities shouldn’t be trampling on the First Amendment so blatantly, and they shouldn’t let administrators who do so off the hook.
