The Raping of the First Amendment

[tucker342]

Feds subpoena college's records on anti-war forum

By The Associated Press
02.09.04
DES MOINES, Iowa — In what may be the first subpoena of its kind in decades, a federal judge has ordered a university to turn over records about a gathering of anti-war activists.

In addition to the subpoena of Drake University, subpoenas were served last week on four of the activists who attended a Nov. 15 forum at the school, ordering them to appear before a grand jury tomorrow, the protesters said.

Federal prosecutors have refused to comment on the subpoenas.

In addition to records about who attended the forum, the subpoena orders the university to divulge all records relating to the local chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, a New York-based legal activist organization that sponsored the forum.

The group, once targeted for alleged ties to communism in the 1950s, announced Feb. 6 it would ask a federal court to quash the subpoena today.

“The law is clear that the use of the grand jury to investigate protected political activities or to intimidate protesters exceeds its authority,” guild President Michael Ayers said in a statement.

Representatives of the Lawyer’s Guild and the American Civil Liberties Union said they had not heard of such a subpoena being served on any U.S. university in decades.

Those served subpoenas include the leader of the Catholic Peace Ministry, the former coordinator of the Iowa Peace Network, a member of the Catholic Worker House, and an anti-war activist who visited Iraq in 2002.

They say the subpoenas are intended to stifle dissent.

“This is exactly what people feared would happen,” said Brian Terrell of the peace ministry, one of those subpoenaed. “The civil liberties of everyone in this country are in danger. How we handle that here in Iowa is very important on how things are going to happen in this country from now on.”

The forum, titled “Stop the Occupation! Bring the Iowa Guard Home!” came the day before 12 protesters were arrested at an anti-war rally at Iowa National Guard headquarters in Johnston. Organizers say the forum included nonviolence training for people planning to demonstrate.

The targets of the subpoenas believe investigators are trying to link them to an incident that occurred during the rally. A Grinnell College librarian was charged with misdemeanor assault on a peace officer; she has pleaded not guilty, saying she simply went limp and resisted arrest.

“The best approach is not to speculate and see what we learn on Tuesday” when the four testify, said Ben Stone, executive director of the Iowa Civil Liberties Union, which is representing one of the protesters.

Mark Smith, a lobbyist for the Washington-based American Association of University Professors, said he had not heard of any similar case of a U.S. university being subpoenaed for such records.

He said the case brings back fears of the “red squads” of the 1950s and campus clampdowns on Vietnam War protesters.

According to a copy obtained by the Associated Press, the Drake subpoena asks for records of the request for a meeting room, “all documents indicating the purpose and intended participants in the meeting, and all documents or recordings which would identify persons that actually attended the meeting.”

It also asks for campus security records “reflecting any observations made of the Nov. 15, 2003, meeting, including any records of persons in charge or control of the meeting, and any records of attendees of the meeting.”

Several officials of Drake, a private university with about 5,000 students, refused to comment Feb. 6, including school spokeswoman Andrea McDonough. She referred questions to a lawyer representing the school, Steve Serck, who also would not comment.

A source with knowledge of the investigation said a judge had issued a gag order forbidding school officials from discussing the subpoena.


hxxp://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=12637
---------------------------------------


Kind of scary if you ask me.....

[Buccaneer]

Yep, but why not also bring up any of many examples of college's restricting free speech regarding those with alternate views besides progressive liberalism?

[NoMyths]

Christ, Buccaneer. *shakes head*

[JonInMiddleGA]

Let me get this straight now -- you're disturbed by this.

Meanwhile the ACLU says "“The best approach is not to speculate and see what we learn on Tuesday” when the four testify,"

Ho-kay.

Here's a pretty good rule of thumb ... when the ACLU represents the voice of reason, you may be overreacting just a wee bit.

[Buccaneer]

Recent free speech issues

- University of California, Berkeley. In a catalog description last year for a course on the "politics and poetics of Palestinian resistance," the graduate student instructor warned that "conservative thinkers are encouraged to seek other sections." The description was rewritten, and administrators assured students they could indeed speak their minds.

- University of Minnesota, Twin Cities. A student group for Christians sued the school over its requirement that student groups sign a statement that they are open to all students regardless of religion, marital status or sexual orientation.

- University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa. A student was urged in June to remove a Confederate flag from a hallway in his dorm after a parent complained. Officials said the flag could violate a policy being drafted. In protest, other students displayed U.S. flags in their windows. Officials have since "tabled indefinitely" the policy, spokesman Cathy Andreen says.

- University of Washington, Seattle. An "affirmative action bake sale" was cut short after drawing a crowd of about 200, some of them disruptive. The College Republican sponsors charged black students 30 cents, Latinos 35 cents and white students $1 for the same item. The Board of Regents later condemned the sale as "tasteless, divisive and hurtful." Organizers say campus police told them to shut it down; officials say the students agreed to end it.

- Whittier College, Whittier, Calif. After students launched a conservative newspaper in April, they were told they needed permission from a campus board before publishing again. When they sought approval, they found that the board was inactive. The students say four other publications had not been asked to register.

Full article from USA Today (http://www.azcentral.com/families/education/articles/1105Campus-Speech-ON.html)

Just saying it goes both ways.

[JonInMiddleGA]

http://desmoinesregister.com/news/stories/c2229999/23493867.html

Federal officials Monday said a grand jury inquiry involving four peace activists and Drake University is not part of an anti-terrorism investigation. U.S. Attorney Stephen Patrick O'Meara said late Monday that the investigation focuses on unlawful entry onto military property at Camp Dodge on Nov. 16, and whether plans were laid for that at a conference the day before at Drake.


Suggestions that the investigation is related to the Patriot Act "are not accurate," O'Meara said.

O'Meara's statement and comments from the FBI broke nearly a week of silence from federal officials, who also slowed the investigation Monday, postponing grand jury testimony that had been scheduled for today.

FBI spokesman Jeff Tarpinian in Omaha also denied the investigation was part of a terror probe, and said federal officials might look into whether Polk County Sheriff's Deputy Jeff Warford identified himself inappropriately in delivering the subpoenas.

Last week, Warford served grand jury subpoenas on the peace activists and Drake officials.

Warford left behind at least two business cards identifying himself as a member of an FBI-Joint Terrorism Task Force - alarming those subpoenaed as well as other peace activists.

"There is no connection in this case with his duties - as far as being part of that task force - and this grand jury investigation," Tarpinian said.

Chief Sheriff's Deputy Bill Vaughn defended the longtime deputy, stressing that Warford never intended to intimidate anyone. "I think people's minds are racing just because of Jeff's business card," Vaughn said.

O'Meara, the U.S. attorney based in Des Moines, said the investigation focuses on an incident Nov. 16 when protesters trespassed at Camp Dodge, and not a demonstration about the same time at Iowa National Guard headquarters, which is publicly accessible.

Authorities are looking at possible criminal violations on Nov. 16 or "prior agreements to violate federal law." Twelve activists were arrested Nov. 16, most for trespassing. A Grinnell College librarian also was charged with assault after she allegedly kicked a sheriff's deputy during her arrest.

On Nov. 15, the four activists subpoenaed were among those at an anti-war conference at Drake.

Hmm ... prior agreements to violate federal law. Hmm ... think the subject of "what are we going to do tomorrow" might have come up on the 15th?

Hell, if the prosecutors didn't want to see anything that might reasonably contain references to their criminal activity, I'd be pretty upset with the quality of the prosecutor.

[MrBug708]

Let me get this straight now -- you're disturbed by this.

Meanwhile the ACLU says "“The best approach is not to speculate and see what we learn on Tuesday” when the four testify,"

Ho-kay.

Here's a pretty good rule of thumb ... when the ACLU represents the voice of reason, you may be overreacting just a wee bit.

Amen to that.

[Axxon]

Bucc

good examples for another discussion surely. I agree that free speech needs to be protected on either end and through the middle of the spectrum.

This story is about the federal government subpoenaing what may well be protected records. Your examples are about schools self censuring their own students. The former scares me but the latter just annoys me.

[Buccaneer]

Axxon: I can go along with that. About anything the Fed Govt does or spends (re: wastes) money on scares me.

[sterlingice]

Full article from USA Today (http://www.azcentral.com/families/education/articles/1105Campus-Speech-ON.html)

Just saying it goes both ways.
I know I disagree with most of what the people in these examples stood for, but I'm ticked that this is happening. I've always noticed this on campus here: if it's a trendy or sexy liberal cause, you're a wonderful person for standing up for it, but anyone else should just shut their yap. I hate tripping over preachy vegan activists as much as I hate tripping over ultra-pushy religious groups yet, on campus, one certainly gets preferential treatment.

SI

[Easy Mac]

Come to the south and see which is which.

[BishopMVP]

"U.S. Attorney Stephen Patrick O'Meara said late Monday that the investigation focuses on unlawful entry onto military property at Camp Dodge on Nov. 16, and whether plans were laid for that at a conference the day before at Drake.

Suggestions that the investigation is related to the Patriot Act "are not accurate," O'Meara said."

http://desmoinesregister.com/news/stories/c2229999/23493867.html

I think parts of the Patriot Act are bad and that this governement does go too far sometimes, but you don't have the right to trespass on a military base. I agree with JoninMiddleGA

[Tigercat]

I have attended political science courses at schools with largely liberal student bodies(berkeley, boston u, Texas) and ones with conservative student bodies(LSU, Kentucky). I have also had a variety of proffessors, and I can tell you, I have NEVER EVER EVER had a professor blantently take any partisian side in the classroom. All students of all ideologies have been encouraged to voice their opnions. The only time I have ever been able to find out the political ideologies of Profs were from outside discussions. Political Science/Public Policy profs at major universities are notoriously good at staying ideologically neutral in the classroom, both conservative ones and liberal ones.

Yes there are more liberal profs than conservative ones, which could very well account for their being more liberal oddballs that do not encourage viewpoints of all. But the opinion that Insitutions that study politics and policy don't encourage all viewpoints in their classrooms is usually made by those who either haven't spent enough time in political classrooms or by those that let a few bad eggs distort their opinion.

As for out of the classroom, it depends on the University. I have been around ones where conservative voices overwhelm the student body and activism(LSU), and ones where the opposite is true(Berkley). Usually the voices of those with power in the universities echo the sentiments of the student body. For every conservative group that gets bad treatment from an administration I am sure you can find a liberal group somewhere.

I WAS saying that this is different, and indeed more serious infringement of rights, but if indeed there is resonable connections between the group and a break-in, perhaps these are nessessary measures.

[ISiddiqui]

I'm a BIG free speech guy, but this is no big deal. Firstly, they are just gathering info if the meeting advocated this criminal act, helping corroborate (probably) that the people intended to trespass on the base. And, of course, this is only a grand jury. They don't have to testify at trial or anything.

[Cuckoo]

I can tell you, I have NEVER EVER EVER had a professor blantently take any partisian side in the classroom. All students of all ideologies have been encouraged to voice their opnions. The only time I have ever been able to find out the political ideologies of Profs were from outside discussions.


Wow, I really wish I would've gone to college where you went.

[SackAttack]

Ditto. I spent a year at Mizzou, and there wasn't a day that went by that some hippie idealist college kids weren't parading against some pet cause or another. *Most* of my professors left politics outside of the classroom, and I even had one who went so far as to refuse completely to reveal his politics to his students.

There was one, however who, on the first day of class, referred to Christianity as a 'terrorist organization.'

I only wish I were kidding.

[Tigercat]

Wow, I really wish I would've gone to college where you went.

Maybe I have just be really lucky, I don't know. I think most of the time, if you commit yourself to teaching policy and/or politics, it almost requires you to check your biases at the door in the classroom and in studies. Otherwise you are bound to just drive yourself insane. I guess thats why when someone does bring their personal politics in the classroom its so blatant.

The most uncomfortable moments I have had in the classroom is when a student (usually adult students) is just so over the top liberal or conservative that they have to interrupt rational discussion because it could challenge their beliefs. (When often that isn't nessassarily the case, they just fear that it does.)

[Simms]

Not sure where this fits in this particular discussion, but I thought this was interesting (http://www.chronicle.duke.edu/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/02/10/4028d1724320b/?template=default) and, at least on some level, relevant.

Key quote:

Some argued that the political imbalance within the humanities departments is to be expected, and in no way reflects the University's lack of commitment to true intellectual diversity.

"We try to hire the best, smartest people available," Brandon said of his philosophy hires. "If, as John Stuart Mill said, stupid people are generally conservative, then there are lots of conservatives we will never hire.

"Mill's analysis may go some way towards explaining the power of the Republican party in our society and the relative scarcity of Republicans in academia. Players in the NBA tend to be taller than average. There is a good reason for this. Members of academia tend to be a bit smarter than average. There is a good reason for this too."

[SackAttack]

Yeah, that or "those who can, do; those who can't, teach."

Y'know, as long as he's slinging insults around, it cuts both ways.

[sterlingice]

Wow, I really wish I would've gone to college where you went.
I think if you expect your classroom to be completely devoid of anything political, then you're a moron. It's just not possible- in an introductory econ class, people want to know if lowering taxes actually stimulates the economy and that answer will probably tell you who this professor votes for. But, I haven't had a single professor tell me who to vote for in my, um, many (let's see, I'm on 5, I think) years here at KU.

SI

[MrBug708]

Geez, I took a World Government class at a JC and all we did was spend time thinking of ways to kill Bush. He offered us an automatic A if we did some random act of violence, if it was against Bush. Never seen someone so liberal in my life. Ah well, I thought God got back at him by having someone break his back windshield on campus.

[BishopMVP]

Some argued that the political imbalance within the humanities departments is to be expected, and in no way reflects the University's lack of commitment to true intellectual diversity.

"We try to hire the best, smartest people available," Brandon said of his philosophy hires. "If, as John Stuart Mill said, stupid people are generally conservative, then there are lots of conservatives we will never hire.

"Mill's analysis may go some way towards explaining the power of the Republican party in our society and the relative scarcity of Republicans in academia. Players in the NBA tend to be taller than average. There is a good reason for this. Members of academia tend to be a bit smarter than average. There is a good reason for this too."I guess their philosophy department hasn't gotten around to Socrates.

And for the first time around here, I can say Fucking Elitists and mean it.

[Tigercat]

And you know, the vast majority of humanities profs that are liberal, aren't THAT liberal. I think it may have something to do with the objectivity that being in academia requires and USUALLY rewards. I think one could argue that in modern politics objectivity is more likely to be accepted from the left than from the right. Thats not to say that objectivity is all that great, or that this is always the case.

SackAttack, that saying is a bit harsh on teachers isn't it? Still the most honerable profession in the world in my mind. Assuming that one actively chooses to be a teacher.

[BishopMVP]

SackAttack, that saying is a bit harsh on teachers isn't it? Still the most honerable profession in the world in my mind. Assuming that one actively chooses to be a teacher.I don't think Sack was saying his quote was true, just that that guy was an idiot and what he said was incredibly stupid.

[Peregrine]

The original thread post was interesting, but it sounds like all the facts weren't in. While I do think that vigilance in regard to our liberties is our duty, it seems to me that people are a little too touchy these days, they are jumping on every possible infringement of rights, often before all the information is in. Once it's clear that there were criminal acts involved, or things played out differently than the initial reports, the outrage dies down and people go back to their lives.

[Tigercat]

Geez, I took a World Government class at a JC and all we did was spend time thinking of ways to kill Bush. He offered us an automatic A if we did some random act of violence, if it was against Bush. Never seen someone so liberal in my life. Ah well, I thought God got back at him by having someone break his back windshield on campus.


Yikes! That JC sounds like an uncomfortable place for learning all around. There might be a reason that he wasn't teaching at a 4 year college, not likely to produce publishable material with that type of psychological baggage.

[BishopMVP]

There might be a reason that he wasn't teaching at a 4 year college
QotM nominee.

[sabotai]

Wow. Makes me glad the guy who tought my Politics course at Stockton tought in a neutral way. I had a Computer Law course that was tought by an ultra-conservative teacher. The first 10 minutes of class was a Clinton/Gore bashfest. If that happened in that Politics class I had (about 100 people) about Bush or Clinton, it would have been chaos.

The guy I had, whatever topic it was on, would teach it as a beleiver in it. So with Consevative, he tought it like a conservative, with liberals he tought it as a liberal, communism, fascism, etc. Was pretty interesting.

[Peregrine]

And you know, the vast majority of humanities profs that are liberal, aren't THAT liberal. I think it may have something to do with the objectivity that being in academia requires and USUALLY rewards. I think one could argue that in modern politics objectivity is more likely to be accepted from the left than from the right. Thats not to say that objectivity is all that great, or that this is always the case.

When I was a senior majoring in history, and when I was getting my masters in the same subject, I would socialize fairly frequently with my professors, and for the most part I was very impressed with how they were able to leave their politics at the classroom door. There were liberals, and conservatives, and they'd really go at it on current events or whatever at the bar, but in class they'd avoid that stuff as much as possible. Obviously in many academic disciplines there are interpretations of some events that are perceived to have a political skew, but as long as the professors are able to avoid an ideological extreme (and some don't, there are certainly crackpots at every school, and I think many of the trumpeted incidents of political correctness or whatever come from those few) that's fine in my book.

[sterlingice]

The original thread post was interesting, but it sounds like all the facts weren't in. While I do think that vigilance in regard to our liberties is our duty, it seems to me that people are a little too touchy these days, they are jumping on every possible infringement of rights, often before all the information is in. Once it's clear that there were criminal acts involved, or things played out differently than the initial reports, the outrage dies down and people go back to their lives.
Oh, I thought that a long time ago we had decided this particular instance had nothing to do with civil rights and instead had to do with committing a crime but then, as so often happens, we got off on a tangent.

SI

[Tigercat]

QotM nominee.

If there is one thing I have learned in college, its that you rarely go wrong by stating the obvious.

:cool:

[Peregrine]

Oh, I thought that a long time ago we had decided this particular instance had nothing to do with civil rights and instead had to do with committing a crime but then, as so often happens, we got off on a tangent.


Yeah, probably so SI, but I get into work at midnight, load up FOFC, and have to play catchup with threads from throughout the day, so I reply as I go. ;)

[BishopMVP]

If there is one thing I have learned in college, its that you rarely go wrong by stating the obvious.

:cool:That was my problem in High School. One teacher in particular would tell me that I didn't write papers the layman would understand. Then I'd read through his comments and see him miss at least 2-3 points I made. Overall, he was the exception though.

I know I'm at a college where the political tilt is left and I think it does creep in a little, but most teachers I've had do a good job of avoiding things. For Intro to Sociology last term the professor would always couch things by saying "well, x's theory is" and invariably, it would be the liberal position, but it wasn't that bad.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

One thing to think about in picking a college to go to is what side of the political fence the student body leans toward. If you don't want to be bomarded by liberal messages (or conservative), then don't go to that college. A few visits, a few readings of the college newspaper should give you an idea of what you are getting into (and should spark some additional research). There is some responsibility on you as a student to make such a choice.

[CamEdwards]

hmmm.. I kind of thought Tucker might have popped in again to say "never mind". :)

[Cuckoo]

I think if you expect your classroom to be completely devoid of anything political, then you're a moron. It's just not possible- in an introductory econ class, people want to know if lowering taxes actually stimulates the economy and that answer will probably tell you who this professor votes for. But, I haven't had a single professor tell me who to vote for in my, um, many (let's see, I'm on 5, I think) years here at KU.

SI

Well, I'm not a moron, and I do expect my classroom to be devoid of political activism. I knew that my professors had certain political opinions, as they knew I did as well, but the classes that got on my nerves were the ones in which the professor strongly advocated political candidates, parties, and positions that were either contrary to my views or even otherwise.

[albionmoonlight]

I am against censorship of every kind.

As a moderate liberal, I admit that, in many ways, the Left has become bad with regards to censorship because many Leftist leaders seem more concerned with shaming dissent than in just letting free ideas flow. Neither political ideology has it completely right in my mind, and the more discussion we have, the closer we all come to getting the "right" answer on a lot of these issues.

My experience in college was that the problem of censorship was particularly bad in regards to race. With regards to every other issue--even polarizing issues like abortion and the death penalty--people were allowed to hold an opinion on either side of the debate and not be vilified generally. Race, however, was some sort of untouchable holy grail where one either espoused the party line or shut up. This system, in my mind, only leads to resentment by everyone involved in the racial "debate."

[slight conspiracy theory]

Of course, there are people who make a living by playing on the racial fears of black Americans and people who make a living by playing on the racial fears of white Americans. These people, who tend to have sway in the "debates," have an interest in keeping us from being too harmonious.

[/slight conspiracy theory]

[sterlingice]

Well, I'm not a moron, and I do expect my classroom to be devoid of political activism. I knew that my professors had certain political opinions, as they knew I did as well, but the classes that got on my nerves were the ones in which the professor strongly advocated political candidates, parties, and positions that were either contrary to my views or even otherwise.
Well, then, we're partially in agreement. I strongly don't want professors telling me which canidates or parties (ie tangible) things to vote for. However, you trotted out "activism" and "positions" which are just loaded words in the way you use them.

Back to my example from before: if someone flat out asks a professor if they think lowering taxes helps the economy, what should he do?

1. Give his most honest opinion. "Well, I think lowering taxes doesn't help the economy and actually hurts it by increasing future debt load". Is he suddenly advocating a political position that is common with Democrats? Or how about "Yes, I think lowering taxes does help the economy by increasing the money supply and increasing demands for goods and thus supplying money to industry which leads to jobs"? Is he suddenly advocating you vote for a Republican?

2. Give both sides. Ah, the easy answer for critics: give both sides. Wait, but there are more than two sides to almost everything- no gospel right or wrong but many varying shades of gray. This might come to light after you wake up from his session of "Cover Your Ass 101", trotting out the viewpoints of the Libertarians, Greens, Communists, and The Association of People Who Drink Beer and Use Dynamite (bonus points if you get the APWDBUD reference). If you give a prevailing view or three, what makes view four the cutoff or view six, particularly if there is no concrete answer either way. Which brings us to...

3. Claim ignorance. "Well, we really don't know because the economy is a complex system." Now we're getting somewhere- it's a correct answer and he hasn't offended anyone in the least. But wait: When I'm paying my hundred-f'ing-dollars plus per credit hour here, I damn well better get something more than the answer that is cheap, easy, dodgy, and most importantly, only a half truth. It's true, we don't know for sure. Tomorrow, at 24 (ie eliminating elderly who might claim "it is my time to go"), if a doctor tells me I have advanced cancer and there is no right way to go after it but some risky ways, I want him to give me some options. I want my doctor to at least take a professional shot at it and go with what he thinks is his best option rather than tell me nothing to avoid risk of a malpractice suit and just let me die. By that same token, I'm sure my professor has an opinon as to how taxes affect the economy and I want him to say it and not hide because it's a topic that splits people along political party lines.

If you can come back and draw the very fine line where the view becomes a position and begets activism, great- I withdraw my objection. But I'm pretty sure it's not there, at which point, then your argument is just complaining for the sake of complaining. That's just the favorite lawsuit mentality these days (which people complain about and then extend to other walks of life): "there's something wrong- let's find a scapegoat who is minimally more culpable than everyone else and blame the whole outcome on him". It's easy to draw the line beyond "my teacher said I should vote Republican because they are right on taxes" but saying that means nothing- a high school government student can probably do that. But I don't think you can outline border cases with solid justifications because if those did exist, they wouldn't be border cases. And ultimately, if you had teachers who, in your own words, "strongly advocated political candidates [and] parties" then they should face consequences for those actions.

SI

[Cuckoo]

However, you trotted out "activism" and "positions" which are just loaded words in the way you use them.

As far as I know, this discussion wasn't ever concerned with the simple act of bringing up political discussions. My response was to a comment that said his professors never ever advocated political and ideological positions. I have had so many professors that did, I can't even count them. In my opinion, your argument is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I would never be against a professor (as to your example) stating simply that there is no definitive answer regardless of how much I'm paying for the course. I would also likely not be opposed to a professor stating black and white that cutting taxes are or are not good for society. I would be concerned about their ignorance to the complexities of economics, but I would not be upset about their political posturing.

You call my word choices "loaded," and I certainly agree. They are loaded with a meaning to me based on my experience. The meaning is that of a professor who repeatedly asserts their political positions and ideologies, degrading those who disagree, and actively attempting to convince others to agree with them. As someone who has seen this from a minority perspective in college, I can promise that it occurs quite often.

If you can come back and draw the very fine line where the view becomes a position and begets activism, great- I withdraw my objection. But I'm pretty sure it's not there, at which point, then your argument is just complaining for the sake of complaining.

I suppose you and I will have to agree to disagree on this one because I believe that your "very fine line" is quite a bit larger than you are willing to recognize. The word activism, as "loaded" as you claim it to be, indicates an activity. That activity, in my mind, is what I previously described, and it is not a fine line. But, then again, maybe I'm just complaining. Amazing how when one side does it, it's free speech, when the other side speaks up, it's just complaining.

[albionmoonlight]

Here's another side to the debate. Should professors lose their right to free speech because they are professors? If a professor wants to participate in a rally in support of [X], shouldn't she have that right? Even if it is a public rally?

My thinking on this:

1.) Professors should be allowed to say whatever they want on their own time.
2.) Universities should not sanction them for what they say on their own time.
3.) Parents, students, donars, etc. should be allowed to "punish" the University by withholding funds/students, etc. from the University if professors there say something with which the parents disagree. (i.e. if Corp. X gives lots of $$ to a University, it should be able to stop giving that money if it does not like what professors there say or do).
4.) Professors should be able to be limited by the University in what they say and do in the classroom. A lot of my academic friends would be mad at me for saying this. The university pays you a salary to do a job. While the job differs from making widgets, it does not differ to such an extent that the University should have no say in what you do. Just because you cannot be fired without cause does not mean that you have license to do whatever you want on the University dime.
5.) The extent to which professors should be limited by the University via #4 is a case-by-case determination.

[Cuckoo]

I would agree with you albionmoonlight.

[Maple Leafs]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: most Americans don't fully understand the concept of freedom of speech, and if they did, they wouldn't like the idea very much.

There are just too many people, on both sides of the political spectrum, who believe that free speech should only apply to those who agree with them.