Yesterday was Constitution Day! This is a great way to celebrate the adoption of the United States Constitution as well as those who have become American citizens. This is also a great opportunity for universities to demonstrate the value of the Constitution to their students.
The University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh used this as an opportunity to talk about a very important contribution to the Constitution- freedom of speech!
I had the opportunity to hear about the Campus Free Speech Act and opinions about it from not only students on campus, but from Representative Gordon Hintz (D) and Representative Michael Schraa (R).
The Campus Free Speech Act is an attempt at controlling students from creating violence during a speech on campus. This.is.very.interesting. for many different reasons…
To begin, many college students and professors can agree that diversity is needed within a campus. Among this, it is important that all diversity is respected as well, in which has not been the case in events across the country, such as at UC-Berkeley and in our own state at the University of Wisconsin-Madison with Ben Shapiro.
In result, Republicans came up with the act to not only prevent violence on campuses, but also as an attempt to protect conservative voices as well, in which a majority of uproars have occurred during.
It seems as though society has begun to believe all universities hold a liberal view, including students and staff. I can support this claim by the several times people would assume I was a liberal every time they found out I was going to school for political science.
I can also support this by thinking of the many times I have heard a professor make a dissatisfying comment about a republican or the views of the republican party. This is held true for multiple professors I have had. This is where the bill comes along the lines of addressing neutrality within it.
It notes that professors are to be neutral with their views. If a student witnesses a professor not following this, they are able to report them to the university’s board. While I get very annoyed with some of the comments professors make at times, I also find this to be an infringement on a professor’s freedom of speech.
This is where the bill should take a look at whether a professor is imposing a view rather than addressing an opinion with their freedom of speech. Representative Hintz made a valid argument when he noted that science classes in universities are important to think about because they involve topics that stand in politics, such as climate change. This could give professors a difficult time to weigh in on the topics, which is vital to the diversity of attending a liberal arts university.
I support this bill, but am still very confused with some of the loopholes within the ambiguity of the language in it. This is something that always seems to be an issue when it comes to legislature. It is crazy to think about how much my education has taught me thus far about the different ways to look at a word or scenario through the context of the law!
The bill states, “The policy [that universities implement] must include a range of disciplinary sanctions for anyone under an institution’s jurisdiction who engages in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, obscene, unreasonably loud, or other disorderly conduct that interferes with the free expression of others. In addition, the policy must provide that in disciplinary cases involving expressive conduct, students are entitled to a disciplinary hearing under published procedures that include specified rights. Also, the second time that a student is found responsible for interfering with the expressive rights of others, the policy must require the student to be suspended for a minimum of one semester or expelled” (WI Legis. Assemb, 2017).
This means we have to investigate into the type of scene one might cause during a speech. One might ask, “Well what is considered unreasonably loud?” A peer of mine answered that unreasonably loud should be considered when they are squandering the person speaking’s free speech.
I find this to be problematic for the reason that a student may fear to address their opinions due to the possibility of an uproar and getting kicked out of school. This also raises the concern for lawsuits to happen as well.
Although this may be a valid argument against the bill, it is important to think about the degree to which violence may occur. If a student is fearing for their life and there is property damage, it is not okay, as demonstrated at UC-Berkley.
Another student pointed out tonight that maybe this could be an opportunity for the legislature to think about included something with law enforcement during a campus event. They mentioned that any reasonable person might be more afraid of the police than of a university’s board. But then again, is this a role of the state or of the university?
The Campus Free Speech Act can be perceived as odd when thinking about a bill that suppresses free speech to protect free speech. In contrast, it is also important to think about what free speech consists of, in which violence is not one of them.
Being able to attend such an interesting event was a good example of how a university discussion can be safe and good toward student activism!
Inspired Millennial 