I’d like to keep you updated on “The Monthly Bag” and one group’s reaction to the college’s response. See my previous blog entry for the beginning of this story.
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a freedom of expression advocacy group, targeted CC in March, launching a media campaign against the college. FIRE said CC administrators violated the students’ rights to freedom of expression and punished the students needlessly (though the students were never sanctioned). FIRE called for the college to remove conduct letters from the students’ files (the letters will remain in their files only until they graduate, and won’t be shared with anyone outside the college, including potential graduate schools, employers, etc.).
A second, completely new conduct committee reaffirmed the college’s findings, saying the students were in violation of the college’s conduct code, but should not be punished or sanctioned. During its regular meeting in May, the CC Board of Trustees also examined the issue, and again, supported the college’s actions.
In June, Colorado College Board of Trustees Chair David van Diest Skilling ’55 sent this letter to FIRE to communicate the board’s finding. FIRE promptly responded by placing CC on its “Red Alert” list (which also includes Brandeis University, Johns Hopkins University, Tufts University and Valdosta State University).
An interesting note: In 2007, FIRE reviewed 346 colleges and universities, and fully 96 percent of them did not pass its test for free speech (only 2% passed; 2% were unrated). From FIRE’s web site:
“Of the 346 schools reviewed by FIRE, 259 received a red-light rating (75%), 73 received a yellow-light rating (21%), and only 8 received a green-light rating (2%). Six schools did not receive any rating from FIRE. Surprisingly, public schools, which are unambiguously legally bound by the First Amendment, actually had a somewhat higher percentage of “red light” ratings; a full 79% of public schools were “red light,” 19% “yellow light”, and 2% green.”
9 Comments
FIRE’s website includes a posting to the relevant document itself, which reasonably shows itself to be satire. Having seen the document, the College’s response sounds like nothing more than post-hoc rationalization for its earlier actions. The College should admit that it over-reacted and take the letter out of the student’s files. Its failure to do so appears to be nothing more than a failure to admit that it was wrong.
Mr. Celeste, FIRE responds to your point — which rather misleadingly characterizes its ratings systems . . . here.
As to the substance of your post, I don’t think you’ll find many people who find the conclusions of Colorado College’s in-house entities to be comforting. The facts seem to be fairly straightforward: students published what any rational person would see as a satire of a pre-existing campus publication, Colorado College officialdom reacted with what seems to be a rather farcical and disingenuous concern that the satire suggested actual violence, and required the publishers - among other things — to hold a sort of self-run reeducation seminar.
While I may have disagreed with some of FIRE’s characterizations of the significance of the reprimand letters, I don’t think that you should expect that Colorado College’s commitment to freedom of expression will be taken seriously after this whole shootin’ match.
By the way, the term “shootin’ match” in the last sentence was not intended to threaten or condone actual violence. I shouldn’t have to point that out, but in some cases, apparently I do.
My apologies. The link in the first sentence of my comment — showing FIRE’s response — was botched. The link is here.
It is shocking how ridiculous this incident unfolded at CC. Though, I find it more ridiculous that you expect the public to feel there was legitimate “fear” on campus as a result of the obvious satire.
President Celeste, while I don’t support what the students behind the Monthly Bag did, I do find your response to the FIRE on the issue troubling in that you emphasize their publication was made “anonymously and without permission,” as though that makes it wrong in and of itself.
Surely you’re aware that Madison, Hamilton, and Jay published The Federalist anonymously or under pseudonym,and that much important speech, far more important than this, has been published anonymously out of fear of punishment such as your college has inflicted upon these students. (If the disciplinary letters you mention are of no import as you suggest, why file them at all?)
As for students needing permission to publish, surely it goes without saying what that smacks of. Of course you run a private college and are beyond the First Amendment, but it does seem at odds with your earlier protestations of commitment to free speech, at least as the term is understood at law if not in academia.
I find it amusing that the FIRE seems to feel virtually all colleges are suppressors of speech in an age of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and diminution of fair use and fair comment by the government in the name of copyright protection. Clearly they’re driven by an agenda.
As for what the students in question wrote, did they consider what their actions would do to others in these times of school shootings at places like Columbine and Virginia Tech? Shameful. The College’s response was mild, as evidenced by the review of the board of trustees and other independent voices.
If they are in violation of a policy, why should they not be punished? If the policy is not punishable, then why does it exist?
It is a sad time when mere jest
Stirs so much unrest.
What timid creatures are we
Who fear all mentions of weaponry?
Or perhaps “safety concern”
Is but an excuse
To disguise the college’s
Amendment abuse?
I feel that the entire issue at hand regarding the controversial flier has been ignored. The students responsible for the flier had an idea that i feel is very poignant, which i’m pretty sure was that feminist culture at CC and America at large is self-righteous, and accusatory of male. Feminist theory is a weapon, and the kids who posted the flier were respond with masculine weaponry. None the less i feel that the poster was juvenile and inflammatory more than serious; my issue is that there is not a strong academic foundation for masculine theory and study at CC and colleges all across America; i agree with Fight CLub mentality that man in the modern world faces shackling emasculation, and i wish that colleges would offer justified and enlightening male gender studies courses as polemic dichotomy to stifling feminist academia. I feel that this issue was not seriously considered and is at the center of this drama, please Celeste, give CC the masculine studies courses that it needs and I feel that these frivolous and unintelligent conflicts wouldn’t arise. It would also put CC at the forefront of a somewhat uncharted academic category.