In yesterday’s Chronicle, there is a story about ten Muslim students being convicted for interrupting a campus speech from an Israeli diplomat. Michael Oren, the Israeli Ambassador to the United States, was giving a speech in February of 2010 at the University of California at Irvine when the students took turns standing and shouting their disagreements with the Israeli government. The prosecution in the case said that they were protecting Oren’s freedom of speech and said the student’s behavior was censorship of what Oren had to say. Now a year and a half later, after all of the students have already been disciplined by their respective universities, (UC – Irvine and Riverside) the students have been convicted in criminal court, and will face punishment spanning from community service to a year in prison.
I personally find two things intriguing about this case: the fact that the students were charged in criminal court and while freedom of speech was the platform of the prosecution’s case, the student’s freedom of speech was apparently not taken into consideration.
According to a previous article (September 4th) in the Chronicle, the students were all part of a student group called The Muslim Student Union. After the incident, the group was suspended for one year, required to serve 100 hours of community service before asking for reinstatement and if reinstated, would then have to be on probation for two years. The group was removed from suspension after one quarter. As this was an on-campus event, the group’s on-campus punishment seems to be reasonable and fair. They weren’t violently interrupting Oren’s speech or causing harm to anyone or any property. I don’t see why this case needed to go to court where all of the students will face further charges and punishment. I believe that security at the event should have taken care of the situation at hand, the student’s got their fair punishment from the school and the event should’ve been over there. The case going to court seems to me completely obnoxious (one commenter on the story called it “overkill” which I completely agree with).
Furthermore, there seems to be no regard for the student’s freedom of speech in this case. While I do not believe it was respectful of them to interrupt Oren’s speech to such an extent that he struggled to finish speaking, I do believe the students have a right to their own opinions and speech. How is it that they are being punished on two separate occasions, essentially at local and state levels, for demonstrating their own freedom of speech? I don’t defend how the student’s acted; I believe there could have been much better ways for the students to prove their point, whether through peaceful demonstration or asking provocative questions after Oren’s speech. Sure, their actions were down-right rude but it seems to me like them being punished for violating someone else’s freedom of speech is completely hypocritical.
Overall, I think this situation was taken too far on more than one account. It’s unfortunate that students who were trying to demonstrate their own freedom of speech have been doubly punished for violating someone else’s freedom of speech.
You bring up an interesting point about the students and their right to free speech versus the speaker's right to free speech. In order for free speech to be protected, the courts have to consider time, place, and manner. I do not know the specifics of the case and if that particular area was considered a free speech area or not. The Free Speech Clause in the First Amendment are available to teachers and students not only in class but also during any time spent on the campus or during extra curricular activities as long as it does not interfere with the school’s operations or impede the rights of others. The school would not be allowed to prohibit an expression of opinion without evidence of damages or danger, but in this case, I think the students were the ones at fault.
ReplyDeleteTinker v. Des Moines (393 U.S. 503) was a landmark case for students affirming students’ rights to protest and demonstrate peacefully; however, these students did not seem to follow the basic regulations regarding free speech. Academic communities are considered special environments, which distinguishes the difference between public forums and academic arenas. While the First Amendment does apply to the campus, the way in which students use it is affected by the interest of the academic community. This allows universities to protect their interests and their policies. Any student who is disruptive or impedes the rights of others is not protected by the First Amendment, and in this case, the rights of the speaker were disregarded. The students could have peacefully protested outside of the speaker's forum as long as it was a free speech area or found other ways of expressing their opinions other than rudely interrupting and harassing the speaker.
http://0-www.lexisnexis.com.source.unco.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/?
I reviewed Tinker Vs. Des Moines and the expression of opinion if not disrbutive or disorderly is allowable. I also looked at UC Mercedes Student Code of Conduct and allowing for audience interactions is allowable and contributes to the educational experience.
ReplyDeleteAfter reviewing the article in its entirety, I don’t believe that the students should be sanctioned because I did not read that they were disruptive to the point of being removed from campus. The speaker did not continue speaking and they were engaged with the speaker. Instead, I would recommend that the colleges take a close look at their policy and more clearly outline what is considered disruptive behavior and what is allowable in terms of interaction. Does that mean the “speaker” delivers his/her entire speech and then entertains questions or is questioning allowed throughout. I may be over simplifying the situation, but with no context it is difficult for me to believe with any certainty that the students should be sanctioned.
ACLU
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15235797139493194004&q=Tinker+v.+Des+Moines&hl=en&as_sdt=2,6&as_vis=1
Excerpt:
The school officials banned and sought to punish petitioners for a silent, passive expression of opinion, unaccompanied by any disorder or disturbance on the part of petitioners. There is here no evidence whatever of petitioners' interference, actual or nascent, with the schools' work or of collision with the rights of other students to be secure and to be let alone. Accordingly, this case does not concern speech or action that intrudes upon the work of the schools or the rights of other students.
Student Code of Conduct
http://studentlife.ucmerced.edu/sites/studentlife/files/public/documents/ucmercedstudenthandbook.pdf
Excerpt:
A. Non-University persons/groups may be invited to participate in events sponsored in university facilities upon invitation of the student governments, other University schools and units, or registered campus organizations. Non-University speakers or entities may not schedule facilities or collect funds therein unless sponsored by a University department, official unit, or registered campus organization. It is the expectation of the University that all speakers and entities will recognize that the essence of the University is to provide for the free exchange of ideas and the expression of a variety of intellectual perspectives. On-campus programs should be designed in the best interests of the educational process, allowing appropriate opportunities for audience interaction.
Reality is the Muslim students carried out this behavior to the Israeli Ambassador, not just any old diplomat. In doing so in the manner they chose they created in effect an international incident embarrassing the university and the governmental powers that be.
ReplyDeleteWhile the students were punished at the University, University punishment is not an official court of law. Frankly, the students are are rather fortunate they are only going to be required to do 56 hours of community service (each) and three years of probation.
There is a right way to protest and a wrong way. Hopefully these students have learned the difference.
After reading this article only one word came to mind “WOW”. I understand and agree with the sanctions the students received from the university, but why criminal charges? Are these students being made examples of? Without the full context of the specifics of the incident, it’s hard to fully understand what reactions the speaker and patrons had to the outburst that garnered pressing criminal charges. Did the protestors do it in a manner that made people feel threaten? If so, did their choice of words have a harmful intent, or where their words only to disseminate their message of disagreement of the speakers remarks?
ReplyDeleteI also reviewed Tinker v. Des Moines (393 U.S. 503) but did not read anywhere these students where brought up on criminal charges. Based on UC Mercedes Student Code of Conduct there is not enough evidence in the article to indicate the students were being disruptive enough to be removed from campus. Maybe there is more information to the story that is not public information. In my opinion there has to be; I just can see pressing criminal charges on students for peacefully violating the school’s code of conduct.
Interesting post and responses (be sure to read the one about it dealing with similar matters). A few points to consider. First, the 'freedom of speech' comes from the 1st amendment to the Constitution (here shorted for this topic).... "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech,... and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The point is that this freedom is a freedom FROM the GOVERNMENT and not from other citizens or non-government groups. If the university had prevented someone from speaking (as long as that person was following the institution's published policies regarding time, place, and manner (good one Kelsi!), that would count as a free speech violation. Once this is understood, you can actually see how it is the institution (a public university) that is the governmental agent which is possibly attempting to abridge the speak of citizens our guests of the country (it is unclear to me if these were international students or not).
ReplyDeleteThere is something strange about this case in that most of the institution's faculty and administrators are publicly asking that there be no criminal prosecution. I would also find it hard to believe that the Israeli government is asking that it be prosecuted either.
Something else to think about is the 'slippery slope' dimension. What else might be considered disruptive behavior? If a student were to stand up in my class and yell a few choice words about my approach to teaching before waling out, could I expect the government to file criminal charges?
I don't think criminal charges are necessary (or relevant) in this case, but I also wasn't there. Did the campus police come and ask the students to leave? How was this handled on site? If 100 students are resisting law enforcement, there is certainly reason for a ticket and court date.
ReplyDeleteI also think the university missed an educational opportunity here. I doubt either group would be interested in an open forum/debate, but could the Muslim group have been encouraged by their adviser to set up an event where they express their own opinion? If the institution knows they are bringing someone who is potentially controversial to campus, why not inform folks on campus and see what opportunities there are for dialogue and discourse?
Last year at CSU we had an athiest and theist debate the existence of God. We invited several campus faith and non-faith partners to engage in a civil dialogue. Not only did we take better advantage of the speakers coming to campus, but role modeled for students how to appropriately disagree.
Why did Oren have