[Vision2020] Free Speech? Wrong issue

[DonaldH675 at aol.com]

Visionaries:
 
I understand the 1st Amendment rights connected with the Trinity  Festival.  
(For relevant legal opinions see the end of this email.) I  mentioned in my 
letter if Doug and his sidekicks wanted to do a Brother Jed  performance under 
the deep blue Palouse sky, I would absolutely support his  right to do so, and 
even tote folding chairs for the audience.   (The pathetic Aryan parade is an 
outdoor event, and is different in  type from the Trinity Festival.  Imagine 
instead that North Idaho  College chose to rent their auditorium to a 1000 
jackbooted Nazi  skinheads for three days and shrugged it off as a free speech  
issue.) I also enthusiastically support the idea that Wayne Fox  suggested, 
i.e., a public dialogue where ideas are tested and defended.  We  could all grow 
intellectually from such an event...and it would be well  attended, I am sure.  
 
My understanding of the policy formulated by the Board of Regents,  does not 
include events like the Trinity Festival.  How is this  event related to the 
mission of the University?  Is this event directly competitive with services 
and facilities  reasonably available from the private  sector?   
 
As a general policy, quite aside from the Trinity Festival, it would be  wise 
of the University of Idaho to make a canned statement on any  advertising 
they provide that separates them from the program being  presented.  Many 
universities have such a disclaimer.  A simple "The  University of Idaho neither 
supports nor endorses the content of this  program" would be a baby step in the 
right direction.  In fact, I  asked them to consider such a disclaimer a month 
ago, and it was clearly not an  idea that resonated with President White.
 
Or, the UI could rely on its own policy statements in the Faculty  Staff 
Handbook which includes the following:
 
POLICY.  [See also _2300  VII._ 
(http://www.webs.uidaho.edu/fsh/2300.html#ARTICLE VII) ] 
A-1.  Practices or regulations that  discriminate on the basis of race, 
color, national origin, religion, sex, age,  disability, or status as a Vietnam-era 
veteran, as each of these bases is  defined by law, are neither condoned nor 
permitted in any area of UI operations,  including personnel appointments, 
student admissions, disciplinary regulations,  housing assignments, use of dining 
halls, classrooms, or other facilities, or in  any activities of the faculty, 
staff, or students that may be commonly regarded  as sponsored or sanctioned 
by UI.  [See also _2200 III-4_ (http://www.webs.uidaho.edu/fsh/2200.html#III4) 
, and _3215_ (http://www.webs.uidaho.edu/fsh/3215.html) .]  [ed. 7-97]
 
B.  INTERPRETATION AND IMPLEMENTATION. 
B-1.  There is almost universal agreement that  serious attempts must be made 
to eliminate racism, sexism, and intolerance from  our society.  Both moral 
and  practical reasons dictate the necessity for these efforts.  Rac­ism, 
sexism, and intolerance  have one thing in common--a denial of human dignity.  
B-2.  It should be clear that, at the  very least, a university purporting to 
espouse and defend the ideals of this  nation must abstain from any action 
that could imply the acceptance of  discriminatory practices.  It is in  this 
light, therefore, that the statement of policy in A-2 is enunciated.  It is 
equally clear from the foregoing  that the following activities are prohibited 
from taking place on the premises  of any organization that is found to 
discriminate:  meetings and social events sponsored by  UI organizations; UI-sponsored 
conferences, continuing-education classes, or  similar activities; 
performances or presentations by UI groups; and conduct of  UI business by individual 
members of the academic community.
 
It is ironic that the University of Idaho claims it would not  tolerate 
employees or students engaging in such behavior while  it turns a blind eye and 
extends a money grasping hand to  accept payment from a group that violates these 
standards.  If you  doubt my words, and you work at the UI try telling your 
supervisor that as a man  you can't allow a woman to be in authority over you.  
Or suggest to a  lesbian co-worker that she will surely burn in hell, or 
better yet, that you  think she deserves to be stoned to death.  Tell the office  
administrator that her great grandmother was lucky to be a slave with a  
kindly Christian master since that is actually the biblical order of  society. 
 
Rose Huskey
 
 
For those interested in some of the legal opinions related to First  
Amendment rights and the use of public buildings the following decisions might  prove 
useful.
Lamb's Chapel v. C.M.U. Free School District, 113 S Ct. 2141 (1993); Good  
News Club v. Milford Cent. Schl., 533 U.S 98 (2001); Hills v. Scottsdale Unified 
 Sch. Dist., 329 F. 3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2003); Rosenberger v. University of  
Virginia, 515 U.S  2510 (1995); Prince v. Jacoby 3030 F. 3d 1074 (9th Circ.  
2002);  Bronx Household of Faith v. Board of Educ. of the City of New  York, No. 
02-7781 (2nd Cir. June 2003); School Dist. of Grand Rapids v.  Ball, 473 U.S. 
373, 382 (1985); Lee v. Weisman, 5050 U.S. 577,  616-17 (1992); DeBoer v. 
Village of Oak Park, 267 F. 3d (7th Cir. 2001)  and Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 
263, 273-275 (1981), 
The court has  generally found that free access (not an argument made by the 
UI by the way, but  probably the most compelling one) to public buildings is 
constitutionally  supported.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20050317/266a86b8/attachment.htm