[Vision2020] Free Speech? Wrong issue

Thu Mar 17 07:58:50 PST 2005

I think Donovan is actually on to something here.  There's plenty of time to 
organize counter events at other venues around Moscow.  Allow Doug and his 
cohorts to hoist themselves with their own petards.  Whatever a petard is.  
I hope I just didn't say something dirty.                                    

             Carl Westberg Jr.

>From: "Donovan Arnold" <donovanarnold at hotmail.com>
>To: DonaldH675 at aol.com, vision2020 at moscow.com
>Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Free Speech? Wrong issue
>Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 22:34:55 -0800
>
>Rose,
>
>The University of Idaho cannot deny Christ Church the right to rent the 
>Kibbie Dome because of the content of the speech, it would be in violation 
>of state and federal law. You or anyone else that attempts to stop them is 
>simply wasting your time. You would be better off trying to organize a 
>counter event elsewhere and that would be a more positive and productive 
>approach to the situation.
>
>Take Care,
>
>Donovan J Arnold
>
>
>>From: DonaldH675 at aol.com
>>To: vision2020 at moscow.com
>>Subject: [Vision2020] Free Speech? Wrong issue
>>Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 00:47:31 EST
>>
>>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.  
>>Rac&shy;ism,
>>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.
>>
>>_____________________________________________________
>>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>                http://www.fsr.net
>>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>
>
>_____________________________________________________
>List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the 
>communities of the Palouse since 1994.                 http://www.fsr.net   
>                              mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯