The Washington Times
  • Subscribe
  • Customer Services
  • RSS
  • Mobile Headlines
  • e-edition
  • E-MAIL ALERTS
  • REGISTER
  • LOG IN
  • E-MAIL ALERTS
  • WELCOME
  • Your Profile
  • Log Out

  • Front Page Image
  • Classifieds
  • Autos
  • Real Estate
  • Jobs
  • Special Sections
  • Times News Services
  • Home
  • News
  • Opinion
  • Sports
    • NFL
    • NBA/WNBA
    • MLB
    • NHL
    • Tennis
    • Golf
    • Motorsports
    • Soccer
    • NCAA
    • Olympics
    • Outdoors
    • Алекс Овечкин
  • Culture
    • Home & Living
    • Family & Kids
    • Fashion
    • Food
    • Travel
    • Health
    • Washington Visitors
    • Books
    • Military History
    • Life
    • Auto
    • TV Listings
    • Movie Listings
    • Death Notices
    • Entertainment
  • Themes
  • Communities
    • Donne Travels
    • Lives Common
    • National Pastime
    • Politics 101
    • Stories of Faith
    • Civil War
    • Middle - America
    • Chicago Blue State
    • Zadzooks
  • Marketplace
    • Autos
    • Jobs
    • Real Estate
    • Classifieds
    • Shopping
    • Dining Out
    • Education
    • TWT Store
  • Videos
    • Two Guys
    • Birnbaum on Washington
    • Liz Glover
    • Amanda Carpenter
    • Morning Briefing
    • Documentaries
  • Podcasts
    • About Headlines
    • Inside the Beltway
    • Inside the Story
Home > Opinion > Editorials

EDITORIAL: Free speech on campus

By | Wednesday, August 13, 2008

  • Bookmark and Share
  • Article
  • Comments ()
  • Print
  • [-][+] Font Size
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Tell a Friend
  • Got a Question?
  • You Report
  • Click-2-Listen

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit just made hundreds of colleges wonder how long their restrictive speech codes can survive. On Aug. 4, the Philadelphia-based appellate court affirmed a lower court's ruling against a broadly worded Temple University speech code prohibiting words or deeds whose "purpose or effect [is to create] an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment." Such loose, eye-of-the-beholder standards are increasingly recognized as affronts to the First Amendment, which is right and just.

Interestingly, it did not even take much of a challenge by the plaintiff to get to this point. Christian DeJohn, a graduate student in military history and American history who served in the Pennsylvania National Guard, sued because he "felt inhibited in expressing his opinions in class concerning women in combat and women in the military." He was "concerned that discussing his social, political, and/or religious views regarding these issues might be sanctionable by the University." Fittingly, Mr. DeJohn appears not to have taken great lengths, nor did the courts require him to take lengths, to prove the case. The result is that backers of Temple's nebulous speech code who left all to the realm of perception are now getting a taste of their own medicine. The courts readily recognized the underlying constitutional issues.

Colleges and universities generally know the game is up. Indeed, Temple saw the ruling coming and tried to pre-empt it by throwing out the offending sections of the speech code early in the proceedings. Before a lower court, Temple tried to argue that the voluntary removal of these sections solved the problem and should close the case. Both courts disagreed. Nothing would stop Temple or another school from simply reinstating these sections at some future date, the appellate court reasoned. Perhaps the Temple dons should enroll in their own constitutional law offerings.

The moment when the Orwellian practice of restricting speech at what are supposed to be this country's free centers of learning may not be far off. A few years ago, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) estimated that as many as two-thirds of American colleges and universities have speech codes. There is disagreement over how many of these codes rise to the level of Temple's or would otherwise be sufficiently restrictive to be unconstitutional.

At minimum, the unknown number of schools that do enforce excessive speech restrictions have another unmistakable point of comparison. They will have little plausible defense if they insist on speech codes as nebulous and facially unconstitutional as Temple's.

[Get Copyright Permissions] Click here for reprint permissions!
Copyright 2009 The Washington Times, LLC

Bookmark and Share

Comments

Read Comments

Post your comment:

Please login or register to post a comment

Do you have another point of view, photos, audio, video or more information about a story?

Advertisement

Top Stories

Most Read

    Most Shared

    1. Powell airs doubts on Obama agenda
    2. PRUDEN: Ol' Stupid begins to notice things
    3. U.S. 'ready' for N. Korean missile
    4. PAUL: 'Fight them over there vs. over here' a false choice
    5. Why stagflation is coming
    6. Energy job losers could get windfall
    7. The Al Franken shtick
    8. The Founding Fathers
    9. New data indicate recovery not near
    10. Time for a tea party

    Most Commented

    1. Jeb Bush, GOP: Time to leave Reagan behind
    2. WH communications director leaving
    3. Freddie Mac acting CFO found dead
    4. Kerry aims to rescue newspapers
    5. Fidel Castro: Obama 'misinterpreted' words
    6. President Obama said those who approved harsh interrogation techniques for suspected terrorists may be subjected to criminal charges. Do you agree?
    7. President Obama said those who approved harsh interrogation techniques for suspected terrorists may be subjected to criminal charges. Do you agree?
    8. Gibbs: Pay no attention to what Rahm said
    9. Politics' Talking Heads Highlight Speaker Series
    10. Fleecing Mike Ditka

    Poll

    Will you be traveling this 4th of July weekend?

    Market Data

    Advertising Links
    TWT Store
    • e-edition
    • Print Edition
    • Weekly Washington Times
    TWT Affiliates
    • Middle East Times
    • Golf
    • UPI
    • Arbor Ballroom
    • Washington Times Global
    • About TWT
    • Press Room
    • F.A.Q.
    • Work for TWT
    • Advertise
    • Sponsors
    • Contact Us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Site Map

    All site contents © Copyright 2009 The Washington Times, LLC.