But that’s not all. What qualifies as an “offensive joke”? By the speech code’s words, whatever the aggrieved party wants.

I am not making this up. Though if I were trying to come up with a better picture of absurdity, I’m not sure I could.

For this, SJSU deserves not only FIRE’s Speech Code of the Month, but a lawsuit. One in which the university must remain silent while the judge tries its case from the viewpoint of whoever they have offended.

Well, the story keeps getting worse. FIRE reports that the Student Government Association (SGA) at UMass Amherst, acting with blatant disregard for the First Amendment, has threatened to shut down the paper unless it apologizes to the woman who stole its issues. (She was mocked in the issue in question – apparently the impetus for her juvenile actions.) On top of that, the SGA refused to hear a resolution put forward by a student senator that would rescind the illegal action. The senator was then removed by police after he protested the SGA’s violation of its own bylaws (not to mention the Constitution).

I’ve seen some horrible actions by student governments. In fact, the publication I write for at the University of Oregon, the Oregon Commentator, was almost shut down by the student government in a similar incident. However, this has to take the cake. From the FIRE blog, here is the senator’s first-hand account. It’s long but well worth the read.

The speaker refused to put the bill on the agenda (when he’s not in a position to decide according to our Bylaws). I approached him and he said he took it off because he “didn’t like it.” I explained that that didn’t matter, that it wasn’t in his purview to decide, and he refused to change his mind and put it on the agenda (I had been told that it was on the agenda, and never informed that it was off till the meeting was about to start).

So, I left the meeting and printed it off again and moved “to add a main motion not previously considered to the agenda” [but] the speaker said that it wasn’t a legal bill (even though lawyers signed off on it). I then moved to “overturn the decision of the speaker.” He refused to hold that vote and moved on. I then rewrote the bill taking into account his points, however invalid. I then returned to the Senate and “asked to add a main motion not previously considered to the agenda.” He asked to see it, I brought it up, he looked at it, and he said “NO” and threw it to the ground. I then picked it up and asked to “overturn the decision of the speaker.” He refused to hold the vote (again violating the Bylaws).

I then asked to add it to the agenda again in between every motion, and the speaker refused to say yes or no (again violating the Bylaws). I explained that he had to say yes/no and then allow the Senate to overrule if it felt compelled. He refused. After 10 more questions he told me I was out of line, even though I had broken no bylaw. I then walked up to the podium and asked to add it to the agenda, and he refused to say yes/no and then told me to leave. I then explained to him that it was not in his purview to ask me to leave and the merits of my arguments. He then said I should leave immediately. I explained I would only leave if the Senate followed its procedure requiring the Senate to vote to kick me out. I said barring the Senate voting, “I will only leave if taken out by police.” So the speaker called the police and they escorted me out of the meeting while the meeting was placed in recess. Meanwhile many Senators agreed with me and wanted to hear my arguments. All I wanted was a vote one way or the other. I passed out the sheets I have enclosed [the resolution and his explanation for it] as well as the letter from FIRE (as FIRE asked me to do). The Senate as a whole WANTED to hear the bill.

The police then refused me entry to the Senate meeting. I explained that I was required to be inside and that only the Senate could kick me out. University officials came, Byron Bullock and the RSO attorney, and agreed with my analysis but the police refused me entry three separate times, barring me from voting or bringing this to the agenda.

So that is what happens when you try to stand up for free speech.

It’s sad to see how gleeful these kids are about silencing speech. I hope one day they grow up and realize that such petulant displays of entitlement are rather unbecoming in anyone over the age of five. Luckily, FIRE is on the case, so they may get their comeuppance in short order.

Of course, this is all absurd, and it didn’t take long for Pomona to realize it was facing a PR disaster. As FIRE notes (see link above), this victory is in large part due to the writing of Charles Johnson, a member of the Collegiate Network:

This case was broken wide open by Charles Johnson of the blog Claremont Conservative, who pointed out that the February 19, 2009, lecture was publicly advertised and that the students had ceased videotaping the event when asked to do so, contrary to official reports.  Johnson also noted that Pomona College had taken no similar action against truly disruptive events on campus in recent years.

Kudos to Johnson and the rest of the crew at the Claremont Conservative and Claremont Independent. This is the kind of watchdog journalism that makes independent college publications so vital.

Unfortunately, the actions at Pomona, while extreme, are not an isolated case. One of the growing trends at college campuses, which I’ve witnessed at the University of Oregon, is the idea of “safe space.” (For example, check out the LSU Safe Space Campaign.)

The deans at Pomona explained that the abortion discussion was “an opportunity for students from across the Claremont Colleges to learn about deeply personal narratives regarding the experience of abortion … in a supportive and safe space.” The deans then wrote that by questioning the presenters, the students were “attempting to create an antagonistic space,” “intimidate participants,” and “chill the free exchange of ideas.”

From what I can discern, a “safe space” is simply a place where no one disagrees with you. And while there is nothing wrong with having supportive place where minority groups can gather, applying this kind of idea to public forums and public spaces is simply not in line with the spirit of the First Amendment.

Apparently University of Tulsa, which is a private school, promises its students all the free speech rights of a public university. Those of you who go to public universities know what a ringing endorsement that is. And Tulsa follows through on this promise, with a speech code that looks innocuous at first but is really so broadly construed that just about anything can—and does—become abuse.

Good work FIRE for once again pointing out how academia, which is supposed to be about exchanging ideas, is really more about exchanging ideas approved by The Establishment than anything else.

Also, you can now follow FIRE on Twitter.

Among the more surprising of the findings, FIRE also reports that public universities are more restrictive of speech than private colleges. Considering that public universities, being part of the state, are explicitly bound by the Constitution, one would expect the results to be opposite*.

FIRE also finds that the biggest trend in repressing free speech is the growth of “bias incidents” and broad-sweeping harassment codes. Public universities are increasingly placing the right to not be offended above the right to speak one’s mind.

*I’m reminded of this NYT article on Muslim students in France who are abandoning the strictly secular public schools to attend private Catholic schools, where they are allowed to wear headscarves and pray.