June 7, 2017

"This sounds like a retreat from the ‘Wisconsin Idea,’ which says that our universities have a right and a responsibility to address important questions, not to stay on the sidelines."

"This idea has served our state and guided the state university system for more than a hundred years, and it would be a mistake to step back from it now.... School officials should not be prohibited from reassuring students — especially students of color and LGBT students, who are singled out by the protected speech of other students, professors or invited speakers — that the school does not agree with hostile speakers and that it welcomes all students."

Said Chris Ott, executive director of the ACLU of Wisconsin, criticizing the Campus Free Speech bill, which would require "That each institution shall strive to remain neutral, as an institution, on the public policy controversies of the day, and may not take action, as an institution, on the public policy controversies of the day in such a way as to require students or faculty to publically [sic] express a given view of social policy."

Here's the whole bill. I cut and pasted from the Cap Times. The word "publicly" is not misspelled in the original.

35 comments:

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

I'm not quite sure how that guy got from the prohibition of requiring speech to the prohibition of speech.

The Cracker Emcee said...

"executive director of the ACLU of Wisconsin, criticizing the Campus Free Speech bill"

Sign of the times.

Triangle Man said...

"Berceau wondered what would happen under the bill — which requires University of Wisconsin System institutions to be neutral on “controversies of the day” — if a student in a geology class argued the Biblical theory that the earth is only 6,000 years old.

“Is it okay for the professor to tell them they’re wrong?” Berceau asked during the lengthy session on May 11."

“The earth is 6,000 years old,” Kremer offered. “That’s a fact.”

TosaGuy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kevin said...

"and that it welcomes all students."

And therin sits the lie.

TosaGuy said...

The "Wisconsin Idea," when extended to ideas outside of actual real-world applications (like how to get more milk from a cow) has become nothing more than a rhetorical shield.

John Tuffnell said...

So the bill only prohibits the school from requiring students to publicly express a given view but does not prohibit requiring students to privately express that given view. Walker should line-veto the adjective.

The bill hardly does anything, yet it's still too much for the ACLU whose mission now is to identify and silence "hostile speakers." Nice to have known ya.

n.n said...

So, ACLU is a defender of [class] diversity.

DougWeber said...

Actually look like a good idea to me. My interpretation is that the Institution will not express an opinion as an institution nor will it set up procedures that require students to publicly express an opinion, such as oaths or training session. But leaves the individual member of the institution, both faculty and students, free to express their opinions.

It is hard, when the University itself says that the world is only 4000 years old, to oppose that opinion.

Roy Jacobsen said...

Free speech?!? But this is a college campus!

Jack Wayne said...

In #3 I would replace problem with issue. And i think the council on free expression is a terrible idea.

Michael K said...

It would be helpful if the college taught only real history, too.

I guess the Zinn version is the only one allowed these days.

Sebastian said...

I'm glad the ACLU is on the case. It's terrible if a state deprives public institutions of the liberty to spend taxpayer money on advocating progressive causes. Now who's gonna tell people that hate speech is unconstitutional, or that 20% of college women are raped, or that climate change endangers humanity?

Fernandinande said...

"that the school does not agree with hostile speakers and that it welcomes all students."

Two lies in one sentence fragment. I'd trust that guy.

David Begley said...

The job of the University of Wisconsin is to win football and basketball games. Everything else is surplus.

Fernandinande said...

"The policy must include a range of disciplinary sanctions for anyone under an institution's jurisdiction who engages in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, obscene, unreasonably loud, or other disorderly conduct that interferes
with the free expression of others."

Hooligans, hoarders and wreckers tend to boisterous and especially profane speech.

RonF said...

An academic institution should encourage debate among it's members as they themselves take positions on a given issue. But the institution itself should not, as that would tend to suppress the speech of those members of the institution who disagree with it's position but are dependent on it for grades, employment, etc.

Rae said...

I am against the bill, as I am all in on making lefties live under the system they claim to want.

It doesn't matter anyways, since I don't live in Wisconsin.

MikeR said...

"especially students of color and LGBT students". How about especially conservative students? They are the ones actually getting abused on campuses these days.

Fen said...

I agree with the ALCU - do not expose the new recruits of the Red Brigade to any ideas that might challenge them intellectually. I prefer my enemies to be lazy and ignorant.

JAORE said...

Hate speech, hate crimes.

Hate is in the eye (and soul) of the beholder.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

John Tuffnell said...

So the bill only prohibits the school from requiring students to publicly express a given view but does not prohibit requiring students to privately express that given view. Walker should line-veto the adjective.

My concern is that, for example, a geology professor should be able to grade test answers on the age of certain rock formations based on the material taught in class. Those test answers are private expressions, and the grading certainly could be construed to be requiring certain answers.

mccullough said...

So now corporations should have free speech rights? Can't keep up with the bullshit coming from the ACLU. Let school officials say what they want and let students arm themselves. Problem solved

Gahrie said...

@Althouse:

Do you believe that 20% of the women who attend the University of Wisconsin at Madison will be raped?

CJinPA said...

I don't think people appreciate what's going on in education. "Social Justice" is a wide open term, permitting schools to impose an unlimited number of non-academic thoughts.

Not just colleges. This is coming to my K-12 school district. It has started with teacher "training." One of points: To say "America is a melting pot" is offensive. Don't say it.

A teacher shared her handout with me. This is a recipe for disaster and unending tensions. Lawmakers better get off their asses and act.

gregq said...

I'm in total agreement with the ACLU guy. The University should be speaking out on a lot of issues, and doing so under the direction of the Governor and Legislature.

For example, it should attack racism, also known as identity politics / "Affirmative Action".

And it should attack bigotry and abuse of individual liberty, such as when the LGBT try to force Christians to pretend that LGBT is normal and acceptable.

I've seen the light! Thank you Chris Ott, totalitarian thug!

Earnest Prole said...

"Hostile speakers" is the tell.

Owen said...

Left eating its own.

Carry on.

Virtually Unknown said...

Who knew that the "Wisconsin Idea" was the same as Mussolini's idea. Everything serves the state and the state serves the party. Stronger Together!

Krumhorn said...

It's about time!

Perhaps this will be the first step to countering the Gramscian march through the institutions in WI.

- Krumhorn

Unknown said...

The ACLU reply is disengenuous. The problem is that the university (this one and others) is requiring faculty and students to toe the line on many social issues. It is punishing people who quite sensibly say they do not want to use weird pronouns or who think gender disphoria is a mental illness, or who disagree with the POLITICAL platform of BLM, or do NOT think America and capitalism is evil. It is one thing for the univ faculty to participate in the issues of the day, it is another entirely when there is an official position.

Hyphenated American said...

"School officials should not be prohibited from reassuring students — especially students of color and LGBT students, who are singled out by the protected speech of other students, professors or invited speakers — that the school does not agree with hostile speakers and that it welcomes all students.""

All students are equal, but some students are more equal than others.

The Godfather said...

When the President or Dean or whatever of the University speaks, is he/she/xe/etc speaking for him/her/xer/etc self or for the University? Usually, they purport to speak for the University. But the President, etc. is NOT the University. The President is an employee of the University. In the case of a public university, the employer, the notional boss, is the People of the State, and their representatives are the legislature and governor.

If the President, etc. says the University admits without discrimination: transgender persons or people with other non-standard sexual orientations, or people who believe that God created humans male and female; or Muslims, or anti-Muslims; or Jews, or anti-Jews; or Republicans, or anti-Republicans; or NRA members or anti-gunners, etc., each is a fact statement, and if it's true I have no problem with the President saying that. But the President should be declaring the policies of his boss. The President's own personal opinion should be clearly distinguished from the University's position.

Michael K said...

The U of Texas seems a lot more likely to be a BLM murder site.

The white kid who died was described by everyone who knew him as an outstanding kid,. He entered as a sophomore through AP classes.

The campus has had a series of vandalism directed at Fraternities. The graffiti all accuse fraternities of racism so it seems related.

Even if the murderer was not a BLM member, the rhetoric works on the weak minded.

GRACE KYROS said...

One of the easiest decision I have ever made was when I accepted to get married to a man I thought was my soul mate, my lover for 2yrs. He was the most handsome and honest man I have ever encountered, he was so kind respectful to me and my entire family. He gave me the reason to spend my entire life with him. I enjoyed 3yrs of love and sweet romance as his wife before the devil came into our home, his ex-girlfriend worked voodoo on him, she made him show me the bad side of him and also caused our divorce. The most annoying part was when she tried to take my life spiritually and physically, fighting to ensure am thoroughly erased from my husband before she takes over. It was getting tensed till the extent that I couldn’t sleep both day and night because she must be there to trouble me.
Story short, I used the only available options left which was Dr. before I lose everything including my life. Dr.OKOKO was the last option because every other sources failed and his love spell worked wonders after 7days which saw the evil lady flee from us with immediate effect, the divorce case was reconciled within days as well. Since after the spell, I finally knew how to treat wicked and jealous people and a whole new lot of thing from Dr. OKOKO. Happiness and joy has been in abundance in my family for the past 8months after the love spell. Thanks to dr.OKOKO love spell that works wonders

EMAIL drokokospellhome19@gmail.com

visit http://drokokospellhome.webs.com/