July 9, 2007

Lawsuit Accuses San Francisco State U. of Violating Rights of College Republicans

The College Republicans at San Francisco State University sued it today for alleged violations of the group’s First Amendment rights.

As part of an anti-terrorism rally at San Francisco State last year, members of the political group’s campus chapter stomped on makeshift flags of Hamas and Hezbollah, which the U.S. government considers terrorist organizations. (Both flags include Arabic script spelling the word “Allah,” but the lawsuit says the plaintiffs did not know that.) The university investigated the College Republicans and conducted a disciplinary hearing, though ultimately it found no violation of its code of student conduct.

The lawsuit — filed on behalf of the College Republicans by the Alliance Defense Fund (a conservative, Christian legal-advocacy group) and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education — seeks a judgment that San Francisco State’s conduct code is vague and broad enough to be unconstitutional. The suit also asks for $5,000 in damages, lawyers’ fees, and the university’s deletion, in all records, of references to the disciplinary proceedings. The suit names more than two dozen defendants, including university officials, trustees, and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, himself a Republican. —Sara Lipka

Comments

1. If they are so stupid as not to realize Arabic script spells out a word, then find what that word means, they deserve what they got. Not knowing is no defense.

   — William Allin Storrer    Jul 10, 08:46 AM    #

2. Unfortunately, students from the left discriminate conservative students. Some administrators and many professors support these leftist students. In the name of free speech, professors and students support the terrorist organizations on their campuses. This should be curtailed. Ignorentia non excusat.

   — Kan Chandras    Jul 10, 09:15 AM    #

3. This is the same paleoliberal censorship that dominates academia. It is only free speech if it is deemed ‘legitimate’ free speech in that it coincides with the paleoliberal blame-America-first propaganda mantra. I mean really, what is the Bill of Rights to a liberal?

   — neonormal    Jul 10, 09:52 AM    #

4. An act occured. The university investigated, held a hearing, and found no wrong-doing. What’s the problem? No one was reprimanded or punished, the system works. The lawsuit seems opportunistic and frivolous.

   — Robert    Jul 10, 10:01 AM    #

5. It looks like this particular exercise is not a single-campus peculiarity, but something either suggested by a central office of the national campus Republican organization, or something that makes the rounds informally in conservative student networks. Our campus Republican student organization had the same setup this last Spring semester—but they had the Hamas and Hizbullah placards mounted on tripods for students to throw water balloons at. When I informed one of the organizers that “the Hamas slogan” he was erecting was the Muslim attestation of faith, ‘There is no God but God, and Muhammad is the Prophet of God,’ he sneered repeatedly that it was nothing but “a terrorist slogan.” I advised him that many of his fellow students might be upset by having water balloons thrown at one of their articles of faith, despite its abuse by Hamas, but he insisted “you’re wrong; that’s just your opinion.” When I suggested that their reaction might be similar to ours if we encountered a burning cross on our lawns, he repeated his considered judgement that I was simply in error. I’ve been studying the Middle East professionally for twenty-five years, and I, unlike him, actually knew what the Arabic said, but that didn’t make much of an impact on this angry young man. One of the most upsetting things about these campus organizations is that, in the name of freedom of speech, they too often encourage their students to close themselves off from discussion, to close themselves off from other people, and to close themselves off from learning and from thinking.

   — Gregory Starrett    Jul 10, 10:09 AM    #

6. One quick but important clarification: FIRE is not representing the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, but rather worked to coordinate the lawsuit that was filed yesterday by the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF). ADF filed the lawsuit and represents the plaintiffs.

   — Samantha Harris, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education    Jul 10, 11:52 AM    #

7. Fine – let them sue. Then, let’s see the Arab Student Association do the same thing to a placard with the names of conservative Christian organizations who essentially have the same message as Hamas and Hizbullah – “Believe as we believe or else” and see what the reaction is. My money is on another lawsuit from the Christian groups that claim that the conservative Christians are being discriminated against.

   I suspect that the Bill of Rights means the same thing to some “liberals” as it does to some “fascists” – something to hide behind when you want to spout your own dogma, and something to deny someone else when they spout their dogma.

   — Scott    Jul 10, 11:59 AM    #

8. Way to support the First Amendment, Prof. Storrer (comment #1). I am not aware of the addendum that says you can’t profane the word “Allah.” Perhaps you need a remedial course in Constitutional Law.

   And as to the comment (#4) that all is well that ends well, how would you like it if your normal routine was interrupted for several weeks with a major disciplinary action hanging over your head for an alleged offense that should never have even been pursued?

   — J. Ward    Jul 10, 12:11 PM    #

9. To J. Ward:
   I happen to be an administrator at a university. When someone files a complaint, I have a responsibility to investigate. There is a process that must be followed, no matter who makes the complaint. In this case, it appears that the process was followed, and a decision was handed down that the students in question violated no campus policies and no laws. No disciplinary action was taken. I don’t know how much more you could want. It seems you think that the complaint should have been simply dismissed out of hand by the administration. But if, as Scott suggests in comment #7, someone had taken the same action with a Christian symbol, perhaps attacking the symbol of a radical right-to-life group e.g., then you certainly would have wanted the complaint to be heard and the process to play itself out.

   The students had the right to do what they did. People had a right to be angry about it. The administration had an obligation to investigate. No wrongdoing was found. My main point is, that there seem to be some self-identified conservatives who are up in arms about the antagonism they face from a ‘liberal’ college administration, but that same administration found that there was no violation of the codes of conduct and took no disciplinary action.

   — Robert    Jul 10, 01:02 PM    #

10. I say that if the First Amendment allows us to publicly burn or otherwise desecrate the American flag, then it certainly allows the desecration of the flags of our enemies, regardless of what may be written on them. The disciplinary hearing should never have taken place.

    That being said, a flag desecration rally of any kind seems to me to be incendiary (no pun intended) and divisive, which is the last thing we need right now. If those young folks really want to defend our way of life, I suggest they make a visit to their local recruiter and enlist in the Army or Marines. It is relatively easy to express one’s feelings. It is quite another thing to put your life on the line in support of your convictions.

    — Floyd Bowles    Jul 10, 01:04 PM    #

11. “What is the Bill of Rights to a liberal?” (#3) How about (at least to this one) a revered and respected document that protects citizens’ right to dissent (even half-baked, sophomoric dissent of the sort described at SFSU)? It isn’t the “paleoliberals” who circumscribed that right through the PATRIOT Act or who undermine it by cordoning off “protest zones” so that wherever President Bush is, he need not be bothered by anyone who even remotely disagrees with him or his policies.

    As the #4 comment notes, the act occured, SFSU investigated, held a hearing, and found no wrong-doing — so what’s all the uproar? Other than another opportunity for the ADF to allege discrimination? If no one was harmed (i.e., suspended, expelled, whatever), if there was no discriminatory consequence, what’s there to sue over?

    — Barbara    Jul 10, 01:18 PM    #

12. To Robert, the Administrator: In this case the “process that must be followed” should have taken all of about ten seconds. The people in charge should have read the complaint and immediately said “That expression is covered by the First Amendment.” In the SFSU matter, the complaint was filed on October 26, 2006 and the College Republicans were not cleared until March of 2007.

    Sir, it is not “conservatives. . . up in arms about the antagonism they face from a ‘liberal’ college” that dragged this matter out for five months. It is left-wing administrators hostile to free speech that they disagree with who searched low and high for ways to persecute the College Republicans and reluctantly dropped the matter once enough lawyers convinced them they were on a fools’ errand.

    — J. Ward    Jul 10, 01:28 PM    #

13. To Robert:

    If your neighbor called the police and accused you of, say, having a political bumper sticker on your car or mentioning at a block party that you oppose the Iraq war, would you believe the police had “an obligation to investigate”?

    I assume that you would say they should not investigate, because your neighbor has alleged nothing more than that you have engaged in lawful activity.

    The same was true in the SFSU case. The totality of the allegation was that the students had engaged in constitutionally protected expression.

    — Samantha Harris    Jul 10, 01:54 PM    #

14. And in response to comment #11 from Barbara: First of all, the Clinton Administration also forced dissenters into separately cordoned off protest zones, so it isn’t something that was invented by “paleoconservatives.”

    And with regards to the whole “no one was hurt in the matter” argument, I suggest you read the background information on the lawsuit. The two College Republican members filing suit estimate that they spent a couple of hundred of hours over the five-month “investigation” talking to lawyers, preparing their defense at the SFSU kangaroo court, and dealing with other aspects of this abomination of justice. Put yourself in their shoes — what would you think if you had to take time away from school, family, work, and recreation to devote to such a frivolous matter? I hope they win a sizable settlement from SFSU, and I hope the administrators who escalated this issue are required to take a remedial course in First Amendment rights (at their own expense).

    — J. Ward    Jul 10, 02:30 PM    #

15. In response to #13 and #14: If my neighbor accused me of criminal activity, I would expect the police to investigate. Naturally, a political bumper sticker on my car is not a crime, so there is nothing to investigate. In the college’s case, I would assume that what was being investigated was not a crime, but a possible violation of the school’s Code of Conduct. These codes exist because our schools are semi-enclosed societies, and because we have an obligation to protect all of the members of our campus. Just as the First Amendment does not protect our right to cry “Fire” in the proverbial crowded movie theater, unless there is in fact a fire, so too do we limit speech which is intended to intimidate or cause fear. J. Ward suggests in comment #14 that this was a frivolous matter. I would suggest that perhaps it was less trivial to any muslems who might be studying or working at the school.

    J. Ward suggests in #12 that left-wing administrators searched high and low for ways to persecute College Republicans. If the administration were truly out to ‘get them’, someone would have been found guilty of a violation of the code of conduct. Both Samantha and J. Ward talk about the First Amendment, and state that the actions of the College Republicans was protected as free speech. In the end, the administration agreed. That the process took several months to play out is not really a surprise. A complaint arrives at the end of October. Facts need to be gathered, witnesses found, a hearing board convened. There would perhaps have been three weeks to start gathering facts before Thanksgiving break, followed by finals, followed by the Christmas break, during which very little would have been done. I’m glad that in the end, the adminsitration came to the right conclusion. Free speech should be protected on our campuses, even if it is sophmoric and ignorant.

    — Robert    Jul 10, 04:09 PM    #

16. And as to the idea that the poor Muslim students were somehow intimidated or terrified by the big bully Republicans stomping on the flag of a terrorist organization, this sort of infantilization of minorities is exactly what is so laughable about political correctness in academia. You don’t even begin to see how patronizing your attitude is.

    I will bet you dollars to dimes that Jewish students complaining about the acts of Muslim students at SFSU would not have been treated in such a drawn-out way.

    — J. Ward    Jul 10, 05:04 PM    #

17. Since it wasn’t the Muslim students who behaved this way, I guess we don’t know, do we? I would hope that, if such a case occured in the current political climate, the Muslim group would have gotten as fair a hearing as the College Republicans.

    I don’t know who filed the complaint, but we (college administrators) don’t get to decide which complaints we’ll review and which we’ll dismiss. If a complaint is filed, a hearing is held. The process is applied equally to all.

    I’ve been involved in various hearings at my school. This doesn’t strike me as particularly drawn out compared to other cases I have seen. Particularly if the defendants in the case resorted to lawyers.

    And finally, you still miss the main point: no one cares what you said about a terrorist organization. The offense was the fact that you stomped on a religious symbol that is important to people of faith. Perhaps not your faith, but faith nonetheless.

    My last word on the subject is this: the University is being sued for trampling on the Republicans rights to free speech. But in the end, the University upheld those rights. Your complaint isn’t with the outcome, but with the process. And that process exists to protect everyone.

    — Robert    Jul 10, 06:41 PM    #

Previous: Embattled Chancellor Resigns at Fayetteville State U.
Next: Where Have All the Fund Raisers Gone?