果冻传媒app官方

Table of Contents

On Monday, the Michigan State University (MSU) student newspaper The State News published about the school鈥檚 Student Accountability in Community (SAC) program. The article, which details some of 贵滨搁贰鈥檚 concerns about the program鈥檚 constitutionality, includes distressing quotes from MSU President Lou Anna K. Simon:
鈥淵ou don鈥檛 get into the program because you choose to; you鈥檝e gotten there because you鈥檝e been found guilty of something,鈥 she said. 鈥淚t鈥檚 sort of like when you go to an alcohol diversion program. You don鈥檛 have a First Amendment right to control the content of your alcohol diversion program.鈥
鈥淵ou don鈥檛 have a set of rights to control what kinds of community service you do necessarily.鈥
Unfortunately for MSU students, these quotes demonstrate not only that President Simon is deeply misinformed about exactly how the First Amendment works in relation to public universities like MSU, but also that President Simon doesn鈥檛 really understand how the SAC program works, either.
 
First, let鈥檚 tackle the First Amendment. Put simply, the First Amendment protects citizens from being punished for speech by the government or its agents. As a public university, funded by taxpayer dollars, Michigan State University is certainly a government actor, and thus bound by the First Amendment. Therefore, Michigan State cannot constitutionally punish students for engaging in protected speech.
 
Now as clear as that constitutional prohibition is, the SAC program ignores it. According to SAC program materials, examples of 鈥渟ituations that would generally be appropriate for SAC鈥 include 鈥淸h]umiliating a boyfriend or girlfriend,鈥 鈥渄isrespecting other students鈥 academic freedom,鈥 鈥淸i]nsulting instructors or teaching assistants,鈥 and 鈥渕aking sexist, homophobic, or racist remarks at a meeting.鈥 Whether or not this kind of speech is admirable, polite, or desirable is completely immaterial. The point is that these examples are clearly protected by the First Amendment, and until the Constitution is amended otherwise, such instances of protected speech have absolutely no business being grounds for a mandatory SAC referral. Because a mandatory referral to the SAC program means that a student鈥檚 registration is put on hold until the student has paid a fifty-dollar fee, a student who refuses to participate in the program is effectively expelled. If that isn鈥檛 punishment for engaging in protected speech, I don鈥檛 know what is. (Check out for more on precisely how the SAC program violates constitutional rights.)
 
Now on to the real heart of the matter here, which is President Simon鈥檚 misleading characterization of the SAC program. First, President Simon makes clear that the SAC program is punitive: 鈥淵ou don鈥檛 get into the program because you choose to; you鈥檝e gotten there because you鈥檝e been found guilty of something,鈥 she says. Found guilty of what? Yelling an insult? Getting into a heated political debate? It is chilling to see how easily Simon skips past the constitutional problems raised by classifying protected speech as something a student could fairly 鈥渂e[ ] found guilty of鈥 at a public university in the United States.  
 
Next鈥攁nd here鈥檚 where Simon really demonstrates her ignorance of the SAC program鈥攕he says that being forced to attend the program is 鈥渟ort of like when you go to an alcohol diversion program鈥 because 鈥淸y]ou don鈥檛 have a First Amendment right to control the content of your alcohol diversion program. You don鈥檛 have a set of rights to control what kinds of community service you do necessarily.鈥 President Simon couldn鈥檛 be more wrong. First, the SAC program is absolutely nothing like an alcohol diversion program. One only gets sent to an alcohol diversion program for committing an alcohol-related offense (such as underage drinking or public drunkenness), which is something the university has the right to regulate and punish. By contrast, one can be sent to SAC for engaging in constitutionally protected speech鈥攕omething the university has no right to regulate and punish.
 
Moreover, President Simon鈥檚 statement isn鈥檛 even accurate with regard to an alcohol diversion program run by the government or a public university. Even in an alcohol diversion program, you have the right to freedom of conscience. If an alcohol diversion program at a state university forced a student to state that he believed, for example, that drinking was wrong or that prohibition should be re-instated, that would unquestionably be a violation of that student鈥檚 right to freedom of conscience. The SAC program, however, requires students to 鈥渆xplain鈥 what they did wrong in a way that the program leader deems 鈥渁cceptable.鈥 As Greg described in his Detroit News column:
FIRE sentenced to SAC training are required to attend four sessions with a campus administrator acting as counselor where they learn to speak 鈥渃orrectly鈥 about whatever alleged wrong they had committed. During training, students are required to answer a series of questions. FIREmust confess their understanding of the incident, but the SAC training materials make it clear that the student鈥檚 perception of what he or she did wrong is almost always incomplete...  If the offense is being rude to a dorm receptionist, the student cannot simply state he or she should have been more polite. Rather, the correct response is 鈥淚 feel entitled to be in the residence hall and that鈥檚 wrong鈥︹ The SAC sessions continue, with the student repeatedly being told the 鈥渞ight鈥 way to feel and talk.
One would hope that it would be obvious that public universities should not be compelling student speech. To do so, as the SAC program does, is to violate a student鈥檚 freedom of conscience, a right clearly affirmed by the Supreme Court way back in 1943 in .
 
President Simon鈥檚 comments about the SAC program are based on fundamental misunderstandings of the First Amendment. As the leader of a public university bound by that amendment, she should consider brushing up on it before making public misstatements. (President Simon, if you鈥檙e reading this, we鈥檇 be happy to send you a free copy of 贵滨搁贰鈥檚 Guide to First-Year Orientation and Thought Reform on Campus.)

Recent Articles

贵滨搁贰鈥檚 award-winning Newsdesk covers the free speech news you need to stay informed.

Related Articles

Share