<p>Barrons, you are incorrect that private colleges in Massachusetts are categorically subject to lawsuits if they restrict the First Amendment rights of students. Note, for example, that colleges in the state can require their students to attend Christian religious services, forbid them to use profanity, and otherwise restrict their FA rights to freedom of speech and religion right and left. See, e.g, <a href=“http://www.enc.edu%5B/url%5D”>www.enc.edu</a>. Students and colleges can enter into private agreements to maintain certain community standards. There’s never been a successful case against a private college for a disciplinary policy forbidding racist speech. In fact, I’m not aware of any FAILED case on that theory.</p>
<p>Also, as one poster noted, does Missy Julia really want her name out there as fighting a lawsuit to maintain her right to exalt Hilter and offend others without apology? </p>
<p>Unless she immerses herself in the Aryan nation, I’d like to see her explain that to her kids one day when they are applying to Williams as legacies.</p>
<p>Equating another right–the free exercise of religion to free speech is incorrect in my opinion. Williams has not passd itself off as a religious institution that I know about. Has there ever been successful discipline for “racist” speech at a school like Williams in Mass?</p>
<p>You may wish to study the following letter </p>
<p>users.rcn.com/kyp/schools/bennet2.html </p>
<p>This seems very broad to me</p>
<p>"The Massachusetts Civil Rights Act is an unusually broad civil rights
law in that it protects civil liberties such as free speech and
privacy not only against the government but also against restrictions
by private institutions. MCRA provisions ban any institution from
interfering, or attempting to interfere, with the exercise of rights
secured by the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States
Constitution or the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights through
“threats, intimidation, or coercion.” (The provisions are in
Massachusetts General Laws chapter 12, subsections 11H and 11I,
abbreviated G.L. c.12, ss. 11H, 11I).</p>
<p>Free speech is a right protected under the MCRA, and disciplining
students for exercising their free speech rights constitutes
“coercion” in violation of the MCRA’s free speech guarantees.
Abramowitz v. Trustees of Boston University, Boston Superior Court,
1986 (unpublished), page 21. In the Abramowitz case, the court
overturned the disciplining of divestment protesters at privately-run
Boston University, and barred Boston University from removing
divestment banners hung by dormitory residents. Justice Haskell
Freedman noted, “I can discern no reason why the free speech rights
of students at Boston University should be any narrower than those of
students at public universities.” Page 24. “Nowhere in our society
is the protection of the free flow of ideas more important than in
the university community, the quintessential ‘marketplace of ideas.’”
Page 22.</p>
<p>Barrons: You are missing the point that these posters were highly offensive and the response to them from the institution could have been to treat it as a teaching point with sensitivity. They chose to concentrate on free speech. You obviously agree with their response, so be it.</p>
<p>I never said anything about using it as a teaching point. That’s fine. I am only addressing the punish her crowd here. It’s illegal and the can’t which explains why the did not.</p>
<p>From the ACLU on the topic</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.lectlaw.com/files/con12.htm[/url]”>www.lectlaw.com/files/con12.htm</a></p>
<p>As I’ve noted, I’m not particularly interested in the punishment issue one way or the other. (If anything, I’d prefer she remain in Williamstown, and leave the rest of us alone!)</p>
<p>But I do wonder if Williams had had a “social honor code” as many other colleges do (see <a href=“WRAPS organizes campus-wide food drive, adapts to COVID restrictions – The Williams Record”>WRAPS organizes campus-wide food drive, adapts to COVID restrictions – The Williams Record; ), and had students sign it, whether disciplinary action could have been taken as a matter of contract law?</p>
<p>
Without seeing the cartoon, I am imagining a wizzard robe with moons & stars, which is what is usually decorating wizzard costumes. Think Mickey Mouse’s hat in Fantasia. This might very well be a whole lot of nothing. Again, I’d have to see the cartoon to really have assurance that the intentions had nothing to do with anti-semitism or bias against Muslims.</p>
<p>My Catholic son always draws his stars with six points, not five. They’re easier to draw for him. He’s not trying to slight anyone’s religion.</p>
<p>Contrast this letter in the Swarthmore school newspaper from a student per open dialogue. How nice is this approach! (Go Swarthmore!):</p>
<p>May 3, 2007</p>
<p>In support of Stu Co dialogue
To the editor: </p>
<p>I am writing to express my support and appreciation for the open letter to the community by members of the Intercultural Center and Black Cultural Center and for the dialogue that has been started around the Student Council election. Particularly as a member of many of the same privileged groups as the presidential candidates, their response, or lack thereof, to questions about racism, sexism, classism and homophobia gave me pause. </p>
<p>Though I criticize the candidates, could I myself run an election promising to represent every student on this campus? </p>
<p>I came to Swarthmore in part because I knew my experience here would be more diverse in many ways than at another college, and yet I regularly find myself in groups where everyone looks just like me, or is of the same dominant socio-economic class or sexual orientation. I have attended workshops and events around issues of privilege and oppression, and yet in my daily life, I fall asleep at the wheel. I forget to be on the lookout for the subtle manifestations of racism that I, as a white person, have the privilege to ignore. Even when I recognize homophobic comments, I don’t always stand up to them, and I have made many completely classist statements of my own. I imagine this is true for other students of privilege as well. </p>
<p>What bothers me most about this is that it takes a Student Council election to open my eyes. Those elections certainly don’t occur every day, and I do not expect the IC and BCC community to post daily letters reminding students of privilege to look and act more critically. </p>
<p>There is a constant stream of workshops and events to help us navigate privilege and oppression on campus, but the issue is much greater than our attendance record. I hope President-elect Peter Gardner ’08 will help lead the charge for everyone on this campus to critically examine privilege at Swarthmore and how it affects us in everything we do, but I hope even more that the desire to become better friends, allies and agents of change will begin with each one of us, and will not be forgotten as the election fades from memory.</p>
<p>Sticker Shock:</p>
<p>I posted that article not so much as to validate whether the figure was antisemetic or not (clearly some people were offended) but to highlight a different type of response in a community, ie to try to work out the differences. Especially that there was a nonprofit available to try to help out. I was contrasting that type of dialogue to the lack of it at Williams.</p>
<p>C-Mom -</p>
<p>While I appreciate the efforts being made at Swat (and my d’s college has similar, coupled with a 30-year commitment to economic diversity - <a href=“http://www.smith.edu/news/2006-07/SACA.php)%5B/url%5D”>www.smith.edu/news/2006-07/SACA.php)</a>, I do wonder if students at any of these schools (other than the Jewish ones) would be as closely attuned to issues of anti-Semitism. The student bodies themselves are not all that different, and for majority white well-heeled students, for the most part “Jewish students look just like us” and “what about Israel?”</p>
<p>I don’t expect the students to “know any better” - that’s why they’re in school - to get an education! To quote Dean Roseman again, “Through all our actions we’re cognizant that this is an educational community, and we’re [taking] this as an opportunity to learn,” Roseman said."</p>
<p>I’d like to know exactly what was learned through this exercise? When it comes to Nazis, Jewish students should expect to be alone? That when in a position of power and faced with a situation like this, the best thing to do is to say as little as possible and hope it goes away?</p>
<p>I have lots of nice quotes from famous people who suggest that we put ourselves at peril when we shut up and keep quiet, but most folks already know 'em, so no sense in posting here.</p>
<p>I think there is more of a mechenism set up to deal with discrimination at Swarthmore and at some other colleges and universities. So if the issue was antisemitism, they would at least have a model to go on.</p>
<p>I can guarantee you that if this happened at Swarthmore or at many other colleges, there would have been more of an effort to deal with the issue. I also cannot imagine Neonazism at Swarthmore. Somehow I cannot see a Neonazi wanting to come to a Quaker School. I don’t know as much about Haverford or Bryn Mawr, but they all seem pretty nonconducive to this type of stuff.</p>
<p>Didn’t something happen recently at Earlham? How did they deal with that?</p>
<p>Collegialmom, I think the fact that the wizzard robe issue is more than likely an example of someone SEARCHING for a problem that doesn’t exist, is quite relevant. That a group was formed to make a big deal out of it actually does more harm than good. It’s the boy who cried wolf – dangerous & hateful actions that are potentially harmful (really harmful, not just deemed offensive by someone looking to be offended,) will not be taken seriously anymore. We’ll all roll our eyes. </p>
<p>Truly offensive actions, carried out by a person linked to neo-nazis is serious. Whether there are six points instead of five on a wizzard robe’s stars is a ridiculous battle. Really, what wizzard (except for Mickey Mouse,) DOESN’T look like Moses?</p>
<p>I haven’t followed Earlham news of late, though I do know they had a controversy over Ann Coulter. One thing I do know, however, is that the prez there would have had an automatic bully pulpit. There are no classes at Earlham on Wednesdays, which is given over to a weekly all-college convocation, with speakers, colloquia, etc. The prez can get up any Wednesday morning and have a guaranteed audience of students and faculty prepared to listen to him. It is considered an integral part of the education. </p>
<p>(and, yes, I have trouble imagining neo-Nazis at Swat; but then I have trouble imagining the same for Billsville today. Remember: as far as we know, there was/is only one. There are folks who can believe all kinds of strange things - why, some colleges even give Bill Clinton honorary degrees! ;))</p>
<p>Earlham’s Non-Discrimination Policy (A Quaker School)</p>
<p>“The College stands opposed to prejudice and disrespect toward any person because of sexual orientation, gender, religious belief, physical ability, age, or racial or cultural identity, and seeks to eliminate the public expression of such prejudice and disrespect…”</p>
<p>From their student handbook:</p>
<p>"From this belief follows an assumption of equality of all persons and grounds for respecting all persons. We aspire to be a community whose members act with regard for the intellectual, physical, and emotional well-being of others, seeking to find mutual respect and happiness in our relationships with persons of every race, ethnicity, class, religious preference, gender, physical ability, sexual orientation, or age, even seeking to respect persons removed by time and place…</p>
<p>We work actively for the peaceful resolution of conflict, and for the removal of causes of violence and injustice. We strive to live peacefully within our own community as we pursue a more just, non-violent, and sustainable world."</p>
<p>They have in effect a very extensive internal process per complaints of “social code violations.” Again, I don’t know what Williams has.</p>
<p>STSH:</p>
<p>The group meeting seems to have allowed people to express their feelings. Whether you agree that there was an issue or not is not really germane to this. If people feel that there is a perceived slur, then so be it. Better too many discussions than too little. Maybe you could contact the candidates and get a copy of the poster before making a conclusion.</p>
<p>From the Williams College Student Handbook:</p>
<p>College Standards of Conduct </p>
<p>As a residential college, Williams believes that for each student the experience of living with other students has an educational importance that should parallel and enhance his or her studies. For students to profit from living and working together, they must respect the rights of other members of the community in which they live and work-a community which includes students, members of the faculty and staff of the College, and other residents of Williamstown. The President, Trustees, faculty, and students of Williams College have established the codes of conduct described below to foster the learning that comes from living and studying with men and women of diverse backgrounds and from learning to honor opinions and beliefs that may differ from one’s own. </p>
<p>The College Laws authorize the faculty to make rules for the proper conduct of students and to establish penalties for failure to comply with the faculty’s regulations or for failure to conform to those laws and standards of conduct by which the larger community safeguards individual rights and social order. Students must respect the rights of others, their persons and their possessions, and refrain from any disturbance to the peace of the College or the community around it. The College will hold students responsible if they fail to maintain good conduct on the campus or elsewhere. </p>
<p>Individual Rights: Williams College does not discriminate on grounds unrelated to its educational objectives; it is committed to being a community in which all ranges of opinion and belief can be expressed and debated, and within which all patterns of behavior permitted by the public law and College regulations can take place. The community is varied, including people of diverse races, religions, national or ethnic backgrounds, gender expressions and gender identities, and sexual orientations, and its members may from time to time disagree with one another’s ideas and behavior. The College seeks to assure the rights of all to express themselves in words and actions, so long as they can do so without infringing upon the rights of others or violating standards of good conduct or public law. </p>
<p>Accepting membership in this community entails an obligation to behave with courtesy to others whose beliefs and behavior differ from one’s own; all members and guests of this community must be free of disturbance or harassment, including racial and sexual harassment.</p>
<p>“The College seeks to assure the rights of all to express themselves in words and actions, so long as they can do so without infringing upon the rights of others or violating standards of good conduct or public law.”</p>
<p>They are REALLY BIG on free speech! What Supreme Court justice attended there?</p>
<p>“Accepting membership in this community entails an obligation to behave with courtesy to others whose beliefs and behavior differ from one’s own; all members and guests of this community must be free of disturbance or harassment, including racial and sexual harassment.”</p>
<p>Hey, what about the rest of the discriminations? Don’t they count?</p>
<p>There is much more:</p>
<p><a href=“Williams College”>Williams College;
<p>But, no, Williams doesn’t have a social code of honor (nor does Middlebury, and, other than Columbia, I don’t think any of the Ivies do, but I’d have to go check.)</p>
<p>Actually, a similar (although not directly analogous) incident did take place at Swarthmore back in 1998. An unknown person, believed to be a student but never officially identified by the administration (I think there was a word of mouth identification by the students), placed Holocaust Denial pamphlets provided by Bradley R. Smith at <a href=“http://www.codoh.com/[/url]”>http://www.codoh.com/</a> in student mailboxes. </p>
<p>At the time, Smith was attempting to pitch his pseudo-academic revisionist history writings to college campuses. (More recently, he spoke at the Holocaust denial conference in Tehran, Iran last year). Swarthmore’s student paper had rejected his ads and op-ed pieces for several years. </p>
<p>This papering of the campus was not quite as overtly targeted as the Hitler posters in that it was not tied to a Holocaust Remembrance and did not contain the Hitler iconography designed to provoke a visceral reaction – the intent was not as overtly hateful as the Hitler posters. However, it did trigger more than a month of discussion in the school paper. There was little mincing of words. It was characterized as what it was: anti-semitic. </p>
<p>The president of the college, like Schapiro, did respond immediately with an all-campus letter. Unlike Shaprio’s letter, it addressed the issue in direct language (“morally reprehensible”). Although the entire letter is not preserved on the web, here’s a snippet as published in the first newspaper account:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This was followed up in the next week’s issue by an official statement to the newspaper from the faculty of the History Department:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/org/phoenix/1998/1998-02-27/10.html[/url]”>http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/org/phoenix/1998/1998-02-27/10.html</a></p>
<p>And, from an individual professor:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/org/phoenix/1998/1998-02-27/9.html[/url]”>http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/org/phoenix/1998/1998-02-27/9.html</a></p>
<p>The only support for the Holocaust Denial pamplets came in the form of two letters from non-students published by the paper. The first was a response by Bradley Smith himself, which the paper felt journalistically compelled to accept because President Bloom had directly attacked him, although the editorial board made clear its distaste for publishing the letter. The other was a letter to the editor in support of the pamphlets and “free speech” and all that deflection nonsense from two Oberlin College students. </p>
<p>As you can see from the History Department letter (and others), the paper was resoundingly criticized for publishing these two letters from outside the college community in support of Holocaust Denial.</p>
<p>Collegialmom:</p>
<p>All colleges are big on protecting free speech. I agree with Barrons on this point, Julia Cordrary would not have been kicked out or suspended or officially sanctioned for the initial postering at any college, including under Swarthmore’s very specific policy:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is not to say that there would not have been informal discussions. I don’t believe that Julia would have been allowed to duck engagement with the campus community regarding her actions. I suspect that the “invitations” to participate in town hall meetings in response to her stated desire for “provoking discussion” would have been firm. One problem with the response in this case is that despite calling for “discussion”, Julia was permitted to hide behind her intital manifesto and her subsequent letter to the editor without engaging in discussion.</p>