Free Speech

Miami Univ. (Ohio) Task Force Calls for Suppressing Student, Faculty Speech, Without "Fear of First Amendment Violations"


From the public university's Diverse, Equity, and Inclusion Task Force (emphasis added):

Recommendation 9: Miami University should explore the adoption of a zero-tolerance anti-discrimination policy and strictly enforce its existing University policy on discrimination.

Miami University must be able to determine under what conditions employees can be terminated and students can be dismissed from the University if proven they have made discriminatory (e.g., racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.) comments.

Note: This recommendation assumes the accused party was afforded proper due process and an appropriate finder of fact determined discrimination occurred.

Rationale: As a public institution of higher education, Miami University should demonstrate moral courage when defending its interest in having an efficient and disruptive-free work environment. Student dismissal or employee termination should not be shied away from because of fear of First Amendment violations. Case law dictates that a balancing test regarding private citizen's 1st amendment right vs public institution interest in an efficient and disruptive-free work environment (Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 1983; Dixon v. University of Toledo, 702 F.3d 269, 6th Cir. 2012; Locurto v. Giuliani, 447 F.3d 159, 2d Cir. 2006; Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563, 1968). The key legal factors (e.g., avoiding disruptions in regular operations, maintaining good working relationships among coworkers, avoiding erosion of working relationships dependent on confidence and loyalty, avoiding obstructions in employees' abilities to perform their work) favor Miami's case for an efficient and disruptive-free work environment.

Well, maybe the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion folks have no "fear of First Amendment violations "and think "moral courage" consists of promoting "efficient and disruptive-free work environment" without regard to student and faculty speech rights; but the University ought to have some fear here:

[1.] Student First Amendment Rights: Any policy saying that "students can be dismissed from the University if proven they have made discriminatory (e.g., racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.) comments" would violate the First Amendment.  The Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Task Force may not "fear … First Amendment violations," but the university, which will have to pay for those violations (and which presumably wants to comply with the law) should.  Dambrot v. Central Michigan University, 55 F.3d 1177 (6th Cir. 1995), expressly struck down a campus "discriminatory harassment policy" that banned allegedly bigoted speech (there, "verbal … behavior that subjects an individual to an intimidating, hostile or offensive educational, employment or living environment by … (c) demeaning or slurring individuals through … written literature because of their racial or ethnic affiliation; or (d) using symbols, [epithets] or slogans that infer negative connotations about the individual's racial or ethnic affiliation").

The same would be true of any policy calling for discipline for "racist, sex, homophobic, etc." "comments."  See also Matal v. Tam, 137 S. Ct. 1744 (2017) (reaffirming that, even within government-run programs, the government can't impose viewpoint-based restrictions on supposedly bigoted expression); Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, 561 U.S. 661 (2010) (reaffirming the protection of students' right to "express any viewpoint they wish—including a discriminatory one," and stressing "this Court's tradition of 'protect[ing] the freedom to express "the thought that we hate"'").

[2.] Faculty First Amendment Rights: The rights of public university professors, as public employees, are more complicated, because the government as employer usually has more power to restrict employee speech than the government as college educator has over students.  But courts have recognized that the government's power to punish faculty for speech in their research, public commentary, and even their teaching is still sharply limited.

Thus, for instance, in Hardy v. Jefferson Community College (6th Cir. 2001), the court held that a professor had a right to discuss offensive words—such as "nigger" and "bitch"—in class, when that was "germane to the subject matter of his lecture."  Likewise, in Levin v. Harleston (2d Cir. 1992), the court held that even "derogatory remarks about persons of certain racial or ethnic groups" (to quote Hardy's description of Levin) in letters to the editor and in journal articles were protected by the First Amendment.  And Burnham v. Ianni (8th Cir. 1997) (en banc), recognized the right of faculty members to convey their views on campus outside class, even when some found that speech to be offensive.

Some restrictions on faculty speech may not violate the First Amendment, for instance when the speech appears unconnected to public debates (as in another portion of Dambrot). And high-level university administrators may be less protected from being removed from their administrative positions (though, if they're also faculty, they may still have a First Amendment right not to be removed from their faculty positions). That's what Dixon v. University of Toledo (6th Cir. 2012), the Toledo case to which the Task Force seems to be referring in the Recommendation 9 Details, held:  An Associate Vice President for Human Resources could be removed for her speech, just as, say, a Governor's cabinet member can be removed by the Governor for his speech or political activity.  (The Dixon court specifically cited the political appointee cases, such as Rose v. Stephens (6th Cir. 2002).)

[3.] Academic Freedom Guarantees: Besides the First Amendment, much of the protection for freedom of debate and inquiry at universities comes from Academic Freedom policies that the universities themselves adopt, and on which prospective students, faculty, donors, and legislative supporters rely. Miami of Ohio has such a policy—presumably the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Task Force would be seeking to add viewpoint-based exceptions to it in order to implement the Task Force's goals. This is the current policy, which protects all ideas, whether or not people label them "racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.":

The teacher is entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results, subject to the performance of his or her other academic duties; but research for pecuniary return should be based upon an understanding with the authorities of the institution.

The teacher is entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing his or her subject, but should be careful not to introduce into his or her teaching controversial matter that has no relation to the subject. Limitations of academic freedom because of religious or other aims of the institution should be clearly stated in writing at the time of appointment.

College or university teachers are citizens, members of a learned profession, and officers of an educational institution. When they speak or write as a citizen, teachers should be free from institutional censorship or discipline, but their special position in the community imposes special obligations. As individuals of learning and as educational officers, they should remember that the public may judge the profession and the institution by their utterance. Hence, faculty members should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution.

The University also recognizes that the faculty member is an integral part of the institution. While observing the stated regulations of the University, the faculty member maintains the right to criticize and seek revision of University policy, both administrative and academic.

Thanks to College Fix (Alexander Pease) for the pointer, and see also this post from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (Will Creeley).

NEXT: "The Most Gullible Man in Cambridge" is Ordered to Show Cause Why His Complaint Should Not Be Dismissed

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I hope that someone at the university takes this charge seriously and does exactly what they want to happen here. I’ve got my popcorn ready for when that goes down.

    1. At some point, these bigots will percolate upwards enough to influence court decisions, at least temporarily, although age does calm people down, generally.

      And then the political pendulum will reverse its swing, they will find themselves on the wrong side of hate speech exceptions to the First Amendment, and they will try their damnedest to restore the First Amendment interpretation without actually discarding the hate speech exemption, and the karma will be heavy.

      1. We will probably just get disingenuous cries for free speech that happen now and same with press freedom. Both are great when you have left wing protesters and media looking to get illegal info dumps to get Trump. Not so great though when it comes to “ring wing media” or lockdown protests. Probably what we will see is instead of free speech being a political absolute it was up until about 10-15 years ago is that it will just become another partisan football.

      2. I agree with your pendulum assessment. PCU, about overzealous political correctness on a college campus, came out in 1994. We’re going to be forced to live through this over, and over, because every new generation of young people will demand we all experience it anew. There’s nothing to tell children; they’re the customers and they will get what they want, until they go too far.

        The administrative machine has more urgent concerns. At the highest level, a university’s president has to pretend to care a lot about diversity because his or her customers care a lot. But there are a lot of things that university presidents have to deal with, so the best way to manage this task is to appoint other, lower level administrative positions to manage it. These administrators are given the impossible task of appearing to accomplish enough to shut up self-absorbed young people with nothing but free time, while simultaneously not accomplishing anything that would otherwise interfere with the central focus of a university. And so what do the internal administrators do? They outsource some of the aspects to the Offended Industrial Complex, who has a vested interest in accomplishing just enough to justify their existence, without imposing real costs on their customers (the universities).

        And you see it in the Recommendations. (Continued…)

        1. A task force’s Recommendation 1 is to Establish a “Center” “where all efforts can be streamline [sic] towards a common university wide vision.” This is a recommendation to make a recommendation in the future. Someone will have to staff it–maybe one of them Offended Industrial Complex types–and then someone is going to have to decide on what the “common university wide vision” is. The best way to handle this? By an impossibly large and unaccountable committee. Throw in some students who don’t know anything, to make them feel part of the discussion. Give long lead times on the deliverable, so you can delay delay delay having to actually do anything. In this case the timeline is 4 years. Who is going to remember why they started this 4 years from now? This is a boondoggle. By the time anyone realizes it’s a major waste of time, the people responsible for starting it will all be at new jobs, and the people remaining can blame prior management, and restart the entire process anew.

          Recommendation 2: establish a program in the future. Not “we spent this time establishing this program” but rather we’ve spent a lot of time deciding on an idea, and now we can begin implementing a “program” that one day “should be available”. The recommendation is that some existing “Provost of Global Initiatives” has already said he/she has the capacity to manage it, and the Task Force’s job is, er, to “Ensure” that the Provost has the “appropriate level of support and resources to establish and run this recommendation.” So in this case it isn’t a recommendation for the Task Force to do anything; just a recommendation for the Task Force to help someone else, who has already said they have capacity to do it. (One wonders why this wasn’t already done.)

          Recommendation 3 is to “Replicate” and “extend” an existing partnership with local public schools. This is a perfect recommendation in that it doesn’t recommend anything, but treats an existing program as something the Task Force has accomplished. If your goal is performance art, these recommendations should be maximized, because they require no new policies or creativity, but do serve to remind the clients (students) about how great they are already. This “2 years” timeline involves the Task Force once more “Ensur[ing]” that someone else (Professor of Global and Intercultural Studies) do something they are already doing.

        2. Recommendation 4 is “Explicitly name and/or hire a Title VI coordinator.” The University doesn’t need this new position, since they admit the Director of the Office of Equity and Equal Opportunity is already acting as the Title VI Coordinator. But I suppose they should have “a thorough review of the responsibilities of the OEEC [sic] and an examination of the workload should occur prior to any restructure or renaming of the Title VI coordinator.” This is a recommendation to determine if the university should do nothing (continue treating Director of OEEO as the Title VI coordinator), or a recommendation to determine if they need to hire somebody. You would think they would have made that investigation before making a recommendation, rather than treating a “recommendation” to make a recommendation in the future, as a recommendation today. (Because this has all the hallmarks of a dysfunctional organization, this 1 year “recommendation” will turn into an investigation that drags on for 2 years, and then the next recommendation will be to troubleshoot the problems identified, so they can recommend naming or hiring a Title VI coordinator after they sort out the original investigation. There are only two plausible ends; in 1 year the Director of OEEO is named the Title VI coordinator, even though they already have that title, or in 4 years they hire a Title VI coordinator.)

          Recommendation 5 is to revise the Student Code of Conduct to include Title VI language similar to the current Title IX language. If this were a functioning organization that task would take days; the language already exists, the person who found the language knows where it is, and the process is written down somewhere. Here, the timeline is 1 year. There will be typos. Note the “Pathway” to success: “Undergo the appropriate procedure to amend the Student Code of Conduct.” That’s just restating the Recommendation. (Did they debate that approach, as to undergoing inappropriate procedures? Fucking dumb.)

          Recommendation 6 uses one of my favorite empty dysfunctional organization buzz words. Identify and partner with organizations such as [list]”. Mind you the Task Force is not prepared to say who the partners should be or what a partnership looks like. But rest assured that at the end of 1-2 years, the “implementation” (why not pathway?) will have accomplished, uh, “Work with faculty and staff of color to identify such groups.” Again, this is a recommendation to make a recommendation in the future. Peak intertia.

        3. Recommendation 7 isn’t even a recommendation; it just says that the university “can become a template by encouraging the partnership between” several existing groups on campus. This recommendation doesn’t solve anything, it recommends a recommendation in the future, by using the “partnership” to figure out “how to maximize the presence of social workers” and others in “difficult situations.” Central planning to “maximize” finite resources in “difficult situations”? I’m sure this will be very productive, once they have “develop[ed] models to be implemented and pilot implementation” after 3 years. No one besides college students could read this and think there are serious people involved.

          Recommendation 8 again invokes “partners”, here rotating “key internal and external partners” (what’s up with the prose? Are there are partners who are neither internal nor external?) for… a monthly happy hour? I actually think this is the most substantive recommendation since it will actually increase time students spend drinking with each other, and that’s a good thing. Not because it helps the Task Force “become more intentional in community building”. I guess “Post COVID-19” we can see this implemented.

          1. NJoT, if I understand your series of comments correctly, you’re saying that the recommendations are bullshit?

            1. Yes, bullshit is a good way to describe the recommendations themselves, the process that creates them, and the way the Task Force chose to describe them.

        4. “There’s nothing to tell children; they’re the customers and they will get what they want, until they go too far.”

          No, they aren’t the customers. The customers are the ones paying the bill, and for the most part, that’s not the students.

          1. Good point. I’ll alert the children’s toy and cereal industries to let them know that they’ve been targeting the wrong people with their advertising campaigns for decades.

    2. Jimmy, it won’t even take that — all it’s going to take is a court ruling that they have violated the 1st Amd and all Federal funding is cut off….

      ” [T]o implement Executive Order 13864, Improving Free Inquiry, Transparency, and Accountability at Colleges and Universities, public colleges and universities must comply with the First Amendment as a requirement to receive Department grants. … Due to the well-developed body of case law by state and federal courts on First Amendment rights and violations of stated institutional policies, the Department will rely upon a final, non-default judgment by a state or federal court to determine whether a public or private institution has violated these material grant conditions.”

      1. The Biden Administration will repeal those regs. The First Amendment (written by dead white slaveholding male James Madison, after all) will take a back seat to diversity, inclusion, and equity.

        1. You mean like how Trump repealed DACA?
          There’s now precedent that EOs can’t be repealed.

          And that assumes that Trump loses — which is not a given.

          1. Unfortunately I think Trump’s number is up in November. He needed a “breakthrough” moment which could have just been Biden really screwing up but after the debate and the (illegal) tax hit job along with the fact early voting has effectively cut the election season short I don’t think he has enough momentum to get the states he needs to win.

            1. I’m afraid you’re right. The Democrats’ tactic of moving election day up a month seems to be paying off. And it’s just depressing watching one court after another either rule that following election laws is optional, or outright ordering them violated.

              1. I know, just think, can you imagine making it easier for people to vote? Oh, the humanity!

              2. Yeah. Making it easier for more people to vote is a terrible thing.

                Right, Brett? And don’t rave about Democratic conspiracies or Soros or any of that other crap, including all the supposed vote fraud.

                You’re afraid your guy is going to lose, and, like the GOP in general, will support any effort to fuck up the election so Donnie can stomp his feet and run to his hand-picked kangaroo court to claim a win.

                1. And then Trump becomes a national organizer for the resistance.

                  1. Trump will be welcome to join the Volokh Conspiracy’s ankle-nippers.

            2. You’re being affected by the polls.

              The only poll that matters is the one in November. Start volunteering to get Trump’s vote out.

              1. Yes, please do put your name on Trump volunteer lists – makes it all the easier to track you guys down when Mr. Soros gives the order.

            3. Well, Biden will tank the economy worse than Carter did, and that got us 12 years of Reagan.

          2. You’re forgetting about Trump Law.

            Previous Presidents can bind President Trump, but President Trump can’t bind future Presidents.

            Trump Law!

          3. “There’s now precedent that EOs can’t be repealed.”

            You’re a funny guy, Ed. You know that precedent evaporates as soon as Trump isn’t President anymore.

            1. But his judges remain in office and smart litigants will find them.

  2. What, the actual F?

  3. Is a statement racists? As we have seen, agreeing, that showing up on time, being dependable, and completing projects, are all traits that identify a person as racist, I don’t believe the university is capable of enforcing their standards without prejudice.

  4. My experience in the higher ed sector suggests that this policy recommendation will last only as long as it takes the University’s legal counsel to review it.

    1. Which begs for the question – how did that possibly get published without legal counsel reviewing it first? Are they really that eager to get sued? Or just clueless?

      1. Almost all partisan hacks treat the Constitution as something to weaponize against others, and an annoying obstacle to them.

        It might even be a good definition of a partisan hack: someone who weaponizes the Constitution against others while ignoring it for self.

        1. Ahh remember the good old days when Mr.and Mrs America wanted to ban Nazis marching, and the ACLU, which was just then starting to earn it’s use as in “card carrying member of”, defended the Nazis.

          I start to wonder if they did this less out of principle than because it irritated their political opponents.

          1. Neither: They did it because if Nazis could march, so could communists, and THEY were communists.

            1. “I don’t think you have a hope of understanding people who disagree with you, so long as you’re committed to a Manichean worldview in which everybody who disagrees with you does so from horrific motives.”

              — Brett Bellmore, the world’s least self-aware human being.

      2. Rossami, they didn’t expect it to get off campus.

  5. Amazing how racism and similar “isms” are being used as vehicles to force conformity to a particular narrative of “woke.”

  6. Any statement that is not explicitly antiracist is racist, so they’re going to have to fire and expel everybody.

  7. Could you give us some insight on the cases they cite as authority?

  8. Let me start by stating, emphatically, that I despise Donald Trump for who he is. A loud mouthed, arrogant, petulant child-man with tiny hands.

    That said, Joe Biden’s refusal to decry court packing and ending the filibuster tell me that he WILL pack the court and he WILL help to end the filibuster. That and two more democratic states and their associated Senators and the Republic dies. They will add people until they get the policy decisions they want, passed on by their like minded Court and free speech will die.

    It won’t just be Twitter, Google and others restricting us, it will be the Government. Everyone who doesn’t preach from the definitions in the New Little Red Book will be sent to education camps and even those who do, yet fail to keep up on the latest version of what is ok to say, at the moment (or just have a personal beef with the commissar in charge of their case) will be as well.

    Therefore, I must vote for Donald Trump, because as bad as he is, he isn’t a communist.

    P.S. Communists ARE worse than White Supremacists, by death count alone, it’s not even close. The reality in the US is that there aren’t actually a whole lot of White Supremacists, but academia is crawling with communists, as is Silicon Valley.

    1. I see someone forgot to take his meds again.

      1. Been looking in the mirror, eh? Stop shaving, or learn to shave by touch, and maybe you won’t miss your meds.

        1. “Therefore, I must vote for Donald Trump, because as bad as he is, he isn’t a communist” is almost enough to qualify someone for a three day vacation at Sunnybrook Farm all by itself.

    2. Communists in power are the worst. They are tolerable out of power because they are idiots. But given any political power and lives are lost.

    3. jjsaz : …WILL pack the court and he WILL help to end the filibuster…

      Well, you have another option to keep yourself out of that concentration camp – and it’s much more palatable than voting for a incompetent imbecilic buffoon like Trump.

      Don’t escalate the Nomination Wars with Barrett pre-election. There will then be no court packing. This isn’t a mere promise. It will be impossible to get enough Democratic support for expansion if Trump, GOP, and Right agree to act in the best interest of the country.

      But if you don’t (after Garland) then – hey – that’s your choice. I only ask you don’t bother us with a lot of petulant whining from your dank rat-infested concentration camp cell afterwards. Because you have a choice now.

      1. Give it a rest, the Democrats will pack the Court when they’re in a position to, whether or not Republicans try to curry favor with them by giving them this seat on the Court. There’s no point in trying to avoid “provoking” the inevitable.

        1. Both of you, Brett & jjsaz, are just pretending there’s no consequences for your actions. It’s the oldest trick in the book for evading responsibility.

          Oh look! We’re going to screw over the other side, gloat over our raw hypocrisy, sneer they can do anything about it, exult in our ruthless hardball. Consequences? …. Why, uh, it all would have happened anyway …. right?…. even if we hadn’t done what we did?

          You couldn’t be more transparent. Or wrong. Possibily you don’t even believe the crap you spout. That’s one of the practices Trump has taught his cult following (even those who pretend they dislike him).

          Barrett after Garland means retaliation. That’s the consequence of this choice, despite your posturing. Only a handful of GOPers would be enough to do the responsible thing, but these days everyone on the Right flees from responsibility. As do you two.

      2. I’m sorry, I don’t have any choice as regards Barrett or anything the Senate might, or might not do. The only thing I can do is vote and while that isn’t worth much, it is all I’ve got.

        Simply put, if they pack the Court, we will become a perpetual One-Party State, like CA. They will pass universal popular vote legislation, open the borders to fresh New Democrats, relax citizenship requirements and ensure themselves a continued left wing hegemony for decades to come, if not permanently. Constitutional Amendments will no longer be necessary as everything they want will be de facto constitutional.

        Smaller States will have no say in how they are governed. Democrats in Washington will continue to tell farmers what they can plant, where they can plant it, when they can plant it, whether and when they can harvest and where and when they can sell.

        Roosevelt did that and a worthless Court, under the threat of court packing ushered in the administrative state we all slave under to this day. It will not get better under President Harris (I assume that Biden will die in the first couple of weeks, the meds they must be pumping him cannot be good for him).

        “Don’t escalate the Nomination Wars with Barrett pre-election. There will then be no court packing. This isn’t a mere promise. It will be impossible to get enough Democratic support for expansion if Trump, GOP, and Right agree to act in the best interest of the country.”

        On that I call bullshit. They will do it regardless. It is their dream. In fact, the only chance we have is if Barrett gets in now and the Court declares their court packing laws unconstitutional.

        1. “Democrats in Washington will continue to tell farmers what they can plant, where they can plant it, when they can plant it, whether and when they can harvest and where and when they can sell.”

          Let me know when welfare-grabbing, competition-loathing farmers are ready to reject federal subsidies and to attempt to compete with large, modern, efficient competitors.

          Carry on, clingers. But only so far and so long as better Americans permit.

          1. What are you babbling about? Most farmers in 5e US are giant operations that out compete every other nation on Earth. That said, we shouldn’t be subsidizing them.

            However, you missed the point completely. The Feds are not supposed to be engaged in central planning or micro managing the economy or the people under our Constitution, but since the last court packing scare, the Federal government has grown and grown with no stopping point visible. Democrats packing the court will find more ways to do so.

            Farmers were only an example, but the same malarkey is why we have federal pot prohibition, and on, and on, and on.

      3. Sure, refuse to govern, ignore the constitution, don’t do what is required, cave to unconstitutional demands, that have zero precedent. or else we are going to what we have the power to do.

        This is more of BLM terrorists tactics, They are going to destroy things, burn it all down, until we get our way.

        And yet its the reasonable side that is supposed to cede their power.

    4. As somebody with tiny hands, (Seriously, I’m 200lbs, and I wear the same size gloves as my 80lb wife, only SHE fills the fingers to the end, I don’t.) I’m unclear why it’s considered appropriate on the left to mock what is, after all, a type of marginal birth defect.

      1. I’m not on the left, and I am a 6’2″ guy with hands I consider small for my size. I. only note it, because Trump becomes incensed when you mention it. He does this because of his most fundamental handicap, the one I forgot to mention. INSECURITY.

    5. The prank economic shutdown by Democrat governors and other Marxist running dogs took out $4 trillion from the world GDP. That will result in the starvation deaths of 130 million people. This is the biggest and most rapid genocide in history. It is going on now, and, we Good Germans are doing nothing about it.

      1. Look, a straitjacket is missing its wearer!

        1. That is just a stale personal insult from the KGB Handbook, you found in the trash. Try an argument of fact or of logic.

    6. It’s Joe Biden. He would be considered center-right in pretty much every other industrial democracy in the world. Get a grip.

      1. It’s not Joe Biden. He won’t survive 4 years. His cognitive decline in the last two years is staggering to behold. But at the end of the day, He is the Democratic Party and that party wants DC and PR statehood, along with ending the filibuster and an enlarged court.

        1. What’s wrong with statehood for Puerto Rico and DC (other than clingers’ bigotry)?

          1. Puerto Ricans themselves don’t want statehood, and DC is forbidden by actual language in the actual constitution. Other than that, bring it, Democrats.

        2. And that gets us to communism and reeducation camps … how exactly?

        3. jjsaz : It’s not Joe Biden….. His cognitive decline…. (etc)

          Hilarious. That bit of bullshit blew up in your face last night, but still you bravely push discredited agitprop. It’s funny how you share the same contempt for the truth as Trump, a man you claim to dislike so much.

  9. Constitution! We don’t need no stinkin’ constitution!!

  10. “Note: This recommendation assumes the accused party was afforded proper due process and an appropriate finder of fact determined discrimination occurred.”

    OK, now if they could give some more detail explaining the basis of their assumption.

    1. Yep, give em a fair trial and then hang em, doubleplusgood!

      1. Voting in favor, or even defending the rights, of any member of an “oppressor” class will itself be deemed an intolerable oppression. This makes due process super easy!

  11. Brave for the most expensive puplic univesity in a state with a GOP dominated general assembly to act as censor.

  12. I agree that this policy is completely outrageous. In fairness, though, historically we have always suppressed speech considered heretical, offensive, or that otherwise ran afoul of those in authority. The only thing that has changed is what speech is considered beyond the pale. Fifty or a hundred years ago, expressing the opposite viewpoints to those being suppressed here would have gotten someone in trouble. Conservatives had their McCarthy period, their loyalty oaths, their HUAC; liberals have this. That pendulum never seems to stop swinging.

    1. “Conservatives had their McCarthy period, their loyalty oaths, their HUAC;”

      Executive Order 9835 “Loyalty Order” (1947) by that noted conservative Harry Truman

      “The HUAC was created in 1938” when Democrats held 76 Senate seats to GOP 16 {plus 2 Farmer–Labor and 1 “Wisconsin Progressive”} and 333 House seats [plus 5 Farmer-Labor , 7 “Wisconsin Progressive”] to 89 GOP seats. [wikipedia source for all]

      1. Muh Party Switch!

      2. Well, on that issue, Truman was conservative.

        1. If the conservative policy is to weed out potential subversives from federal employment, what is the liberal policy?

          1. To evade being weeded.

          2. The liberal policy is to recognize that in the overwhelming majority of cases, calling someone “subversive” was a smear that had little to do with actual dangerousness. In that era, if you opposed the war in Vietnam, you were a communist sympathizer. Only communist dupes supported racial integration and ending Jim Crow. Etc. So the mere fact that you’re being called a subversive does not justify wholesale violations of the First Amendment.

            If someone really is a subversive — Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden — that’s different. But we already have policies in place for that.

    2. “The only thing that has changed is what speech is considered beyond the pale.”

      “…whatsoever person or persons shall…in a reproachful manner or Way declare call or denominate any person or persons…an heritick, Scismatick, Idolator, puritan, Independant, Prespiterian popish prest, Jesuite, Jesuited papist, Lutheran, Calvenist, Anabaptist, Brownist, Antinomian, Barrowist, Roundhead, Separatist, or any other name or terme in a reproachfull manner relating to matter of Religion shall for every such Offence forfeit and loose the somme of tenne shillings sterling…But if such person or persons who shall at any time utter or speake any such reproachfull words or Language shall not have Goods or Chattells sufficient and overt within this Province to bee taken to satisfie the penalty aforesaid or that the same bee not otherwise speedily satisfyed, that then the person or persons soe offending shalbe publickly whipt, and shall suffer imprisonment without baile or maineprise [bail] untill hee, shee or they respectively shall satisfy the party soe offended or greived by such reproachfull Language by asking him or her respectively forgivenes publiquely for such his Offence before the Magistrate of cheife Officer or Officers of the Towne or place where such Offence shalbe given.”

  13. If the authors are arguing that schools can override constitutional rights whenever they feel disrupted by a student’s expression, are they also arguing that schools, are they willing to follow the conclusion to its logical end? Under a broad interpretation of the first amendment, almost anything, even just sitting in, is speech and covered by the first amendment.

    Would the authors be willing to accept the obvious corollary that if white students feel their educational experience is being disrupted by black students being present and sitting in on campus, the exception to the First Amendment justifes banning this disruptive behavior?

  14. “Miami Univ. (Ohio)”

    Well, the statement was about what I would expect from people who would fall for that.

    1. TwelveInchPianist: I’m afraid I’m missing something here.

      1. Miami? That’s Florida! You can’t fool 12″.

      2. “TwelveInchPianist: I’m afraid I’m missing something here.”

        You don’t think the people who go there, or took jobs there, thought they were going to Florida?

        1. Oh, I get it now, thanks!

    2. The school in Florida is the University of Miami, and is 116 years younger than the one in Ohio. Who fell for what?

      1. Of course, the kicker to all this is that Miami University’s main campus is in Oxford, renamed from “College Township” in 1810.

  15. The fallacy of a college run by liberal art types. Notice how there are no engineering schools in the debate of what can and can’t be said or on the concept of discrimination …. kids are too busy studying to pass tests or they get kicked out of the program. Engineering schools are known for their blatant discrimination against persons who cannot grasp fundamentals of calculus, differential equations, material sciences, etc. The overt act of discrimination against these left side brain types provides a constant second year feed of business majors.

    Note that the clown who pretend to be scholars of the law are unlikely to succeed in engineering. The pass rate on the Bar exam is far higher than on the professional engineering exam. No one flunks out of law school if tuition is paid.

    Great legal minds of USSA can not provide for the basic needs of society. Parasites. If there was something of substance to study in liberal arts besides anarchy, the degree might be worth something. Lawyers are simply marxist foot soldiers.

    1. All government funding, privileges, and subsidies to these parasite, treason indoctrination schools should be terminated in the second Trump administration.

  16. Semi-OT question: Been reading The S.S. Officer’s Armchair, which is pretty interesting, but the author’s political correctness is annoying. For instance, in tracing the Nazi’s parents back to Reconstruction New Orleans, he constantly says “enslaved person” instead of “slave”, and refers to slave owners as “enslavers”, which is wrong, since en-anything means someone who does it — engraver, for instance. The enslavers were the original, probably African, people who kidnapped someone and sold them. It’s like calling a jewelry salesman an engraver because he sells engraved products.

    Has this crap been going on for a while? It’s really annoying, like he’s puffing himself up to avoid being canceled, signalling his virtue credentials.

      1. Thanks! I had no idea:

        The heightened delicacy of enslaved person—the men and women it describes are humans first, commodities second

        Heightened delicacy my ass! Sounds like something only woke white racists could come up with, to assuage their fragile white guilt.

        Your article is from 2015, but this is the first time I’ve encountered the terminology. I think my author is not very clear on what it actually means, that it was just a short unthinking hop from “enslaved person” to “enslaver” without understand what the “en” prefix actually means.

        The book also seems to be trying to psychoanalyze every single thing he can dig up on this Nazi’s life in light of his becoming a Nazi. Great-grandpa was a slaver owner? See the tie! He bought furniture that reminded him of his grandmother’s favorite chair? See the link from slave-owning grandparents to budding Nazi!

        Gaakk. The book would be a lot more interesting without all this overthinking, but it would also be a lot shorter, and he wouldn’t have had a chance to show his own guilt for being the grandson of a WW II bomber crewman.

        (The book is about a chair bought used by a student in Czechoslovakia in 1968, brought with her to The Netherlands when she emigrated much later, and when reupholstered in 2015, the cushion was found to be stuffed with documents belonging to the Nazi SS lawyer.)

    1. You know it’s well-entrenched when Jews, who own the media, have to fall in line, too. Just today I heard a sportswriter named Schumann spontaneously apologize for using the phrase, “13-man pitching staff.” He goes, “sorry, 13 person.”

  17. Putting their intention to ignore rights in writing will help the college’s victims collect later.

  18. Plenty of big talk on free expression from a blog that repeatedly censors non-conservatives for offenses ranging from making fun of conservatives to using terms such as “c@p succ@r” and “sl@ck-jawed.”

    Partisan hypocrites are among my favorite culture war casualties.

    1. Hi, Rev. You need to be terminated from this blog for your discriminatory remarks. Go to Miami U of Ohio, for your own comfort, or to Indiana U of Pennsylvania, or to Pittsburgh State of Kansas.

      1. Ask the proprietor to censor me. He’s done it before, more than once. Experience indicates you should identify the cause as ‘making fun of conservatives.’

        1. I feel threatened by your micro-aggressions.

        2. Your words are violence to me and people like me.

  19. Y’all are like three steps behind the curve. It’s BRA all the way down. Shoulda read Lawrence Auster, that Jewish racist.

  20. All -isms are folk statistics, mostly true, most of the time. They also change with reality. Dark skinned African immigrants outperformed whites in the 2010 Census. Now, a very dark skinned person is being chased by employers waving cash, and by admissions officers waving scholarships. -isms keep up to date. If you hire a black man to manage your finances, and a Jewish guy for your professional basketball team, you deserve the consequences. You twits will begin naming great black financiers and great Jewish basketball players. You will not run out of fingers, in contrast to the obverse lists with thousands of names, each.

    These college officials are imposing their denier ideology on the rest of the campus.

  21. As a public institution of higher education, Miami University should demonstrate moral courage when defending its interest in having an efficient and disruptive-free work environment. Student dismissal or employee termination should not be shied away from because of fear of First Amendment violations.

    “We should have the moral courage to defend our nation’s interest in having an efficient and disruption-free environment! We shouldn’t shy away from harsh measures for fear of violating some so-called laws! We shouldn’t let legal niceties prevent us from doing our duty!”
    I can almost hear Heinrich Himmler haranguing the members of the SS with this speech.

  22. Totally unrelated, but y’all are going to LOVE LOVE LOVE reading Gustafson v. Springfield, Inc., ___ A.3d ___, 2020 WL 5755493 (Pa. Super. Sept. 28, 2020). Commerce clause and the 10th amendment!

  23. Perhaps it’s time for universities to campaign for an Amendment 28 guaranteeing freedom from spoken or behavioral offense given by either non-Progressives or Progs not up-to-date on Diversity and Inclusion (TM) grievance lists.

    Either that or self-declare their campuses as Constitution-free autonomous zones run by Committees of Public Safety and Sensitivity.

  24. Maybe, just maybe, we could wait and see how the Miami University reacts to these recommendations before having, or, for that matter, provoking, another five-minute hate directed against all higher education.

    I realize that would spoil the fun, but still.

    1. No, the university does deserve scorn even if they don’t implement the recommendations because the university still paid for these recommendations and the office that gave them. It’s no small cost either: over the last few years my own university, ignoring the budget hole they were working themselves into, created redundant offices and administrative positions. If enough people had taken note ahead of time we wouldn’t have gotten into the position where the administration is threatening to cut funding for successful offices and programs so that they don’t have to admit that the new offices and positions were unnecessary.

  25. OMG. I can’t believe a public university published such a statement!

    I’m as troubled by the first sentence (“As a PUBLIC institution of higher education, Miami University should demonstrate MORAL COURAGE when defending ITS INTEREST in having an efficient and DISRUPTIVE-FREE work environment.”) as I am by the second: as a public institution, the University has whatever courage, moral or otherwise, that we as citizens deign to permit it to enjoy and has whatever work environment _we_ find most effective and least-disruptive to _our_ lives.

  26. Diversity sucks and tolerance is a one-way street.

    1. The more you learn about it, diverse it gets.

Please to post comments