The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Emerson College "[D]erecogniz[es] TPUSA Chapter After Publicly Denouncing Its 'China Kinda Sus' Stickers"
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (Graham Piro) reports:
The controversy arose after the group distributed stickers reading "China Kinda Sus" on campus—stickers that the administration, after initially suspending the group, later conceded were intended to criticize China's government, not its people. Not that it would matter, as either criticism would still be protected under Emerson's firm promises to protect freedom of expression, which make no exception for speech others view as hateful. But the group's intent didn't stop the administration from jumping to publicly denounce TPUSA in September for "anti-Asian bigotry and hate," nor did it stop the administration from then placing a "Formal Warning" on the group's record, asserting that it had to do so because of the "pervasive environment of anti-Asian discrimination"—by other people.
It'd be a real shame if all of these public condemnations had an impact on the reputation of the group, thus chilling faculty or staff from being willing to work with them, huh?
Unsurprisingly, that is just what happened. Emerson has now removed the group's recognition as an official student organization, purportedly because the group cannot find a full-time faculty member to serve as an advisor after their previous advisor stepped away in the wake of the stickers controversy. This derecognition comes despite the group reaching out to more than 50 full-time faculty members and getting no interest in advising it. Multiple part-time faculty members have expressed interest—but they are not eligible to be advisors under Emerson's policies.
Unrecognized groups do not have "access to funds or ability to reserve space," cannot use Emerson's image or likeness, and are not eligible for Emerson Recognition and Achievement awards….
To sum up: Emerson's administration publicly denounced the group, issued the group a formal warning for criticizing China's government, and is now revoking the group's recognition because no faculty members or staff want to be involved with it.
Some of the reluctance doubtlessly stems from faculty members' personal objections to the group or its protected speech, including the stickers. That's consistent with Emerson's recognition of expressive freedom, as individual faculty members possess their own expressive freedom to decline to associate with a group. But Emerson cannot condition a student group's recognition on the subjective approval of any number of faculty. And that's pointedly so where the administration has placed its thumbs on the scales, either through denouncing the group—after all, if unintentionally violating Emerson's policies gets the group in trouble, why would a faculty member risk voluntarily sticking their neck out and becoming embroiled in further sanctions from the college—or through refusing to assign a staff member to serve as an advisor….
For more, read the whole piece, which also links to FIRE's more detailed letters to Emerson.
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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Could potential faculty advisers have been dissuaded by the administration's attitude?
Yes, that's exactly what was argued. Since you obviously didn't read all the way through, here's the quote:
But Emerson cannot condition a student group's recognition on the subjective approval of any number of faculty. And that's pointedly so where the administration has placed its thumbs on the scales, either through denouncing the group—after all, if unintentionally violating Emerson's policies gets the group in trouble, why would a faculty member risk voluntarily sticking their neck out and becoming embroiled in further sanctions from the college—or through refusing to assign a staff member to serve as an advisor….
David B,
Why would a professor do this? Because she/he believes in the First Amendment...I can easily see a professor volunteer to be such an advisor. A non-tenured teacher? Almost certainly not. But a professor already with full tenure? Absolutely. My sister is a full professor at McGill. She says that tenured faculty routinely step on toes in her small department. For something as minor as this; at most, other faculty and administrators would roll their eyes and question your choice to volunteer. That's a million miles away from risking any harm to their teaching career. (If Eugene [or other VC law professors] correct me, then I can be persuaded to change my mind . . . maybe actual risk varies from university to university, and maybe there are American universities where such a professor would indeed suffer negative consequences.)
De-privilege, defund, de-accredit Emerson. Seize its assets in civil forfeiture for fraud. Zero tolerance for woke
At least the university is consistent about not tolerating any criticism of authoritarian institutions such as China and Emerson....
Eugene - this is what we call "burying the lede." The headline you've chosen for this piece omits any reference to the fact that the student organization was de-recognized because it no longer meets the formal requirements for recognition under the university's rules.
So what's the problem?
What would FIRE have Emerson do, instead? Create a special exception for organizations that are unable to attract the support of a single full-time professor? Force someone to support the organization?
It's a political astroturf operation, Eugene. They'll get by without a portion of student fees and can meet wherever they like.
Yes, you assign someone. You don't have to agree with an organization to advise them. I really doubt the organization really needs a lot of advising anyway. Most the time it's about how to navigate campus bureaucracy.
FIRE seems to believe that faculty members with no interest in assisting TPUSA should be free to abstain from doing so. Why are you anti-freedom?
The problem is the "full time professor" requirement is essentially being used as a heckler's veto and not a legitimate administrative requirement. Universities are using it as a backdoor excuse.
"Hey I know we demonized this controversial student group to the extent that no sane faculty member would ever think about signing up to voluntarily be its advisor, but no advisor means no student group, and that is a content neutral regulations so our job here is done...."
They ignore the fact that there are least disruptive alternatives available like assigning a faculty member or another member of the university community who can fill the role of the advisor (for which you usually don't need to be a full blown professor to be the "adult" in the room for an undergrad student org).
This is like arguing that an audience that gets up and files out of the room, during a speaker's lecture, is engaged in a "heckler's veto." No, the speaker is not entitled to an audience. TPUSA is not entitled to a faculty adviser, if none willingly come forward.
I don't know why they have this administrative requirement, but given that they do, it's only fair to expect TPUSA to comply with it if they want recognition and the special status that confers. The fact that no professor apparently wants to be associated with TPUSA's speech or practices is no one's fault but TPUSA's.
"The fact that no professor apparently wants to be associated with TPUSA's speech or practices is no one's fault but TPUSA's."
But that is where you are (arguably) wrong, Bucko.
Sans the ridiculous smear the admin dis on TPUSA and the Sus stickers, you would have a stronger position.
Given that the Uni blasted a Scarlet R(acism) on TPUSA [and then fairly quietly took it off after everyone left the room thinking TPUSA was just a weird way to spell KKK] it is sort of the Uni's fault that faculty won't touch TPUSA with a 10' pole. And THAT is the problem. And that is NOT something that can be blamed on TPUSA as they did nothing wrong (in this particular case).
We have no way of knowing all of this. Pure speculation.
Um... did you not read the article?
We can not know if the Uni behavior impacted faculty. But it is very probable. In fact, TPUSA used to have a sponsor. Then... all the facts listed above happened re: treatment of TPUSA.
You are giving the benefit of the doubt towards the party that ALREADY showed bad faith (the Uni). That seems... naive?
You are also just speculating that everyone is acting as though nothing happened between TPUSA having a sponsor and now not (which, again... not really a true position since we do know, not speculatively either, that certain events did happen that smeared TPUSA).
'member that crazy lady elected as town clerk, and she refused to approve marriage licenses for gay couples, and the legal issue came out that government may not deny rights simply because it cannot find someone to fulfill it?
Good times. Assign a professor, or waive the rule.
Or give them a million dollars in a lawsuit, what do you care, government official? It's not your money.
Eh it's private, nevermind.
I remember the town clerk but the holding I remember is different than the one you made up in your head.
You seem to be carefully ignoring the fact that but for the administration's unethical violation of it's own policies, the group would have had no trouble retaining its advisor.
What FIRE would have Emerson do is a) withdraw their denunciation, b) retract the "Formal Warning", c) apologize to the organization, the community and the prior advisor, d) make a public commitment to not make such pejorative (and factually wrong) accusations in the future, and then e) give the group a grace period to find a new advisor. But the clock on step E doesn't get to start until A thru D are completed.
And what if no one steps forward to advise, after all that kabuki theater? TPUSA's just SOL, and FIRE moves on?
Given all the things that had to happen prior to that, it would seem to make sense that TPUSA will have slowly gone from disfavored to neutral where it should have always been. At which point life happens. Not all groups get sponsored... this is true. And it sucks sometimes.
But having that happen in an environment where what could be done to restore TPUSA's name and rep was done is vastly different from smearing them and THEN saying "But them's the rules."
" give the group a grace period to find a new advisor."
It seems appropriate for the college president to volunteer to be the new adviser.
I used to donate to WERS, the school's radio station. It has far fewer ads than commercial radio or NPR. They probably won't notice that I've stopped. The group needs to lobby a rich alum to get reinstated.
Since China is incredibly sus, isn't it charitable to say that China is only "kinda" sus?
So how much money does Emerson get from Communist China?
Inquiring minds want to know.
This is why it is important to always print stickers large enough to say "Communist China".
All woke serves the interests of the Chinese Commie Party. Zero tolerance for woke since it is treason.
The problem is that the administration's actions, which ran contrary to its obligations to free speech, have created a predictable chilling effect.
They'll get by without a portion of student fees and can meet wherever they like. - remember that when it's your pet cause or group that gets treated that way.
I know this is changing but since Europe and America are still mostly white if you criticize anything their governments do does that mean you are an antiwhite racist?
FIRE has set up emersonkindasus.com. It's worth watching the video. It seems that about a third of the members are Asian, which makes the claim they are anti-Asian pretty sus.
The two students in the video say they had drinks spilled on them and were made unwelcome at other campus organizations. Because tolerance, I guess.
Poor little snowflakes...in my day, our college fraternity made members sleep naked in a meat freezer. If they survived, their medical expenses would be covered; if they died, the other members would have to cook and eat the dead.
And we liked it...we loved it!
And some of them had brains which tasted fresh and new, because they'd never been used.
I find it alarming the number of people online that seem to be OK or actually say the student's "deserved" being assaulted with drinks. I suspect if you were to flip the script and a bunch of BLM people got the same treatment you would hear nothing but "racism!" and "hate crime!"
Go read Herbert Marcuse's Repressive Tolerance.
To the left... this is what they actually mean by tolerance.
Let's see...here's the free-expression policy. It actually seems to have loopholes:
"As an institution dedicated to Communication and the Arts, the first amendment of the US Constitution is of high importance. The right to freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of political belief and affiliation, freedom from discrimination, freedom of peaceful assembly, and petition of redress or grievances is not only a right but a community responsibility. It is equally important that all community members be granted the right to be free from improper and illegal discrimination on the basis of race, color, ethnicity, national origin, gender, gender identity, gender expression, genetic information, religion, political views, sexual orientation, age, sex, military or other uniformed service, disability or any other characteristic protected under applicable local, state, or federal law. Please see Policy Against Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation.
"The College encourages students to present ideas, express their individuality and culture, and be open to thoughts or life styles that differ from their own. The College expects all students will present themselves in a respectful manner that does not endanger, threaten, or infringe on the rights of others. The College also expects students will not conduct themselves in a manner that will infringe on another individual’s education or the mission of the College. Students that fail to meet these expectations can be referred to the Student Conduct Process. Please see the College’s Policy on Demonstrations for more information."
That seems to leave wiggle room for banning a group which engages in what a public statement of the college called "anti-Asian bigotry and hate."
And there's the quite separate issue that they can't find a faculty advisor (/sarc).
They don't seem to have a student-organization list which is available to the general public, but the student paper said there's an edgy comedy troupe. If you send them helpful suggestions for jokes, sooner or later they'll be bound to say something which gets a reaction.
(Please note that the above comment is itself a joke)
Unrecognized groups do not have "access to funds or ability to reserve space," cannot use Emerson's image or likeness, and are not eligible for Emerson Recognition and Achievement awards….
Not having the ability to reserve space seem silly, but the other restrictions on unrecognized groups don't seem unreasonable.
But Emerson cannot condition a student group's recognition on the subjective approval of any number of faculty.
Of course it can. If it hadn't been for all the stupidity by the administration no one would think that was at all remarkable. The school has about 150 tenured and tenure track faculty. Is it unreasonable to say that to enjoy certain privileges a group must find one faculty member to "advise" it, whatever that means?
And that's pointedly so where the administration has placed its thumbs on the scales, either through denouncing the group—after all, if unintentionally violating Emerson's policies gets the group in trouble, why would a faculty member risk voluntarily sticking their neck out and becoming embroiled in further sanctions from the college—or through refusing to assign a staff member to serve as an advisor….
This is the stupidity I referred to. I suspect their (well-merited) hostility to TPUSA led them to behave thoughtlessly.
Indeed, why would a faculty member want to be pilloried in the media for advising a group which the administration has accused of "anti-Asian bigotry and hate"? Even if they had tenure, they wouldn't want Twitter, etc. to call them racists, on behalf of a group they may not even like.
Of course, one could say this is just administrators using their free speech, and faculty reacting to it.
Which would make this a problem, not of squelching free speech, but of abusing free speech (by the administration).
“nor did it stop the administration from then placing a "Formal Warning" on the group's record, asserting that it had to do so because of the "pervasive environment of anti-Asian discrimination"—by other people.”
They must’ve been referring to the Harvard university admissions committee.
Emerson, kinda sus.
Emerson, like China, kinda sus indeed.
The "no advisor, no club" paradigm is a easy way to ban any "troubling" conservative group.
In the words of USMC hero Chesty Puller, "hit 'em where they ain't".
Do a more carefully worded sticker:
ChiCom
Stooges
Suck
"Stooges" being a reference to Emerson administrators
Silly little people. Whine all you want. WE wrote the rules, WE can break them.....selectively, of course.
You don't think there needs to be some kind of "gatekeeping" function, when it comes to recognition of student groups, which brings the entitlement to various benefits?
I don't know why Emerson has this specific requirement, but one could imagine that a function that a faculty advisor could serve, for a student group, is ensuring that they are a "serious" group, actually putting the resources provided by the college to good use, pursuing their "mission" in an at least semi-good faith way, etc. Emerson's policies require a monthly check-in with the advisor, which seems in line with wanting the advisor to serve a more substantive role in guiding a group's activities.
I dunno, can you *not* rent out the room?
I am not sure I get your point. A consistently freedom-oriented approach would allow both bakers and landlords to serve / rent to whoever they like and no one else.
I'm not here to run the Socratic for you, sorry.
No.
That argument is so circular you can calculate its circumference to ten decimal places. The administration has made it clear that the TPUSA chapter is officially disfavored, leading to no faculty member being willing to take the obvious risk of retaliation by sponsoring the group. Therefore, the administration says, the group doesn't meet the requirements for official recognition.
Now, I've been saying for awhile that student groups should just forego official recognition. There must be plenty of private venues that would happily host their events, and then the wokesters would have no more control over who can speak. It could even be a first step toward forklifting the actual university part of the university over the fence and away from the woke wormtongues of the bloated administration.
'That argument is so circular you can calculate its circumference to ten decimal places.' This is par for the course for SP.
The sophistic, on the other hand, you hand covered, eh?