Oh, let’s just ignore the United States Constitution. Its bothersome protections of free speech are hampering the wokeification of American universities.
And we certainly would not want reporters at student-run media outlets to educate themselves about basic matters of free speech law. So much easier to just run an item about the passage of a resolution by a college’s student government association that will ask the university to suspend any student organization that engages in “hate speech” than to pause and consider that there might be costly legal ramifications for a state-run university that adopted such a policy.
Today’s example of sloppy reporting on crucial matters of free speech and open exchange of ideas is an April 14, 2022 news story in the University of North Texas student publication, the North Texas Daily. Entitled, SGA passes anti-hate speech resolution it tells us that:
The Student Government Association unanimously voted on Wednesday to pass a resolution that will ask the university to suspend any student organization that engages in hate speech.
First of all, “hate speech” is a fuzzy, highly subjective concept and, oh by the way, is protected by the First Amendment—especially at a state school, such as the University of North Texas.
Even one of the student senators who voted for this blatantly unconstitutional resolution acknowledged this—but indicated that he had no problem with trying to circumvent fundamentals tenets of constitutional law:
“We’re just going from the First Amendment, which we can’t do in the Student Government Association, to actually what we can implement with student policy…”
That pesky Bill of Rights!
And what group is behind this attempt to crush free speech at the University of North Texas? Three guesses. Bingo! The transgenderist movement.
The resolution, S2022-R6, is entitled, Trans Existence is Not a Debate.
Wow--the transgenderist movement is telling everyone in academia that there is nothing more to debate about the queer quest for a wholescale revision of the understanding of the very core of human biology. The message to American parents and other concerned parties--like their fellow students is, "Shut up--we rule."
Thus, if you are say, a woman who does not want to be forced to say that a man who prances around in skirts and wears tons of mascara and lipstick and demands to be deemed a woman your student organization could be banned under this resolution—which passed unanimously. That suggests how dismal the state of knowledge about fundamentals of constitutional law is among the members of the University of North Texas Student Government Association—which is rather alarming in that student government associations are the training ground for young people interested in, you know, government and therefore, um, constitutional law. Does no one teach the subject at their institution?
The student activist behind the resolution says:
We spoke with a lot of faculty members
Hmm, apparently none that know anything about constitutional law.
The activists also seem to think that a state university can simply ignore the First Amendment, as long as doing so is “university policy”
The authors of the resolution addressed their approach to focus on university policy, which included striking the proposed legislation sections that pertained to the First Amendment issues since those are not controlled by university policy.
Oh, like the courts are going to buy that and say, “Oh no problem, state-funded University of North Texas. You just go ahead and trash the First Amendment. Okay by us!” Don’t think so…
We also learn that:
A new clause was also added to the bill to include what the university code of conduct defines as harassment, and how some university students are not satisfied with the university’s response to recent actions by an organization on campus. This dissatisfaction was expressed through several protests before spring break.
What is the “harassment” referred to there? Attempts by their fellow students to speak out against the quackery of performing gender-altering surgery on children. (The left calls it “gender affirming,” which is an Orwellian distortion of what is actually occurring in such cases.) That is the speech that these activists are attempting to shut down, to define as “harassment” and “hate speech.” Speaking in favor of laws that protect young children from permanent injury from such “treatments” is not hate speech. Speaking out against the erasure of the word “woman” in favor of nonsensical terminology as “trans woman” is not hate speech.
But that is what the ignorant young people at the University of North Texas seem to think hate speech is and they are willing to invite lawsuits against their school that it would, very expensively, lose.
These young student government types are so eager to appease the transgenderist movement that they spend hours in meetings designing a resolution that asks the college to adopt a policy that would be an unconstitutional restriction on speech by a state institution and that, if implemented and challenged in court, would be struck down. But hey, what are years of litigation the costs of which would be shouldered by taxpayers all to appease the ignorant young activist who was congratulated by her equally dunderheaded peers on passage of this ill-advised and tyrannical resolution? It’s all in the name of “diversity” and “tolerance.”
Should we care what a group of students at a relatively obscure institution of higher education spend their time doing in their student government bodies? Yes, because it is scary to think how little they care about free speech and how in hock they are to the sexuality-obsessed corners of wokedom and how eager they are to ostracize fellow students who show the courage to oppose them.
Funny how the “marginalized” are so eager to ban organizations that stand up for the rights of children. What person is more marginal than a confused young girl who is being urged to be surgically altered in order to find her “true self?” That is what the transgenderist movement fights for and woe betide anyone who protests against such barbarism. At the University of North Texas, any organization whose members engaged in such speech would find it classified as “hate speech” and would be banned if the university actually adopted what this resolution demands.
Luckily, this resolution will probably quietly die given that any sane college administration would not touch it with a ten-foot pole and public opinion is turning against the wacky woke.
But we need to monitor this anti-free-speech mindset among college students whose favorite form of virtue signaling at this point is passing anti-free speech measures in student government bodies.