Yesterday, FIRE took public one of its more outrageous cases: that of San Francisco State University (SFSU), where the College Republicans are to stand trial for stomping on Hamas and Hezbollah flags during a protest. The specific “offenses?” “Incitement” and creating a “hostile environment.”
Now, it’s well-known to just about everyone with any knowledge of the First Amendment that burning an American flag is protected political expression. We have to assume that SFSU knows this too, and has managed to reason out that if you can cause whatever damage you like to an American flag, you can certainly do the same to the flags of Hamas, Hezbollah, or any other country or organization. So, when Debra Saunders of the San Francisco Chronicle asked SFSU spokesperson Ellen Griffin why the complaint was being pursued, she got this answer: “I don’t believe the complaint is about the desecration of the flag. I believe that the complaint is the desecration of Allah.”
Yes, you heard it here first: an American public university has put students on trial for “desecrating” the Islamic word for God. This sets a truly horrifying precedent. SFSU has actually managed to reinstitute the blasphemy laws of the past, and apply them not just to religious speech (you may not say anything disrespectful towards a god or gods) but to political speech as well (disrespectful political expression intertwined with religious expression is off limits). In fact, SFSU has actually put in place a regime in which the Hamas and Hezbollah flags would receive more protection than the flag of our own nation, simply because they bear the name of a religious figure.
These are "good academic liberals" doing these things (at least I'm sure that is how they self-identify themselves.) The question I'm left with, is there ANY part of the Bill or Rights they actually understand? Or feel the slightest attachment towards?
I'm my mind I can almost hear them complaining:
"These damn college Republicans! Why can't they do something wholesome...like crapping on a crucifix?"
2 comments:
Open Letter to Debra J. Saunders
Please Report the Entire Free Speech Story
by Ian Thomas, Newspaper Editor
February 8, 2007 4:14 PM
Dear Debra J. Saunders,
My name is Ian Thomas. I am the Editor of The Golden Gate [X]press.
I continually appreciate your important and nuanced voice at the San Francisco Chronicle. Thank you for shedding more light on these important First Amendment issues looming at SF State.
It is important for you to know and note the context for which the situation was born. Last summer the General Union of Palestinian Students (GUPS) completed the process to send a mural to President Robert Corrigan for final approval. Associated Students Inc. had approved the mural through a democratic student government process by a 6-2 vote.
Corrigan blocked the mural from going up by immediately placing a moratorium on all new murals, stating the mural is “conflict-centered” and it “runs counter to values that we hope have taken deep root at San Francisco State, among them, pride in one’s own culture expressed without hostility or denigration of another.”
In an October meeting Corrigan reportedly called mural supporters "bigots," which is the same term some people give to say... the Minutemen, which the Repubs have also rallied for on campus. [X]press supports this expression as well.
A character in the mural, "Handala," by acclaimed Arab cartoonist Naji al-Ali is shown holding a pen and a key. The key represents the Palestinian "right of return" to what they deem their homeland. Some say that "right of return" represents the destruction of Israel. Through research and interviews I have found that Handala is a refugee child and is a used in many different contexts, depending on the specific use and the viewer. He is normally depicted as poor, with his hands held behind his back, sometimes he is shown throwing rocks.
See the story by Jason Shuffler at: http://xpress.sfsu.edu/archives/news/006759.html
The Golden Gate [X]press supports full freedom of expression to all members of our community, see: http://xpress.sfsu.edu/archives/editorials/007805.html
There is no difference between offensive speech of the Repubs stomping on flags containing the symbol for God or a Palestinian mural calling for a "right to return" in the eyes of the The Constitution. They are both protected expression.
[X]press has recommended that the Student Organization Hearing Panel, the Office of Student Programs and Leadership Development, ASI, and Corrigan dismiss any notion of sanctions against the Repubs.
We call on all stakeholders to drop double standards.
In the lead of your column "SF State- Heckers' Paradise" (2-8-07) you asked:
"What is San Francisco State University teaching that makes student leaders think that if they don't like what other students say, they can use student organizations to stifle those with dissenting views? Do they even know about the First Amendment?"
Excellent questions.
In my opinion the story didn't start with the Repubs, it started when Corrigan limited the free speech of GUPS and the democratic process of ASI. What is he teaching us? I, and many on this campus, posit that Corrigan has set a poor example by limiting expression when he and/or his advisers didn't like what the mural had to say.
Yes, it was a hypocritical move for ASI to pass a resolution condemning the Repubs for offensive speech. It would now be hypocritical if SOHP and Corrigan do not pass sanctions against the Repubs. This is convoluted due to Corrigan, our president, limiting free expression of GUPS.
It is time for everyone to step back, think, and correct these mistakes.
As a respected member of the San Francisco and national community, I trust that you will further consider, research and report this complex and important story that strikes at the very foundation of freedom of expression and education in our country.
Mrs. Saunders, please help us encourage a truly open marketplace of ideas in the grand tradition of open debate, discussion, and democracy at SF State.
I eagerly await your response.
Sadly, it doesn't surprise me that the administration at SF State has been "1st Amendment challenged" before this incidence. I am continually amazed that supposedly intelligent and educated people can be so obtuse as to not see that restrictions on free speech in no way lead to more civil discourse. In fact the opposite is the result every time.
In effect they are saying, "We are taking away your rights because they aren't good for you."
Who is buying this junk?
Post a Comment