The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) today lifted Dartmouth's "red" free-speech rating, its worst ranking, declaring that the College no longer has a speech code.
The change was prompted by a May 2 letter from College Counsel Robert Donin which declared that President James Wright's and Dean of the College James Larimore's previous statements in regards to the Zeta Psi case did not represent "a binding statement on College policy."
Wright's 2001 letter stated that "[i]t is hard to understand why some want still to insist that their 'right' to do what they want trumps the rights, feelings, and considerations of others. We need to recognize that speech has consequences for which we must account." The letter has since been removed from the Dartmouth website.
Monday, May 09, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
This seems awfully presumptuous--for a number of reasons. Alas, I'm on my way out of the office and cannot post on this until tomorrow.
Victory! Dartmouth has secured FIRE's blessing!
Didn't FIRE say just last week that it wasn't going to change Dartmouth's rating until Zete was re-recognized?
Am I missing something? Zete hasn't been re-recognized, has it?
According to this morning's D,
"David French, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, said yesterday that the organization would improve Dartmouth's free speech rating from a poor 'red light' to the highest rating, a 'green light.'"
...
"'Under no stretch of the imagination could we say that Dartmouth has a speech code now,' French said."
...
"'There's nothing that we have seen in the policies that would give anyone any pause for speaking their mind,' he added, noting that the only exceptions are those forms of speech not allowed under the first amendment."
Amazing. It looks like either the biggest backpedaling I've seen lately, or like the Dartmouth administration has some compromising photographs sitting around. I wonder what Emmett's take is on all of this.
Forgot the zinger at the end of the article: "Both Wright and Larimore still stand behind their statements regarding the actions of Zete brothers in their letters supporting Zete's derecognition after derogatory and allegedly defamatory remarks appeared in that fraterntity's newsletter."
this is total crap. as long as zete remains derecognized, dartmouth will always have a speech code. it's only a loophole in FIRE's standards that allowed the college to get the green rating.
Anonymous said "as long as zete remains derecognized, dartmouth will always have a speech code."
The Zete derecognition is at most a single precedential decision, not a code (i.e. a system of rules). Any code that you have to infer or extrapolate just isn't a code.
If Emmett said that the letters from administrators constituted a "speech code," and that the school should get rid of its "speech code," then he must say (as did his beloved FIRE and its "Harvard-educated lawyer, thank you very much" David French) that the removal of the letters represents a victory for free speech.
One can't have it both ways, first complaining about the letters and then criticizing their removal as "secret" or "mysterious" or "shadowy" as some people (not necessarily Emmett) have done.
Anonymous, exactly what "loophole in FIRE's standards" would it be that allowed the college to get the green rating?
Well, in a sense it is a victory for free speech. Not a major one, or a total one, but if Dartmouth is retracting those letters (though not openly) and being forced to publicly justify its treatment of "speech," that's something...
...I'm just not sure what.
FIRE seems to have said "on these facts, Dartmouth has a speech code and represses free expression," and now it's saying the opposite, but I'm not clear on what has changed about the facts known to FIRE.
The coolest thing of all is that FIRE deliberately waited until the election was over to change its rating based on an article and a removal of a letter that occurred midway through the election. I've got to really respect an organization like that for standing on principal.
The Dartmouth quotes Donin as saying the two letters, which were on the college website for several years, were left there due to an oversight and were not meant to remain on the website for any length of time. Kind of like noticing your Christrmas lights are still up on Labor Day. How embarrassing, if true.
I have enjoyed reading your comments, but I must say that I'm a bit dismayed by any allegation that FIRE has backpedaled. Alston wrote me a thoughtful e-mail that I have posted and responded to on FIRE's blog. Take a look:
I hope this post addresses your concerns and demonstrates that we have not and will not give Dartmouth a free pass on free speech.
You're dismayed that a couple of fringe types on a conservative weblog express disapproval of your actions?
Man, FIRE is even more wacky and irrelevant than I thought.
I'd say charitable, rather than "wacky and irrelevant."
If it is the case that "Speechcodes.org evaluates formal policies, not the free speech culture of the school (which is difficult to objectively define) or individual speech-restrictive actions (which are dealt with through FIRE?s complaint process)." then I take back my suggestion of backpedaling.
I was under the mistaken impression that speechcodes.org evaluated free speech culture, or at least read between the lines a bit more. I can see why it would make sense not to do this. If you are calling an institution to account based on written policies, those are difficult to hide from. If you're "evaluating culture," then yours is just a subjective opinion like everyone else's and you're easily dismissed.
As the narrative in Alston's letter shows, the way the administration has dealt with particular incidents reflects a de facto speech code, whether or not it happens to be written down. FIRE has done the school a service by forcing the general counsel to publicly defend the school's policies and forcing the president and others to publicly say that Dartmouth supports free speech.
Even so, I'm not sure that they're less likely to deal with future instances of politically incorrect humor coming from fraternities any differently from the way they've done in the past. As the FIRE article says, "is Dartmouth really free? Only time will tell."
If time tells me what I think it will, I'm sending my kids elsewhere.
The coolest thing of all is that FIRE deliberately waited until the election was over to change its rating based on an article and a removal of a letter that occurred midway through the election. I've got to really respect an organization like that for standing on principal.
Anonymous, you seem so sure here.... I'd love to hear your evidence on this.
You're dismayed that a couple of fringe types on a conservative weblog express disapproval of your actions?
Man, FIRE is even more wacky and irrelevant than I thought.
Assuming this is the same Anonymous I've sparred with before: you're hardly one to criticize David French for paying attention to what students say on a weblog. You're practically a regular here yourself.... And besides, isn't it ordinarily a good thing when people take the time to explain their positions?
Don't know if Emmett thinks that Anonymous is me, but I fully support FIRE's change to green with an asterisk.
It clearly appears that the speech code is now "double secretly" derecognised, just like Zete was: without due process of law. However, like any dictatorial junta in any banana republic, operating outside the rule of law, it still appears the administration culture is steadfastly anti-speech, seeking only the next heinous pretext to bring the hammer down.
It is interesting that a so-called "special interest" is more open, honest, fair and balanced than a so-called "liberal arts college".
Post a Comment