Campuses as Faux Nations

Item request has been placed! ×
Item request cannot be made. ×
loading   Processing Request
Read Online Read More Add to Saved list
  • Author(s): La Noue, George R.
  • Language:
    English
  • Source:
    Academic Questions. 2021 34(3):48-53.
  • Publication Date:
    2021
  • Document Type:
    Journal Articles
    Reports - Evaluative
  • Additional Information
    • Availability:
      National Association of Scholars. 420 Madison Avenue 7th Floor, New York, NY 10017. Tel: 917-551-6770; e-mail: [email protected]; Web site: https://www.nas.org/academic-questions
    • Peer Reviewed:
      Y
    • Source:
      6
    • Education Level:
      Higher Education
      Postsecondary Education
    • Subject Terms:
      College Students; College Environment; Civil Rights; Academic Freedom; Student Rights; Freedom of Speech; Search and Seizure; Constitutional Law; Court Litigation; School Policy; Policy Formation
    • ISSN:
      0895-4852
      1936-4709
    • Abstract:
      The problem is the widespread practice by many campuses in defining community membership in ways that deny their students the civil liberties and civil rights all other Americans are guaranteed. Thus, when forty-year old veterans enroll for even one part-time course, they may find that First and Fourteenth Amendment rights existing off campus no longer apply to them as students. They may seem to have joined a different nation with various sets of ambiguous rules. Some campuses place those sanctions not only on campus-based actions, but on social media comments made in the distant past as well. The reality is that there are more than 3,000 campuses in the United States. The efforts by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), Speech First, and other organizations have been essential in establishing legal precedents and at least providing temporary relief to victims of speech suppression on various campuses. But the new judicial openness to holding campus authorities accountable through the imposition of personal damages offers an alternative to the "whack a mole" approach now used. In this article, George La Noue argues to create damage precedents, litigation will have to be more time consuming and expensive requiring attorney fees to be sought when cases are won. Extensive discovery and depositions with the creators of speech suppression policies will be necessary. Who drafted the policy and which administrators and board members reviewed it? What role did campus activists or outside groups play in policy design? Was legal counsel involved and what was their advice? Given that sort of record, a court can determine whether damages should be assessed, how much they should be, and who should pay them? When those sorts of precedents are established, more responsible speech policies consistent with constitutional rights in higher education nationwide will start to be seen.
    • Abstract:
      ERIC
    • Publication Date:
      2022
    • Accession Number:
      EJ1332749