I see the SDSU Collegian (College Newspaper) is declaring that State Rep. Michael Clark’s Campus Free Speech Bill HB 1073 “imposes unnecessary standards” upon State universities, and that “the bill is unnecessary, unclear and uninformed.“
It’s awfully nice of the Student Newspaper to toe the Board of Regent’s company line & pretend such things don’t happen in South Dakota. But they do.
In fact, they even happen at SDSU.
As was related to me by someone who was one of the affected students, I believe it was in 2006 at the SDSU Hobo Day Parade in one of the weeks shortly preceding the very contentious vote in the statewide election on whether or not South Dakota should ban abortion, there was an incident that showed why free speech on campuses is deserving of our attention.
As it went, the campus organization SDSU Students for Life had a parade float all lined up and ready to enter the Hobo Day parade. As related to me, I was told an SDSU Instructor who was actively opposing the abortion ban decided to blocked the truck pulling the parade float in an effort to prevent the float from entering the parade. And as one of the participants on the float told me, the faculty member’s action caused them to miss their entrance, and they could not be let in. Because of their position on life, someone with an opposing view blocked them from participating in a campus activity.
Yes, it was 12 years or so ago now, and none of the students were able to raise much of a stink about it happening. But, it happened. Those student’s free speech along with their parade float was blocked by someone who didn’t agree.
Despite the Collegian’s poo-poohing of the need for free speech protections, as noted in a recent article from the Washington Free Beacon, there are those affiliated with the university system who agree with Representative Clark that free speech is worth protecting:
The argument of many observers, from the avowedly nonpartisan FIRE to such rabble-rousing speakers as Milo Yiannopoulos, is that such attempts to take both sides inevitably end up in the victory of those who want censorship. Only the fullest defense of free speech can keep the idea of “hate speech” and the tyranny of hurt feelings from banishing all except preapproved ideas.
“The way one assesses the truth or falsity of one’s own opinions is to engage rationally and directly with those who may profess other views—indeed, especially with those who strongly disagree with your views,” said William D. Richardson, distinguished emeritus professor of politics at the University of South Dakota. “If our opinions prove inadequate and flawed after intensive, respectful, civil debate, we are well-advised to modify them or find better, stronger, more persuasive evidence to support them.”
Scheduled to testify in Pierre during the legislature’s consideration of the college free-speech bill this week, Richardson wrote to say, “If the passionate, partisan turmoil of the past couple of decades demonstrates anything, it is that democratic citizenship requires as much critical, independent thought as we can possibly cultivate in each new generation of young people.”
Read it all here.
And Dr. Richardson is correct. Our citizenship requires as much critical, independent thought as we can possibly cultivate in each new generation of young people. Not pooh-poohing.
The thing about free speech is that anyone can claim that it’s already free in a public arena such as a University setting. Until that one time it isn’t. And by the time people realize what happened, then it’s too late.
House Bill 1073 should be up for debate in House Judiciary this week. Keep an eye on this bill.
