Senate Vote on Free Speech Measure House Bill 1087. Democrats block voted, joined by Blare, Cammack, Curd against measure.

Pat Powers

The vote on the House Bill 1087, the Free Speech act, has been posted on the Legislative Research Council’s website this evening.

Democrats led by State Senator Troy Heinert, including Senators Wismer, Nesiba, and Kennedy were joined by Republican State Senators Blare, Cammack and Curd in casting “no” votes against the free speech measure which was passed with otherwise overwhelming support of the State Senate.

The bill, in its latest form, was a negotiated compromise between legislators, the state board of regents, and was amended with the blessing of the Governor’s office to protect the freedom of speech for those attending state supported schools.

In their final act on the measure today, Senators amended the title to “promote free speech and intellectual diversity at certain institutions of higher education,” adding free speech to the official title.

The bill now moves back to the State House for concurrence.

31 thoughts on “Senate Vote on Free Speech Measure House Bill 1087. Democrats block voted, joined by Blare, Cammack, Curd against measure.”

  1. A couple of comments:

    1) The motivation for “doing something” was to make our colleges more intellectually diverse or insure our students at least hear all sides.

    2) Our university professors and administrators are predominantly liberal (some radically so).

    3) Section 3 of the bill puts into LAW liberal professor’s expression of their liberal views (“expressive activity” in the bill) in the classroom is now more CLEARLY and FULLY protected because now “Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as limiting the right of students, faculty, administrators, and other employees to engage in protected expressive activity elsewhere within the boundaries of the institution.” The “elsewhere” includes the classroom.

    As I’ve been saying from the beginning, this effort will make it worse. After gutting the bill twice, do you wonder why they can’t get it right? Is it because they don’t want to? Is it they just want you to think they have done something?

    It is ironic and Orwellian a bill about “intellectual diversity” has the practical effect of deepening the liberal inculturation of our campuses. But, the title of the bill (which has no legal effect) gets the sheeple giddy. Not sure the liberal elite could have gotten a better outcome if they wrote it themself.

    You just can’t make this stuff up.

    (Yes, I broke my vow but I just had to remark how it continues to be worse than doing nothing.)

    1. Troy, you are a more reasonable republican. You need to realize these political blogs tend to house the extremes from both sides. They represent a small vocal minority.

    2. Troy, would you prefer they ban the liberal professor’s views from being expressed?

      This bill is about protecting free speech rights on all sides and promoting students being exposed to a wide variety of viewpoints. And not shielding them from things they don’t want to hear.

      If your view is that it takes more than a bill like this to make the long-term cultural changes needed at our public universities, I agree. And I am very confident that the folks behind this bill fully agree. I haven’t heard anyone argue this is some kind of silver bullet and now our universities are fixed.

      I do, however, completely disagree with your contention this is worse than doing nothing. It should be a first step. And Governor Noem needs to take the next steps to send a message from the top that the Regents shouldn’t operate as business-as-usual.

      It will take years to undo the damage that has been inflicted on our college campuses. HB 1087 is a great place to start.

  2. 8:23 you are correct. However, I fear the state party leadership is chasing after the fringe approval, now more than ever. On Facebook, for instance, it is so divisive instead of inclusive, it is downright scary. Aren’t we supposed to be the level heads that don’t chase but moderate the whims of the extremes?

  3. SDGOPer,

    Without regard to its stated goal (which it ironically does the opposite), this bill will have the PRACTICAL effect of enshrining the hegemony of liberal thought in the classroom without regard to its relevance to the class taught and have the net result of less diversity of ideas and thoughts in the classroom.

    And the real damage is that in most classes, political thoughts and ideas are irrelevant. Unfortunately, ideology has permeated every subject (whether relevant or not) which degrades the quality of the product and increases its costs.

    You think this bill will encourage all sides but when the professors are all liberal, you will get nothing but liberal thought. Whose going to articulate conservative/traditional thought? You think a random speaker or something will overcome entire semesters of liberal professors? And you think this helps to give them protection to spout off in the classroom? Hello?

    The fraud of this bill against those who pay for college (taxpayers, parents, students) is tremendous because we now have a law which protects professors who want to teach their ideology instead of their subject.

    But, you feel good because of the title of the bill and the stated goal. Just like the sheeple on Orwells Animal Farm.

    1. And once a political viewpoint is vocalized by a respected professor, it will stifle those students who have opposing views for fear of retribution even though that shouldn’t happen, we know it would. They just need to stick to teaching the facts.

  4. P.S. It takes a hero to be in the middle of the farm yard and say “This is a lie.” I’m proud of my Senator Curd and his colleagues Senators Cammack and Blare (a descendant of Eric Arthur Blair?) as there were no heroes in Animal Farm who stood up to Napoleon in the farm yard. Just the occasional Benjamin or Clover who saw what was developing but said nothing and went along with the crowd.

    I still ask the rhetorical question: Why can’t won’t these Legislators truly do what they say they want to do? Why do they so avoid doing something meaningful? If one asserts Occam’s Razor (the simplest explanation is most likely the true explanation), they want to fool you. Now that it has gone through so many iterations (gutted and redrafted now twice), it is hard to assert they are stupid.

    It can only mean they intentionally want to deceive the sheep.

  5. We wouldn’t even need to discuss a bill if Noem would do her job, fire the Board of Regents, and replace the university presidents.

    1. One can’t give the Legislature a pass or blame the Governor. Give me a single instance in the last 20 years where the Legislature every exerted its existing authority in this matter. A single one. In fact, their complicity is directly related to their carte blanche failure to ever exert any authority or backed Governors who attempted to stand up to the BOR and alumni associations. NADA! ZILCH! NEVER!

      And, it is so indisengenuous for them to now scream about the situation. Which is why I’m totally convinced this bill is INTENTIONAL deception to get the sheeple to THINK they want to do something while still going along to get along.

      One of the most significant issues always before the Legislature is how well we are preparing our next generation to succeed in this world. And, to get this fraud of a solution in response to the comprehensive failure is beyond the pale.

      While I’m hopeful the Governor will begin providing leadership on this issue, I’d be hard pressed to blame her for being tentative when you consider this crap for a solution is what she can expect as “support” from the Legislature. The BOR is a constitutional entity with greater independence than most agencies. Thus, real reform requires a Legislature committed to the process and willing to use their power of the purse.

      What infuriates me is all the discussion and multiple re-drafts on this bill (which encompasses the least of the problems) and the lack of attention on the real problem related to personnel who set policy, hire professors who are in the classroom with students, and then enforce the policies is where meaningful change happens.

      I’ll repeat: Using the Animal Farm analogy, I don’t care if one is a Napolean or Snowball who led the charge on this deception, a Squealer or Boxer who promoted this crap, or a Benjamin who mostly just went along for the ride because it was easier, I’m wholly disgusted and disappointed with the entire lot (except Curd, Cammack and Blare).

  6. The Board of Regents may have been established under the constitution, but it is not a coequal branch of government. They fall under the executive branch and serve at the pleasure of the governor.

    1. 10:12: You are incorrect.

      1) The Board of Regents do NOT fall under the Executive Branch. The Board of Regents specifically have their own section (Article 14(3) and except for appropriations matters (thus the Legislature’s power of the purse is the strongest influencer of the Regents), the Regents have broad governance powers under the Constitution.

      2) The Board of Regents do NOT serve at the pleasure of the Governor. They are appointed to the position by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate to six year terms.

      There are currently 9 members of the Regents (Constitution mandates a minimum of 5)

      I do not know for sure if members re-appointed must be re-confirmed by the Senate or not. If not, this would be the very first change that needs to be done.

  8. I keep trying to post the membership and email of the Board of Regents, but the postings are blocked.

  9. Members of the Board of Regents:

    John W. Bastian
    Lucas Lund
    David Mickelson
    Jim Morgan
    Pamela Roberts
    Randy Schaefer
    Kevin Schieffer
    Jim Thares
    Joan Wink

    1. These people are the real problem. Nothing will change until the governor replaces them.

      1. On TV and in books, there is always a single bogeyman. But in the real world, it is not so simplistic.

        This problem was created because of basic benign neglect from the stakeholders (Legislature, Governor, alumni association, taxpayers, parents, and students). The solution is not going to come from “replacing the bogeyman.”

        In the real world, change occurs when all stakeholders get involved, including the Legislature, Governor, alumni association, taxpayers, parents, and students. In the meantime, both the Governor AND Legislature have to exert leadership, guidance and education to these stakeholders to get them on board to exert fundamental change.

        It is hard work but all great things require hard work.

  10. I can only assume there is a process to remove Regents from the BoR, for cause.

    I’m unable to find anything specific within the Codified Laws that references dismissing, or impeaching, a member of the Board of Regents.

    I found other appointed positions that require Senate confirmation are subject to removal for “incompetence, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” (1-16H-6).

    Can anyone cite the specific statute that describes the procedure to remove a Regent from the Board?

  11. Troy is totally unhinged if he thinks this bill was passed with subversive motives to make people think something is being done while not wanting to do anything. Who knows what the motives were of some of the Senators that voted for it, but the people pushing the bill certainly do not have those motives.

    1. It is odd how he promises to go away, and then continues…again & again & again.

      Maybe its time to ban him.

  13. I believe this bill as currently drafted makes the situation worse. The proponents have gutted (delete everything and start over) the bill twice because its practical effect never matches what its proponents claim is the intent. The proponents continue to get it wrong yet seem to think they should be patted on the back.

    So, to be clear, I’ll restate it lest anyone think anonymously disparaging my mental soundness has an effect: I believe the proponents are either intentionally perpetrating a fraud, are so stupid they don’t know what they are doing, or like to be praised without regard if the praise is warranted by the substance of their actions. In the end, whatever the reason, it is a difference without a distinction.

    Signed Troy Jones

    2. “are so stupid they don’t know what they are doing”

      Yeah, we know that TJ–ANYONE who disagrees with you must be stupid. We know that is your view…cuz you are so darned smart and you remind us again & again & again of just how smart you are.

      Thank you for being so smart and informing us that our support of this effort/bill is just stupid. Gee, you are so smart and insightful, TJ.

      Thank you for saving us from dumb selves.

      GOD BLESS YOU TJ!

  14. The sponsors of the measure, as well as the other parties involved, deserve recognition for coming together and finding a middle ground to address the free speech issues that have come up on our own state campuses (It’s not just California).

    I would also give a shout out as Jim Stalzer did during his floor speech to Senator Schoenbeck who helped to draft the final form of the measure that was passed by the State Senate.

  15. I’m interested and appreciate Troy’s position a lot. I tend to lean his direction on this as I’ve seen governors and legislators do this in the past to put a headline to rest. After reading the bill it does very little do calm my fears of what our University’s are becoming.
    I miss Janklow’s direst approach Agree or. If you knew where he was on the issue. Dems you know. Republicans are scared of their own shadows. Boxing has a great saying, if you throw a hook, put your name on it. If don’t, a straight cross is coming.
    Thx Troy

    1. Noem is quickly becoming the problem. She has not addressed the issue publicly. The governor should be taking point on this issue, not hiding in the shadows.

  17. Could it be that society has created a large group of limp wristed high school graduates best suited in pushing send and receive buttons on electronic warfare devices instead of pushing vocal octaves backed up by titanium backbones of parentally inspired political social justice of any flavor? And instead of blaming our enept home raised attitudes of patriotism and civility we blame the holders of the highest collegiate contracts instead?
    “Teach Your Children Well” was written a long time ago yet today is front and center.
    Many won’t get this last sentence.

    1. The last sentence, which you misquoted, was the only part of your bizarrely worded self righteous rant that made any sense.

Comments are closed.