Freedom of Speech vs Catholic School?

[ElementalNovel]

Hi everyone,

I'm going to leap right in an explain the situation.

I go to a private Catholic college in New York. The school is a liberal arts school and has always prided itself on being Catholic based but not discriminatory, (in other words, we have a church on campus and employ a few clergy as religion professors but do not require students to be Catholic or support Catholicism.)

I'm also the president of the school's poetry club, which is only one of many performance based clubs on campus. The clubs on campus serve to create and run events meant to entertain and/or enlighten the student body.

Again, the school has always been praised for its liberal outlook on things. Most students chose this school based on the freedom the school promised us. Despite being Catholic based, the school hosted a variety of diversity clubs, a GSA, and several performance clubs without trying to control or influence them in any way until last year, when the school got a new president.

The new president and the school's Board of Trustees, (the donors who fund the school), have been making drastic changes, trying to shape the school into a more traditional Catholic environment. This culminated in the unfair firing of several professors last spring, (unfair in that the Board, who is not allowed to control the hiring and firing of professors, was given a say in the firing of these professors.) The two professors fired were fired because one read the lyrics to an explicit rap song at a non-school event, and the other was highly vocal in her criticism of the Board.

The student body and professors were outraged, and the president responded to that outrage by claiming it was her mission to "redefine academic freedom" when it came to what was being taught in the school's classrooms. There was a brief protest on campus but the outrage died out once summer came.

This semester, we hoped things would change. Instead, here is a list of everything that has happened in the last month:

-Five minutes before the school talent show, a student government officer asked the president of the music club to censor a rapper who was performing. The club president passed on the warning to the rapper but also stated that the rapper should feel free to express himself as he pleased. The rapper performed his rap as planned, and the music president was called in for judicial review by the school government. He was nearly impeached, but was instead subjected to another, unknown disciplinary action.

-One tradition on campus is the Rocky Horror Picture Show, usually on the last Friday before Halloween. This event has been happening for years and is always approved by the student government. This year, in the middle of the performance, a student government officer was sent to ask that the drama club cease the callouts that are part of the experience, (for those who don't know, a traditional cult-style viewing usually involves the shouting of many dirty words. Again, the event has been a staple of college life for years.) When the drama club refused to comply, the officer reported the event as an obscenity, (despite the fact that the student government had approved the show in the first place, knowing exactly what it would entail.)

-A student government officer was sent to the improv club's show five minutes before it began to ask that the president of that club make sure no "inappropriate material" was performed on stage. He tried to explain to the officer that they couldn't predict what might happen on stage, since it was an audience driven improv show. The officer left, and I'm not sure if any disciplinary action was taken.

Now, in the face of these events, many students were becoming uneasy. Usually the student government and the club presidents meet once a week to discuss school politics, so it came as a surprise that our weekly meeting yesterday was canceled. Instead, we were told we would be participating in a workshop on hate speech and how to "correctly represent the school through our actions."

It was not a workshop. Instead, the school's lawyer was brought in and for an hour lectured us on the law. a summary of his presentation:

-Students of a private college have limited First Amendment Rights, (First Amendment, for international folks, is a part of the US Constitution that decrees all citizens unlimited freedom of speech so long as that speech is not hate speech), because according to the lawyer, "The First Amendment only applies to government organizations, and this is a private organization."

-As such, the school is free to limit student speech if they feel that said speech can be construed as "fighting words, hate speech, defamation, obscenity, disruptive speech meant to incite action, or pro-drug speech." Limiting speech may range from a warning to full judicial action with the student in question being expelled.

-It does not matter if none of the student body is offended. If a member of the administration is offended, then even if the entire student body is unoffended, legal action may take place.

The legal seminar was attended by student government officers, club presidents, concerned students, professors, and even members of the clergy. After the lawyer was done speaking, he opened the floor to questions. None of the questions asked were actually answered, as he danced around the questions politician style instead.

In particular was the question of school policy. The lawyer repeatedly referred to "the school policy," but refused to elaborate on what that policy was when asked. The question was asked and ignored so many times that a member of the clergy actually stood up and asked the lawyer to stop avoiding the question. He, too, was ignored.

At this point, the dean of the school stepped in and asked that we let the lawyer go, (we had been questioning him for an hour and a half), and direct our questions to the "appropriate departments." when we expressed our confusion as to which department to address, she grew condescending and began speaking to us, (a room of about 60 people, mixed between college students, professors, and clergy members), as though we were children. (A direct quote being, "You knew what you were getting into when you took these positions. If you don't know what to do, then obviously you haven't done enough research in what we want from you.")

Here's where it gets extra uncomfortable. A student pointed out that we were told this would be a hate speech workshop, not a legal hearing, and wanted to know why we were not told the lawyer would be there. The dean and the student government head both stated that they would not discuss this matter with a student, so a professor spoke up instead. The professor was also condescended to and ultimately ignored.

Which brings me to what is basically the thesis statement of the post: Whose side are you on, and why?

Do you support the Board, who is trying to clean up the school's image and who claims their actions will help guide students towards a more successful, respectful lifestyle?

Or do you support the students and professors, who feel their inalienable, (even "God-given"), right of freedom of speech is being unfairly attacked in the interest of increasing the Board's control of the school?

Additionally, if anyone out there is familiar with law, please explain this limited First Amendment thing to me if possible. The lawyer did not cite his words and I'm not entirely sure this is an actual exception to the Amendment.

[Tekla]

Additionally, if anyone out there is familiar with law, please explain this limited First Amendment thing to me if possible. The lawyer did not cite his words and I'm not entirely sure this is an actual exception to the Amendment.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faq ... ons-speech Relevant section quote:

What rights to freedom of expression do students have?

Public school students possess a range of free-expression rights under the First Amendment. Students can speak, write articles, assemble to form groups and even petition school officials on issues. The U.S. Supreme Court has said that students “do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression at the schoolhouse gate.”

There is a fundamental distinction between public and private school students under the First Amendment. The First Amendment and the other provisions of the Bill of Rights limit the government from infringing on an individual’s rights. Public school officials act as part of the government and are called state actors. As such, they must act according to the principles in the Bill of Rights. Private schools, however, aren’t arms of the government. Therefore, the First Amendment does not provide protection for students at private schools.

The first amendment applies to everyone; I think what the lawyer meant was that as long as the school is not making laws infringing on first amendment guarantees like freedom of speech that it is perfectly acceptable to limit your free speech rights, which is legally correct because the first amendment prohibits laws interfering with first amendment guarantees.
It's worth noting, though, that freedom of speech rights are limited for everyone anyway with regards to things like hate speech, defamation (incl. libel and slander), and certain others (list at the top of the link there).

Unfortunately, the lawyer here is right.

As a Catholic school (and I assume they state that they are Catholic up front, so that no student or staff is intentionally misled when applying for a job or a student spot) and a private school it is within their right to change the school to emulate a more traditional Catholic environment. This can fairly extend to vulgar words/phrases that can be considered as obscenities.

However, it is very legally fishy to me that all of a sudden the board of trustees was permitted to contribute to the firing of two professors. Those professors need to do everything in their power to see that no misconduct there was done, and if there was misconduct, to make every attempt to get their firings overturned/vacated/whatever can be done.

I do not think it is was correct in any way to bring you into a lecture on the law under false pretenses, though, and students and staff have every right to be angry over being misled.

As for school policy, I do agree he should have stated to which part of the policy he was referring; no one actually reads those for the most part and he should have assumed that. Do you - or anyone - have a copy of your school's policy to read? If you can't find it in the policy, you may be able to call them on it.

I can fully understand why students and staff are upset with the changes. Unfortunately, the school is not totally in the wrong here either. Were I in your place, in all honestly I would just start looking to transfer somewhere else since the school is suddenly wanting something different than what they originally offered students.

[Drag0nHatcher]

Being catholic myself, personal I find the school changing things very ridiculous. IF this was a high school or middle school, i could absolutely understand but for a collage. Asking to mute a rapper who raps an explicit song when the audience is most likely all adults and mature enough to handle the language(I am saying this on the bases that the audience knew the rapper was going to be saying things that are not suited for all audiences). The firing of the teachers is completely uncalled for. I believe(don't quote me on this, I am not a legal expert) that the teacher who was fired because she voice strong criticism against the board can sue, and the teach who read lyrics to the explicit rap song at a non school event(I do not know what the event was or why he was reading the lyrics, keep in mind) should still be teaching at that school for i can understand school wanting there teacher as role models outside of work, but (not knowing the basis of why the teach spoke the lyrics) should not have his freedom of speech be walked on a fine line for fear of being fired.