From FIRE:
San Francisco State University (SFSU) is investigating its College Republicans for hosting an anti-terrorism rally on campus in which participants stepped on makeshift Hezbollah and Hamas flags. After students filed a complaint claiming they were offended because the flags bore the word "Allah," SFSU initiated an investigation into accusations of incitement, creation of a hostile environment, and incivility. [...]
The College Republicans’ "offense" took place on October 17, 2006, when they held an anti-terrorism protest in SFSU’s Malcolm X Plaza. During the protest, several members of the group stepped on butcher paper they had painted to resemble the flags of Hamas and Hezbollah. Unbeknownst to the protestors, the flags they had copied contain the word "Allah" written in Arabic script.
All of this seems deplorable to me. Do I like the College Republicans' behavior? No. It's a pattern I've seen before: Public behavior, calculated to offend and cause a stir, followed by pretend-shock when people are offended. But they have a first amendment right to do that without official harassment by the University or the student government.
This is one of those times I'm embarrassed by lefty and liberal authorities on US campuses. Whether it's a pro-choice professor leading students in knocking down a pro-life exhibit, a pro-Israel professor being fired for his views, or this case in San Francisco, I can't help but expect better of campus lefties.
Of course, campus left-wingers have been censored too: a professor being investigated by the university for criticizing Israel, a student feminist group having their pro-reproductive rights signs torn down by the university, and an accomplished lefty professor having his appointment to Yale scuttled by right-wing partisan activism are three examples that leap to mind. Not to mention the ongoing use of ironically-named free speech zones to censor mostly left-wing campus activists. Right and left, the pattern suggests that too many academic authorities have too little respect for free speech.
Of course, many SFSU students found the Republican's flag-stomping offensive while still respecting its right to exist. This isn't at all surprising -- most students are pretty sensible about this stuff, in my experience -- but it is something that folks objecting to censorship on campus rarely acknowlege, so I wanted to highlight it. From The Golden Gate [X]Press:
"I guess they have right to protest," said Blanco, a sophomore and music major. "But that shit means something to people, and stomping on it is disrespectful." [...]
Annette Heully, 21, said a group’s right to protest is covered by the First Amendment, no matter the controversy of the group or its methods.
"It’s a First Amendment issue," Heully, a junior art major, said. "I mean, chick flicks are offensive, but people are still allowed to make those."
(Okay, I also had to quote that because the quote about chick flicks is super-cool.)
One last comment: The president of the SFSU Republicans has a very one-sided notion of "free speech." From an article published shortly after the rally, in October:
"This campus preaches free speech, but unless you are Republican," Clark said. "We don’t show up and protest their events."
Clark seems to believe that free speech is somehow impinged upon if his events are protested, which makes me wonder: Does Clark understand what free speech is? Of course Clark has a right to stomp on a flag and yell in the public square; but other students likewise have a right "to show up and protest [Republican] events." Until the college administration and student governments stepped in and screwed things up, there was no free speech issue here.
(This misunderstanding of free speech is, in my observation, pretty common among right-wingers.)
(Crossposted on "Alas, a Blog.")