UMass celebrates freedom of speech, as long as your speech parrots theirs.
Students Threatened With Expulsion Over ‘Grand Wizard’ Drawing
At the University of Massachusetts it is okay to call a soldier who was just slain in battle an idiot but satirizing a friend using a caricature of the KKK is strictly prohibited.
The caricature was drawn to mock the claim that Higgins was a “racist” because he opposed a plan that would have allotted a certain number of seats in the Student Senate for members of ALANA, which represents “African, Latino/a, Asian/Pacific Islander, and Native American” students at the university.
The drawing depicts the “Grand Wizard” wearing a pointed hat and a cape, holding a burning cross. The “Grand Wizard” was also cross-eyed, with its tongue hanging out and a bubble over its head containing the words “I LOVE ALANA.”
That reads a bit oddly so let me rephrase and clarify. Higgins had been accused of holding racist opinions because he opposed an allotment policy to fill the Student Senate. A friend made an outrageously overblown caricature to ridicule that particular accusation. This happened at a party after the election which Higgins had lost.
Pictures of the drawing and students drinking at the party were circulated about campus and came to the attention of the administration.
“Anyone looking at the caricature of the student as a ‘Grand Wizard’ can see that it is not an expression of support for the KKK,” said Greg Lukianoff, director of Legal and Public Advocacy at the Foundation of Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a nonprofit educational foundation that champions free speech.
…
However, a “diversity panel” made up of Michael Gargano, UMass Amherst vice chancellor for student affairs; SGA President Eduardo Bustamante; and several UMass faculty members labeled the nine students in the photos the “KKK Nine,” implying that they did support the KKK.The students are now being charged with “harassment conduct less than a physical attack” and other charges related to alcohol consumption. They have been threatened with penalties from criminal charges to expulsion, according to FIRE.
…
“I have a variety of sanctions at my disposal. I’m not ruling out dismissal,” Gargano told the school newspaper, the Daily Collegian.
This contrasts strongly with how the university handled a different first amendment case earlier in the year.
The double standard that exists at UMass Amherst stems from a previous case in which Rene Gonzalez, a UMass graduate, wrote an article for the Daily Collegian last spring that called Army Ranger Pat Tillman, who was killed in Iraq, an “idiot” and said that “this was a ‘G.I. Joe’ guy who got what was coming to him,” according to a press release by FIRE.
In this case, UMass system President Jack Wilson refused to take action, citing Gonzalez’s right to free speech.
Perhaps it is only protected speech when it has been printed in the university’s own newspaper.
(Tip credit to Jason Trommetter)
Remember folks, this is Massachusetts. They can’y help it.
That’s dumb why can’t they allow freedom of speech? I would sue if that happened to my son or daughter
As a soon to be leaving member of the UMASS Amherst community, I can only agree.
UMASS only allows opinion that they agree with, and it has recently gotten worse.
I had, and probably saved, long email conversations with the infamous Rene Gonzales. He was allowed to run roughshod over the feedback forums, spouting any unsupportable liberal rubbish that he chose.
I recently responded to an article by one of their “reporters” as follows:
**********************************
The feedback you recently submitted to The Massachusetts Daily Collegian has been rejected by the moderator. The feedback you submitted is shown below:
Review of your feedback:
opic: No news is good news
Name: Dimsdale
Email:
Comment:
And now, the rest of the story.
Given the selective memory loss, I can understand the “embarrassment, incense, rage and bewilderment” of the author.
Let’s examine the facts, shall we? CBS got caught using forged documents to influence an election. The forgeries were so amateurish that even non professionals could see the flaws. Even CBS’s own experts warned against the use of these documents, but Mapes and Rather forged on, intent on carpetbombing Bush as best they could. To compound the sin, they tried to unleash this puppy on the public the Sunday before the election, in the typical ambush journalism style Rather is infamous for. If they find out the facts, they would say “Oops! Sorry! Too bad the election is over!!” What a shame that the New York Times blew the story a week early! Has Rather admitted his bias, even after the report. No.
If Fox News had done anything even remotely as sleazy, they would not be a network today. Period. The rest of the media would see to that. But no, Rather still has his job as we speak, and a few flunkies were fired. Wow.
If you will recall, it was Fox News that broke the election eve story of Bush’s DUI. You may not like how they subsequently handled it, but those are the facts. What bias.
Now let’s talk about CBS’s (the rest of the media is nearly as guilty as CBS on this) DELIBERATE omission of facts. We will do this as an essay exam:
Demonstrate or give examples of Rather’s coverage of the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth. Compare and contrast with the import and endless coverage of Bush’s Texas Air National Guard (TANG) story. Be sure to include the suit brought by AP to get Bush’s full military record and contrast that with the complete failure of AP or the rest of the media to similarly demand Kerry’s FULL military record. The silence on Kerry’s FULL military record is deafening. Note the coverage 60 Minutes gave to book writing critics of Bush, while completely ignoring John O’Neil’s bestselling book criticizing Kerry (maybe it was because the book wasn’t published by Simon and Shuster, a CBS affiliate and coincidental publisher of the majority of anti-Bush tomes).
Lest we heap criticism on CBS alone, let us recall the infamous memo issued by ABC Political News Director Mark Halperin: [T]he current Bush attacks on Kerry involve distortions and taking things out of context in a way that goes beyond what Kerry has done.” Ergo, writes Mr. Halperin, ABC News has “a responsibility to hold both sides accountable to the public interest, but that doesn’t mean we reflexively and artificially hold both sides ‘equally’ accountable when the facts don’t warrant that … It’s up to Kerry to defend himself, of course. But as one of the few news organizations with the skill and strength to help voters evaluate what the candidates are saying to serve the public interest [sic]. Now is the time for all of us to step up and do that right” (quotes in original).
So the political news director had decided that both sides do not need to be held equally accountable for their statements?!?
Halperin still has his job.
As it turned out, Fox called the 2000 election correctly. Now tell us about how NBC et al. disenfranchised western Florida voters by incorrectly calling the state for Gore early. Brokaw is still smarting from that one.
Is Fox more conservative in it’s commentary shows? No doubt. Is it more fair in it’s news reporting, (i.e. does it more consistently present both sides of the story) than the other, liberally oriented networks? Yes it does, at least if you sit and score it. They are clearly better than CBS, anyway.
Bottom line: we are all biased. The Pew Research Center and the Project in excellence in Journalism both revealed that the majority of the media’s journalists are liberal. Entrenched liberals will insert their bias where they can. Rather went too far in his zeal to take down Bush. In his defense of the story, he still insists that the documents are “fake but accurate.” Is this the standard of journalism that Naughton thinks we should subscribe to?
The author’s obvious bias in this commentary demonstratesthat clearly. The remark about “..the conservative agenda of racism, classism, sexism and homophobia…” relegated his argument to the absurd. Just because the liberal networks couch their racism as “affirmative action” (remedial racism) and brandish their classism (rich vs. poor), sexism (anti-male), anti-Christian and heterophobia under different guises do not make them any less worthy of criticism. I guess it does, if you agreewith them, despite the obvious comparisons.
I hope the author isn’t a journalism major. If he is, CBS is looking for a new news anchor and managing “editor.”
If you have any questions regarding this, please forward this e-mail to
vfeedback@dailycollegian.com.
***************************************
Repeated emails (three so far) for comment or simply a reason for the rejection have all been ignored.
The only thing I can see that might be construed as faintly insulting would be the last sentence, suggesting the author apply for Dan Rather’s job.
Or maybe referring to Affirmative Action as “remedial racism” (which it is).
I guess I will never know, and nobody will ever get to read my commentary.