Solid argument. A university's mission is to educate students. Punishment should be a last resort and only in extreme circumstances, such as violence, mischief, or preventing classes from functioning.
Any conservatives who camped out on university grounds day after day would be speedily arrested. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that camping out is not protected activity in Clark v. CCNV (1984). Left-wing protesters are being treated much better than right-wing oddballs who got kicked off campus or investigated by police, even when they didn't make much noise or interfere with college operations. The black podcaster Coleman Hughes points to one example of the banning from campus of a silly white student who said things like “I don’t hate other people. I just love white men” and "white people are the best...": https://twitter.com/coldxman/status/1785342217520922967
In the U.S., multiple colleges -- including a state university -- got the police to investigate after people posted flyers saying "It's OK to Be White" or "Huzzah for Dixie," even though such speech appears to be protected by the First Amendment under court rulings like Levin v. Harleston (1992) and Iota Xi Chapter v. George Mason University (1993), as law professor Eugene Volokh and author Abigail Shrier have noted: https://reason.com/volokh/2019/11/04/its-ok-to-be-white-flyers-lead-to-promise-of-severest-disciplinary-action-by-western-conn-state-u/
Such speech is much less of an interference with campus operations than camping out day after day.
As I suggest, there's no iron rule, it requires a full analysis of the context. Personally, I gave the 'Freedom Convoy' that first full weekend. After that, because of the severe nature of the disruption it became an illegal occupation. A much smaller 'encampment' occupying a university campus lawn? So long as it remains truly peaceful in the ways I've described, I'm not sure I see why we shouldn't permit it to go on longer than that.
Thanks. An article by Dan Halpern on the Columbia encampment (that I thought was pretty balanced) also raises the question of duration.
"Vincent Blasi is a law professor and a scholar of the First Amendment. Blasi, who joined the faculty in 1983, explained to me that a basic distinction in First Amendment law is between regulations based on language that is thought to be dangerous or transgressive, and regulations governing when, where and how this language is used. Generally, authorities have much more leeway to regulate the latter.
"Whether the language of the students at the encampment was sufficiently transgressive to be dangerous was still being debated. But the issue of time, manner and place seemed uncomplicated to Blasi. 'Maybe you can have a claim under proper principles of academic freedom to be able to commandeer [a] physical space for a limited period,' Blasi said. 'But not day after day, until your demands are met. There’s no respectable First Amendment argument for that, or even academic-freedom argument for that.'"
Hate speech has a legal threshold, and it is a high one. Anyone publicly uttering unlawful hate speech can be charged under the law. But I have to say, a lot of the accusations of antisemitism seem to stem from criticism of Israel, which is not hate speech.
And telling Jewish students to go back to Poland is not acceptable whether hate speech or not. That's where the Universities need to step in and disband these groups.
The reaction to the specific protests here is part of a pattern of behaviour around expressive issues on campuses. Beyond that, I'm not sure what your objection is; my post is explicit about which Canadian universities have taken actions so far.
The opening sentence about "Canadian university administrators" seemed to refer to all rather than some administrators. Although it did become explicit in the following sentences. The paragraph beginning with "Our universities lack principled leadership." may be based on more evidence than I have seen. Have you?
Perhaps as a former university registrar I am rather sensitive to this.
On the other hand I agree with your post and fully support the letter to those few university presidents who may need assistance in addressing this problem.
Solid argument. A university's mission is to educate students. Punishment should be a last resort and only in extreme circumstances, such as violence, mischief, or preventing classes from functioning.
Any conservatives who camped out on university grounds day after day would be speedily arrested. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that camping out is not protected activity in Clark v. CCNV (1984). Left-wing protesters are being treated much better than right-wing oddballs who got kicked off campus or investigated by police, even when they didn't make much noise or interfere with college operations. The black podcaster Coleman Hughes points to one example of the banning from campus of a silly white student who said things like “I don’t hate other people. I just love white men” and "white people are the best...": https://twitter.com/coldxman/status/1785342217520922967
In the U.S., multiple colleges -- including a state university -- got the police to investigate after people posted flyers saying "It's OK to Be White" or "Huzzah for Dixie," even though such speech appears to be protected by the First Amendment under court rulings like Levin v. Harleston (1992) and Iota Xi Chapter v. George Mason University (1993), as law professor Eugene Volokh and author Abigail Shrier have noted: https://reason.com/volokh/2019/11/04/its-ok-to-be-white-flyers-lead-to-promise-of-severest-disciplinary-action-by-western-conn-state-u/
Such speech is much less of an interference with campus operations than camping out day after day.
What is the length of time before an encampment becomes an illegal occupation?
As I suggest, there's no iron rule, it requires a full analysis of the context. Personally, I gave the 'Freedom Convoy' that first full weekend. After that, because of the severe nature of the disruption it became an illegal occupation. A much smaller 'encampment' occupying a university campus lawn? So long as it remains truly peaceful in the ways I've described, I'm not sure I see why we shouldn't permit it to go on longer than that.
Thanks. An article by Dan Halpern on the Columbia encampment (that I thought was pretty balanced) also raises the question of duration.
"Vincent Blasi is a law professor and a scholar of the First Amendment. Blasi, who joined the faculty in 1983, explained to me that a basic distinction in First Amendment law is between regulations based on language that is thought to be dangerous or transgressive, and regulations governing when, where and how this language is used. Generally, authorities have much more leeway to regulate the latter.
"Whether the language of the students at the encampment was sufficiently transgressive to be dangerous was still being debated. But the issue of time, manner and place seemed uncomplicated to Blasi. 'Maybe you can have a claim under proper principles of academic freedom to be able to commandeer [a] physical space for a limited period,' Blasi said. 'But not day after day, until your demands are met. There’s no respectable First Amendment argument for that, or even academic-freedom argument for that.'"
https://www.economist.com/1843/2024/05/03/its-been-a-very-long-two-weeks-how-the-gaza-protests-changed-columbia
And if these occupiers are inflicting anti-jewish hatred on students what then?
Hate speech has a legal threshold, and it is a high one. Anyone publicly uttering unlawful hate speech can be charged under the law. But I have to say, a lot of the accusations of antisemitism seem to stem from criticism of Israel, which is not hate speech.
And telling Jewish students to go back to Poland is not acceptable whether hate speech or not. That's where the Universities need to step in and disband these groups.
McGill and the University of Toronto are two of the 223 public and private universities in Canada. Haven't you spread your brush too wide?
The reaction to the specific protests here is part of a pattern of behaviour around expressive issues on campuses. Beyond that, I'm not sure what your objection is; my post is explicit about which Canadian universities have taken actions so far.
The opening sentence about "Canadian university administrators" seemed to refer to all rather than some administrators. Although it did become explicit in the following sentences. The paragraph beginning with "Our universities lack principled leadership." may be based on more evidence than I have seen. Have you?
Perhaps as a former university registrar I am rather sensitive to this.
On the other hand I agree with your post and fully support the letter to those few university presidents who may need assistance in addressing this problem.
Again, I don't think these problems and behaviours by university admin are limited to the current controversy.