Spring Break
KATE MILLERICK: Fight for free speech
by Kate Millerick
Columnists | 9/4/07
Posted online at 11:19 PM EST on 9/3/07
In this day and age it seems as though Constitutional rights are viewed more subjectively than ever. Paul Jeffries, a former professor of philosophy at the University of Dubuque, Iowa, recently settled an interesting lawsuit filed against his former university for unfair termination. According to the Dubuque Telegraph Herald, the case revolved around the administration's attempts to suppress its professor's rights to criticize the university. After receiving a promotion and the guarantee of tenure, Jeffries refused to sign his contract because it stated that he would have to pay his salary back if he made "any disparaging, denigrating, or otherwise critical statements" about the university, according to The Chronicle of Higher ?Education.
While private institutions have the right to place limits on speech, this ban went too far in infringing his ability to teach and lecture. Furthermore, we must ask what is the ulterior motive behind such a demand.
In a time where major organizations and companies are frequently collapsing due to the effectiveness and courage of whistleblowers on the inside, it seems likely that such a restriction on free speech within a contractual agreement is intended to prevent necessary leaks. The fact that Jeffries knew his rights and chose to take a stand is commendable-far too rare a situation today. With the current War on Terror a fallback reason for the gradual erosion of our basic rights to privacy, it is encouraging to hear about someone fighting back.
While the First Amendment has provided different protections to each generation of Americans it appears to have withstood the ages virtually unaffected. However, in today's society the question ultimately arises-do Americans truly have the right to free speech?
Historically, freedom of speech has been interpreted to best suit the needs of those doing the interpreting. During World War I, the Supreme Court established the "clear and present danger" precedent, which prohibited any speech that could constitute a danger to the security of the nation during wartime. Essentially, this meant that citizens did not have the right to criticize their own government's actions. While this cannot be directly paralleled to the situation surrounding the war on terror, it does not seem unlikely that the Bush Administration would be following the same general path of the University of Dubuque, if they could only get away with it.
Brandeis students are certainly not immune to free speech restrictions. A couple of years ago there was a Palestinian art display that was removed by the administration due to its biased nature. Causing a polarized reaction on campus and in the local newspapers, the administration refused to reinstate the display. How can a university that claims to be committed to diversity, just dismiss the opinions of one of its students simply because it represents an alternative point of view?
Thankfully, we have individuals such as Paul Jeffries standing up and ensuring that these authority figures are not able to strip slowly away the Constitutional rights and principles on which the United States was founded. Now more than ever we need to be diligent in protecting our rights, especially against those who benefit most from suppressing them.
While private institutions have the right to place limits on speech, this ban went too far in infringing his ability to teach and lecture. Furthermore, we must ask what is the ulterior motive behind such a demand.
In a time where major organizations and companies are frequently collapsing due to the effectiveness and courage of whistleblowers on the inside, it seems likely that such a restriction on free speech within a contractual agreement is intended to prevent necessary leaks. The fact that Jeffries knew his rights and chose to take a stand is commendable-far too rare a situation today. With the current War on Terror a fallback reason for the gradual erosion of our basic rights to privacy, it is encouraging to hear about someone fighting back.
While the First Amendment has provided different protections to each generation of Americans it appears to have withstood the ages virtually unaffected. However, in today's society the question ultimately arises-do Americans truly have the right to free speech?
Historically, freedom of speech has been interpreted to best suit the needs of those doing the interpreting. During World War I, the Supreme Court established the "clear and present danger" precedent, which prohibited any speech that could constitute a danger to the security of the nation during wartime. Essentially, this meant that citizens did not have the right to criticize their own government's actions. While this cannot be directly paralleled to the situation surrounding the war on terror, it does not seem unlikely that the Bush Administration would be following the same general path of the University of Dubuque, if they could only get away with it.
Brandeis students are certainly not immune to free speech restrictions. A couple of years ago there was a Palestinian art display that was removed by the administration due to its biased nature. Causing a polarized reaction on campus and in the local newspapers, the administration refused to reinstate the display. How can a university that claims to be committed to diversity, just dismiss the opinions of one of its students simply because it represents an alternative point of view?
Thankfully, we have individuals such as Paul Jeffries standing up and ensuring that these authority figures are not able to strip slowly away the Constitutional rights and principles on which the United States was founded. Now more than ever we need to be diligent in protecting our rights, especially against those who benefit most from suppressing them.
Be the first to comment on this story