The authors of the brochure acknowledge that those who are simply attracted to members
of the same sex, but resist intercourse, are not sinful, "just as no one who resists the
inclination to steal or lie can be called a thief or a liar."
However, a call to "work untiringly to create a moral climate whereby homosexuality is
rejected" runs across the top of the flyer in bold letters.
The student passing out the brochures was a member of TFP Student Action. After learning
of the student's presence, Interim Vice President for Student Affairs Todd Olson
instructed the Department of Public Safety to escort him off campus. ...
Red Square is a designated "free speech zone," according to the Student Handbook. The
handbook, however, does deny protection to certain types of speech."Expression that is
indecent or is grossly obscene or grossly offensive on matters such as race, ethnicity,
religion, gender, or sexual orientation is inappropriate in a university community," it
states.
Olson cited this exception in his decision to have the student removed. "The individuals
removed from campus were spreading a message that was grossly offensive, and I view the
removal as entirely appropriate," he said. . . .
...
Students on both ends of the political spectrum supported the action. "I don't think
it's grossly offensive, I just think its inappropriate," said Nicole Anchondo (CAS '06),
a member of the College Republicans . "I think the University had every right to remove
him," she said.
The [Lawrence v. Texas] decision "obscures our glorious past and stains our honor," said
the brochures, published by the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family,
and Property, a Catholic organization based in Pennsylvania.
Professor Volokh adds by way of commentary,
But look at it this way: The Georgetown Speech and Expression Policy does prohibit
"expression that is indecent or is grossly obscene or grossly offensive on matters such
as race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or sexual orientation," and the university
stresses that "the University will act as it deems appropriate to educate students
violating this principle." Somehow, given this incident, I don't think that "to educate"
is limited to "to speak out in response to"; and this incident makes clear that "grossly
offensive" isn't just limited to profanity or epithets -- or even to immaturity or
aggressiveness -- but also to what the university sees as offensive ideas.
...
... Georgetown's statements consistently stress that the student was ejected for his
"grossly offensive" statements, not because he was a non-Georgetowner. What's more, the
Georgetown speech code involved here applies equally to its students; any Georgetown
student would therefore reasonably expect that if he tried to do the same, he too would
be ejected (or worse).
Georgetown is a private university, and thus is not bound by the First Amendment. It
has the legal right to exclude speech of which it disapproves.
Remember that Georgetown is a Roman Catholic university. Yet it
sounds as if the Pope had better stay away--if he comes and says what he thinks about
homosexuality, someone will call "The Department of Public Safety" to "escort him off
campus".
Note, the name, "Department of Public Safety". You'd think at a university someone would have pointed out the similarity to "Committee of Public Safety" (the usual translation of "Comit� de Salut Public"), the name of the body which conducted the Reign of Terror in France in 1794, executing anyone on left, right, or center who posed a threat to the ideals of the new regime. I searched the web for a while but couldn't find any good websites on the French Revolution (there's lots of crud out there). I'd like to see a comparison of today's Left with Robespierre and St. Just, who seemed to have an equal utopianism and intolerance, but greater eloquence, ruthlessness, and integrity.
[ permalink, http://php.indiana.edu/~erasmuse/w/03.12.23d.htm . Comments: Erasmusen@yahoo.com. ]
To return to Eric Rasmusen's weblog, click http://php.indiana.edu/~erasmuse/w/0.rasmusen.htm.