<p>Of course she is within her legal rights to say what she wants but, as a private institution, Williams can (I believe?) say that no Hitler posters may be hanged on their property, and I believe they can also expel her for whatever reason they see fit. She has no obligation to respect anyone, but Williams has no obligation to sit back and let this happen under the guise of "free speech".</p>
<p>Here's an excerpt from the website of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), which often advocates against what it perceives to be a 'PC conspiracy': </p>
<p>"Much discussion about free speech on college campuses revolves around the guarantees of the First Amendment. For this reason, it is important to understand the relevance of the First Amendment to private and public institutions. As state agents, all public colleges and universities are legally bound to respect the constitutional rights of their students. Private universities are not directly bound by the First Amendment, which limits only government action. . . ."</p>
<p>Thus, even FIRE acknowledges that private colleges are different. Since private colleges can regulate speech in a way that public colleges cannot, FIRE recommends that people who don't like restrictions on speech at a private college try to use "mission statements" and the like to argue against the restrictions. If this tactic works, and if a private college administration is persuaded by the argument, so be it. The problem, however, is that the upper management of private institutions generally realizes that "mission statements" and the like aren't the law.</p>
<p>In short, while private colleges like Williams can encourage free speech, they are not required to refrain from imposing certain limits. In fact, Williams administrators can impose far more limits than their counterparts at the University of Massachusetts. While some readers may not like this, it's how our courts have addressed the issue.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Frankly, the Hitler posters disgust me. But that has nothing to do with the basic right to self-expression that every American citizen has.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This a fallacy. The only right of self-expression that Americans have is to be free from GOVERNMENT restrictions on speech. This is why employees at American companies get fired for such reasons as insubordination when they speak out against company policies. If Williams wanted to ban Hitler posters (or any other speech it deemed to be offensive), it, as a private institution, would have the right to do so without running afoul of the First Amendment.</p>
<p>Banjodad and torasee, you make a strong point and one that would be true if Williams were truly private in the strictest sense of the word.</p>
<p>But the fact is, Williams and thousands of other private colleges, although they are privately owned and run, receive substancial government support in the form of grants and tax breaks. In receiving this federal aid, the Williams administration binds intself to adhere to basic federal laws. That is why an institution like Williams * cannot,* in theory, snub first amendment rights. Sure, speech codes are rampant on both public and private college campuses today and government officials look the other way. The same goes for affirmative action and race-based admissions, both of which are blatantly unconstitutional. Why do you think Yale freshmen Jian Li is suing Princeton for rejecting him on the basis of his race, even though Princeton is supposedly private? Can't a private schools admit whomever it chooses? Not if it receives federal funding.</p>
<p>I know of a few colleges that have purposely declined any sort of federal or state support in order to preserve their freedom. Most of them are run by Christian fundamentalists, and Williams is not one.</p>
<p>Ernie - You are comparing apples and oranges. Jian Li is suing Princeton under a federal statute (the Civil Rights Act of 1964), which, among other things, broadly outlaws race-based discrimination by recipients of federal assistance. The First Amendment is a different kettle of fish - it applies only to restrictions by government. The fact that Williams' students receive federal financial assistance or even that Williams receives federal grants does not convert it into a government actor for First Amendment purposes.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The fact that Williams' students receive federal financial assistance or even that Williams receives federal grants does not convert it into a government actor for First Amendment purposes.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sure it does. Anybody will tell you that any organization that recieves federal grants and benefits is obligated to uphold our nation's Constitution. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, by the way, mentioned nothing specifically about "recipients of federal assistance," but it goes without saying that no university that recieves public funds could admit, say, only white people.</p>
<p>Let me ask you this: if Williams were to outlaw posters comemorating Holocaust Rememberance Day, would you feel the same way?</p>
<p>Finally: if Ward Churchill, a University of Colorado professor and * public employee * can get away with calling 9/11 victims "little Eichmanns," I think a private college student should be allowed to hang whatever posters she takes it into her head to hang.</p>
<p>Ernie - You're incorrect on the law. Private colleges can and do regulate speech by means of "social codes" and the like that prohibit "hate" speech of one kind or another. They are within their rights to do so and have not been deemed by the courts to be state actors for First Amendment purposes. Williams can choose to tolerate things like the Hitler posters or not. In this case, Williams has chosen toleration due to the fact that it has no policies that prohibit such behavior.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Finally: if Ward Churchill, a University of Colorado professor and public employee can get away with calling 9/11 victims "little Eichmanns," I think a private college student should be allowed to hang whatever posters she takes it into her head to hang.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The reason Churchill "can get away" with his comments is that he is employed by a public institution, which is a state actor for First Amendment purposes and may not violate speech rights. Churchill would not be similarly protected if he were an employee of Williams.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Private colleges can and do regulate speech by means of "social codes" and the like that prohibit "hate" speech of one kind or another. They are within their rights to do so and have not been deemed by the courts to be state actors for First Amendment purposes
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I seriously doubt that a case exactly like this one has ever come before the courts. And if it were to do so, I have no doubt that the court's final decision would be an ultimatum set before Williams: give up government funding, or support the student's right to freedom of expression. It's only right.</p>
<p>The Administration didn't have to ban free speech, or do anything to the Hitler lover. And I don't fault them for not doing anything in that regard. What I do fault them for is not exercising THEIR OWN free speech, and using their bully pulpit to speak even louder and more clearly.</p>
<p>The issue has nothing to do with free speech, and everything about the education necessary to build a vibrant academic and caring community.</p>