Eric Langborgh

The shouting-down of a black conservative speaker at Penn State has sparked an investigation into speech codes at schools throughout Pennsylvania.

By the time the animosity and intolerant atmosphere surrounding the arrival of Star Parker to campus had subsided, Dr. David Warren Saxe decided he had had enough with the ever-increasing harassment of conservative, anti-establishment voices at Pennsylvania State University. He sent a critical letter to the University’s president seeking an official statement on whether unconstitutional speech codes were being implemented under the guise of "diversity" and "tolerance" regulations, while he began to take up with the Pennsylvania State Board of Education an inquiry into what he calls "an open assault on free speech" in the state’s many institutions of higher education.

Saxe, an associate professor of education at PSU, began his pursuit of an investigation shortly after witnessing University incivility surrounding a recent guest speaking engagement by Parker. The Penn State Young Americans for Freedom (PSYAF) invited Parker, a black conservative and former welfare mother, to speak at their campus late last semester. Her speech entitled "From Entitlement to Empowerment" was cut short, however, by several aggressive student demonstrators, and her character was attacked in the media by Penn State employees under the moniker of their PSU position.

Parker described her experience as "very frightening" and said she "feared for my life" in the frenzied environment. "I am prepared to invest in a bullet-proof vest the next time I go on a campus in the state of Pennsylvania," avowed Parker, a veteran of the lecture circuit who is not unaccustomed to controversy.

Officers from PSYAF were forced to usher Parker through a back door after the event. A heated mass of demonstrators had gathered outside the building, waiting to confront her.

During Parker’s speech, it became evident to the PSYAF members that there was a growing uneasiness and disenchantment in the audience, which reached a feverish pitch when a group of feminist demonstrators blowing whistles and outfitted in military garb marched to the front of the room.

These demonstrators proceeded to disrupt Parker’s speech by putting on a mostly unintelligible 15-minute skit (which Saxe characterized as a "heckler’s veto"), thereby disrupting 20 would-be questioners patiently standing in line the ability to get their inquiries answered.

"Clearly, the protest was staged not to engage the speaker in a civil debate on important social issues, but to prevent the speaker from exercising her First Amendment rights," wrote Saxe in his January 27 letter to President Graham Spanier. Spanier has yet to respond.

Parker agreed with Saxe that an investigation into what may be a discriminatory speech code must proceed. "We need to find out if people are being allowed to get out of control because the administration does not agree with conservative speakers or if it is just students disrupting, and if they are they should be reprimanded," Parker proclaimed in seconding Saxe’ inquiry.

Stated Saxe, "Despite University policies that require officials to ‘initiate action to restrain or prohibit behavior that threatens the…rights, freedoms, privileges, and safety of the personnel of the academic community,’ University officials present did nothing to stop the protesters."

"You would think that a prestigious school like Penn State would at least teach their students common courtesy," Parker exclaimed. "If we get to the point where students cannot hear both points of view in a calm environment, then we’ve lost something for our future."

Saxe portrayed the administration up to this point as dragging their feet. "(We tried) to file a police report, but police services suggested the matter be reported to student judicial affairs. A week later a disciplinary referral was filed complete with an incriminating photograph of the protesters," described Saxe. "Nine weeks later University officials had yet to interview all the protesters."

As Campus Report was going to print, PSYAF Chairman Christopher Gillott disclosed that a belated investigation into the Parker incident has finally led to University sanctions against four of the perpetrators (three of whom were not enrolled PSU students). However, Gillott mentioned his difficulty in getting the investigation started, and said, "If it wasn’t for me and Dr. Saxe following up a second time and for Saxe’s letter, I don’t believe justice ever would have been served."

Double-Standards

Contrary to the University Conduct codes (found in Penn State’s General University Policies and Rules) of "concern for others and their opinions" and "respect for the dignity of all persons and a willingness to learn from the differences in people, ideas, and opinions," student actions at Parker’s and other conservative’s events and an article written by a Penn State faculty member demonstrated the University’s unwillingness to enforce its "hostile environment" codes when conservatives are the target of attack.

In a letter to Penn State’s student newspaper following Parker’s speech, Lawrence W. Young, the director of the Paul Robeson Cultural Center, fired disparaging remarks at Parker in clear violation of what Penn State terms in its official guidelines as "intolerance of the opinions of others." "Christopher Gillott, steeped in reactionary ideology and inaccurate knowledge, rails against the ‘social welfare system’ and brings to this campus the ideological whore, Star Parker," wrote Young. Young proceeded to call Parker, and other black conservatives in the process, an outright "whore" twice more by the end of his article because, as he put it, "anyone who sells their body or their mind is in fact a whore."

Saxe challenged Spanier in his letter: "Is Mr. Young’s commentary an example of Penn State’s policy…of ‘fostering a humane University community in which everyone feels welcome?’ …of ‘eliminating disrespect and harassment?’ …of ‘working toward the goal of civility and acceptance of everyone?’" Saxe was referring to comments Spanier previously made in his "A Framework to Foster Diversity at Penn State 1998-2003."

"To my knowledge, there has been NO condemnation by the administration for the use of this vile and reprehensible term," continued Saxe’s letter.

"There is nothing more intolerant, more uncivil, and more harassing" than calling someone a whore, declared Dr. Alan Charles Kors—the co-author of The Shadow University: The Betrayal of Liberty on America’s Campuses. "If a University administrator can call a speaker a ‘whore’ with whom he disagrees politically—which I like Saxe believe is this nitwit’s right to do, though decent people should shun him as a fool—then in fact anyone can say anything at Penn State as long as it’s not libel or a terroristic threat," charged Kors.

This means, said Kors—a history professor at the University of Pennsylvania—that Penn State’s sexual harassment codes and other regulations against "threatening" expressions (as defined by the University) would represent not only a speech code, but a content-biased, partisan speech code.

Steve McCarthy, spokesman for President Spanier’s office, disputed the notion that events surrounding conservative speakers constitute a double-standard by the administration by listing many examples of University tolerance toward both liberal and conservative groups, and demonstrations in recent years from both sides. "Our argument has always been that the answer to speech you don’t like is more speech," professed McCarthy, adding, "There is no double-standard."

Tolerant Intolerance

"Penn State as an institution has been attempting to express values and attitudes that embrace a wide range of cultures and beliefs…those who attack this effort are not welcome here. Individuals not ready to accept this institution’s values and attitudes should not be here," said Penn State’s Vice President of Student Affairs William W. Asbury in an editorial published November 7, 1995. "People who find themselves in opposition to what Penn State stands for should not be surprised to learn that their actions are not tolerated. While the University will not infringe on an individual’s right of free speech, at the same time, it will not sit by idly."

It was statements like this—"tolerant intolerance" as Saxe calls it—and the lack of any retraction by the administration, that first clued Saxe in on the possibility of a new speech code being enacted on PSU’s campuses under the guise of tolerance regulations. "These sentiments are the root and branch of Penn State’s diversity plan and its related speech codes," said Saxe.

PSU’s administration vehemently denied any semblance of a speech code at University Park, however. "Our official position is and has always been that we are in favor of free expression, period," McCarthy professed. "We will do everything in our power to ensure that this remains in place for the free exchange of ideas."

McCarthy declared to Campus Report that the University maintains a neutral posture and respects the right of all viewpoints to be heard. "Anyone who has attempted to stifle free speech—on either side—has been blocked by the administration."

While McCarthy asserted that University employees who are quoted in the media do not necessarily represent the views of Penn State, Kors pointed out that Asbury in fact represented Penn State and its apparent speech code—not because of his University title—but because he explicitly spoke on behalf of the University in his pronouncements.

Asbury’s comments represent "not just a speech code, but an attitudinal code; both of which would be unconstitutional and abhorrent," proclaimed Kors.

Kors took special exception to Asbury’s comments that those who do not share Penn State’s "values and attitudes…are not welcome here." He added, "That is not only prying into private conscience, beliefs and values, but if articulated by someone, for example, on the religious right would be taken to be McCarthyism of the rankest order."

Kors defends free speech in nearly all circumstances, but notes that even more important is "to not have a double-standard." Said Kors, "A legitimate question to ask is: ‘is the University’s response content-neutral?’"

If a speech code "is applied with selective enforcement based on content, then it exponentially increases the offense against liberty, dignity and legal equality," Kors further clarified.

"Their plan does not allow them to be neutral, and that is why their plan is flawed," stated Saxe.

Increasing Hostilities

Conservative speakers have run into difficulties before at Penn State. In the Spring 1998 semester, black conservative Ward Connerly (of California’s Prop 209 fame and the founder of the American Civil Rights Institute) was the target of intimidating student and faculty behavior that presaged Parker’s even more hostile reception. Of note was a pro-affirmative action rally led by Bonnie Ortiz, an administrator from the Office of Educational Equity, and her boss, Terrell Jones, while another unidentified faculty member waved an "Uncle Tom Go Home" placard and students disparaged Connerly’s white wife.

"That Penn State could speak of banning disrespect and harassment while seeing behavior of its own administrators toward Star Parker and its own students toward Ward Connerly is an instance of hypocritical bad faith," Kors pronounced.

Saxe points to this burgeoning negative environment surrounding YAF’s speakers as the imminent need for an investigation. "What would be the next step? They seem to be getting increasingly more aggressive," said Saxe. "We need to find where the source of it [the hostility toward conservatives] is and if the source of it is this diversity plan of William Asbury."

"They are teaching students the worst imaginable lesson, that their rights depend not on the rights of citizens, but on the whims of arbitrary power," said Kors. "Saxe has done everyone at Penn State and in the Commonwealth and anyone who loves liberty and fairness a wonderful favor in putting the question, ‘Is this University policy?’ explicitly to Spanier."

However, McCarthy criticized Saxe’s charges as "absolutely untrue." "The statement is laughable," said McCarthy. "During the 1960s, there were a lot of people on the liberal side who spread a lot of disinformation. We are in an era now where there are a lot of people on the conservative side who are doing the same."

Justice Pursued

Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge appointed Saxe to the state’s Board of Education and the Council for Higher Education (in charge of all junior colleges through universities) in December of 1997. Saxe’s subsequent research has pointed him to diversity codes throughout the state that have become widespread, somewhat uniform, and allegedly in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Saxe, in describing the basis of his proposed investigation, said that Pennsylvania’s state colleges and universities have taken advantage of an antiquated 1985 master plan that was silent on the issue of diversity codes. "State universities have conjured up their own plans," Saxe said, and now risk losing their state funding for being in violation of federal law. Pennsylvania’s institutions of higher learning stand to receive over $1.2 billion in state aid this year.

Saxe highlighted the "water buffalo" incident at the University of Pennsylvania and the case of Kuntztown U. vs. Hall, where a faculty member was fired solely for objecting to the institution of a multicultural curriculum, as two examples of diversity codes leading to free speech violations on Pennsylvania’s campuses.

"Campus diversity plans and speech codes rest on the notion that civility must prevail, and that respect and tolerance be demanded," Saxe noted in an interview with Campus Report. "The basic idea is that closing the mouth of someone who might utter an unwelcome thought, a hurtful word, or a mean-spirited idea is far better than letting him or her speak; or worse, allowing anyone to listen to such speech."

"We cannot on the one hand support and defend free speech and other First Amendment rights," wrote Saxe, "then on the other hand make qualifications that direct the student, faculty, and staff to be mindful of being ‘in compliance with University regulations.’"