|
|
College Republican/YAF Advisors to Host “Indoctrinate U” as Report Exonerates Their Groups of Discrimination
Philip Rodney Moon
MSU College Republican Advisor Fred Fico and Young Americans for Freedom Advisor William Allen have announced they are bringing the documentary “Indoctrinate U” to campus on April 3rd at room 402 Computer Center. The documentary looks into alleged political discrimination against conservatives on American college campuses.
The documentary is taking place almost two weeks after the Office of Inclusion and Intercultural Initiatives (OIII) released a report exonerating YAF and the College Republicans from discrimination in violation of the Universities Anti-Discrimination Policy (ADP).
Fico said that the investigation by the OIII was the reason he and Allen had decided to bring the film to campus. Fico said that the ADP was being abused by several students groups that wanted to shut down speech. He said that the First Amendment protects speech, even if it is offensive.
"If you look at the ADP, 13 categories of people are protected, and [student groups] are trying to protect them from being offended,” Fico said, “Offensive speech is protected.”
Fico said that anti-discrimination policies were most often used to target conservatives.
“Professor Allen and I interpreted this as a political correctness move. Universities have seen this across the country,” Fico said. "We want to show in a broad way that this is a broad problem."
Fico said he supported free speech for people on the left and that conservatives didn’t buckle under political correctness.
“Speakers like Ward Churchill who called the people who died in the World Trade Center ‘little Eichmanns’ have the same right,” Fico said. “[Liberals] like Harvard President Larry Summers broke down in tears.”
Larry Summers resigned as President of Harvard after he suggested that biological differences between men and women might account for low participation in science and engineering by women.
The report by the Office of Inclusion and Intercultural Initiatives exonerated YAF and the College Republicans from allegations of violating the ADP. However, the report was critical of YAF and the actions of its members. The report found that:
“The complaints also alleged that the faculty advisors of YAF and the College Republicans were complicit in the alleged harassment and discrimination in violation of the ADP… For the reasons set forth in this Report, and based on all the evidence available to OIII during the course of the investigation, it is determined that the facts alleged by the complainants do not constitute harassment or discrimination in violation of the ADP… Prohibited harassment requires evidence that the conduct of the two student organizations created a “hostile environment” for the complainants. A hostile environment exists where the conduct complained of is “so severe, persistent or pervasive” that a reasonable person would find that it deprives the complainants of access to the educational benefits or opportunities provided by the University.”
The complaints including the Tom Tancredo speech in Dec. 2006, the aborted “Catch an Illegal Immigrant Day” in fall 2006 and the Chris Simcox event in April 2007.
Allegations included stalking, intimidation and postings by YAF across campus. The MSU Police were also accused of violations. One complainant, whose name was redacted, was reported saying:
“She heard officers say “we’re shutting down the event.” She said that it appeared confusing at first… She could see that those she considered YAF and College Republicans supporters, in the first two rows, along with a handful of others, were all still there and were not leaving. She could see the vast majority of people in the room were white. … The event was allowed to continue, despite students being told it was being “shut down.”
The report concluded no violations of the ADP by the MSU Police, College Republicans or YAF. However, in the report’s conclusion, actions by YAF were criticized as being offensive.
“The conduct alleged here, even if true, does not meet the level of actionable harassment or discrimination contemplated by the courts. Thus, there is no finding that the ADP was violated… the content of campus sidewalk chalking, flyers, Web site blog posts, and written and spoken comments made by the respondent student organization members and sponsored speakers, while not found to be in violation of the ADP as prohibited harassment, was offensive, hurtful, taunting and very hurtful to the complainants.”
Questions? Comments? Contact Philip Rodney Moon at moonphil@msu.edu
|
|
