Campus Reform: Indiana University - Bloomington

Fellow conservatives,

Be careful with this one.  The list of speakers who the Union Board has sponsored in the recent past convincingly demonstrates that the Union Board currently has a staggering liberal bias.  That it declined to pay Thomas Woods, Jr. to speak at IU, however, does not.

First, the fact that the Union Board declined to pay a specific non-liberal to speak at IU does not necessarily indicate that it would decline to pay others.  Woods is controversial even among conservatives and libertarians (or, rather, among the conservatives and libertarians who have heard of him), and even a predominantly conservative Union Board may well have refused to spend $4000 on him.  Who else has the Union Board declined to pay to speak?

Second, it is not Woods' economic views that have made him controversial -- his notorious pro-confederacy, anti-Lincoln views (detailed in, among other places, one of those two best-sellers) and his involvement with pro-confederate organizations and people are what have made him controversial.  These views may not bother everyone, but I suspect that many IU conservatives will want to take this into account.

Third, exactly what degrees did he earn at Harvard and Columbia?  Has he studied Economics?  Attending a prestigious college does not make a person an expert in every field.  It doesn't necessarily make a person an expert in any field.  Neither does writing a NYT best-seller, for that matter (do Al Franken's best-sellers establish his intellectual credibility?).

Fourth, whatever the IU Economics Department's political identity is (if it has one), it is not liberal.

Finally, there is an important difference between not paying someone to speak and not allowing someone to speak.  It is the same as the difference between a person stealing $20 from your wallet and someone refusing to gratuitously put $20 in your wallet.  The only thing keeping Woods from speaking at IU is the fact that he is only interested in doing it if someone pays him $4000, first.

As I began, be careful with this -- this is not just another textbook case of institutional liberal bias.

• Login to post comments

I would tend to disagree. What is happening here is what I saw on my campus for four years: a group of students (or the administrators) do not agree with a particular political persuasion, so they refuse to host said speaker.

In 2004, my alma mater hosted Ron Jeremy. Not that I agreed with all of his positions (he actually made some relavent points about violence against women, though), but I supported his right to speak. On the flip side, evangelical preachers proselytized at my alma mater last semester and they were physically assaulted by a student who didn't agree with their message.

The left is notorious for shouting down their opposition. A quote oftentimes attributed to Voltaire goes like this: I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Woods' views may be controversial, but that doesn't mean a board can marginalize them. He's got two NYT best sellers, so he must be doing something right.

• Login to post comments

The details on Woods' credentials are available here: http://www.thomasewoods.com/about/

• Login to post comments

You are right that leftists often behave that way, and you would be right to say that for the last year, at least, the Union Board lectures have become (for the most part) a propaganda tool.  Considering the way it is organized and the privileges it receives from the university, this is inappropriate.  I would not agree, however, either that it is violating anyone's rights or that it is necessarily inappropriate for it to decline to pay for a particular speaker.

Since its funds are limited, the Union Board has to make choices about which potential speakers would be "worth" their cost.  Depending on how the Union Board actually did it, it may well have been entirely reasonable for them to have relied on Economics professors' advice concerning whether Woods has academic credibility in Economics and then to use that information in deciding whether to pay him to speak on Economic issues.  (NYT best-sellers are certainly an accomplishment, but they do not necessarily establish that their author is an expert.  Michael Moore had two NYT best-sellers in 2003 alone, but I don't think that even his fans regard him as a scholar.)

In making those choices, the Union Board does not violate anyone's rights -- it can only decide whether to pay Woods the $4000, not whether he will be allowed on campus or whether a suitable room will be available on campus for the event.  He is free to speak for free, and he is not entitled to speak for money.  To the extent that Woods is a conservative, he would say the same thing.

If the Union Board were to refuse to host several well-qualified conservative speakers (or if it has already done that) while continuing to function as a liberal mouthpiece, then there would definitely be an issue to address, there, but it isn't clear to me that they have done anything wrong in rejecting (meaning "refusing to pay") a single proposed speaker for apparently legitimate reasons.

The Union Board obviously deserves some sort of criticism for its recent speaker selections, and though I would prefer that the criticism it receives be valid, I don't think it would be particularly unfair to the Union Board for it to receive related, somewhat off-target criticism instead.  I don't want YAL or other IU conservatives to throw away their credibility, though, or to cause their fellow conservatives to become disillusioned.  The Union Board is biased, right now, but to most people (particularly conservatives, who tend to understand the difference between not paying for something and not allowing something) who learn that this is really about the Union Board wanting evidence that a speaker has credibility as a scholar in Economics before it pays him $4000 to speak on Economics, this will appear to be little more than "crying wolf."

• Login to post comments

ktb12,

I think your criticisms would be especially applicable at a private institution.  As a state and federally funded institution, however, Indiana University is pretty much obligated to make funds available to students in a manner that doesn't pose a risk to viewpoint neutrality.  I'm pretty sure the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled "approval by referendum" an unconstitutional practice.  The reason is this offers students no protection against viewpoint discrimination. 

However unpopular the views of the conservative student organization, or its speaker, if Indiana University wishes to provide student organizations a source of funding for guest speakers, it's legally obligated do so in a manner that doesn't require a student board's approval. 

I'd call FIRE on this immediately.  Check out their guide on Student Fees.

• Login to post comments

I have done some research in the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) books that I own and here is what it says in regards to our issue: 

"A public college or university cannot impose or use mandatory fees to create a system in which students at one end of the political or religious spectrum are forced to fund ideas with which they disagree while never allowing them to fund ideas with which they agree."

"One way to protect funding decisions from ideological abuse is for the university to spell out clear, neutral, non-ideological standards as the sole conditions for receiving funding (as noted in the Southward v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System (2002 -US Court of Appeals in the Seventh Circuit)"

"Under the system approved by the Supreme Court, any student organization would be entitled to funding if it met specific and objective non-ideological standards."

The Union Boards system is completely subjective, and therefore unconstitutional as ruled by the US court of appeals for the Seventh Circuit and the US Supreme Court.

• Login to post comments

More importantly, check out the Q&A section of that chapter... they cite a specific Supreme Court case ruling against approving student organization funding via referendum (unfortunately, one of my fellow activists here at Baylor is borrowing the book from me, or I'd provide a page reference) :P

• Login to post comments

Is this what you're talking about: http://www.thefire.org/public/pdfs/student-fees.pdf?direct ?

If so, I think that the Supreme Court case that you are referring to is Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth.  It is actually from an earlier stage in that 2002 Southworth case from the 7th Circuit.  In 2000, the Supreme Court had decided that one of the school's funding processes (the referendum) violated the principle of viewpoint neutrality, and it remanded the case for consideration of the constitutionality of the other two in light of its (the Supreme Court's) decision.  Once the district court examined those issues, the case was again appealed, resulting in the 2002 7th Circuit decision.

If you are considering legal action, I have the following suggestions: 1) Consult a lawyer who is familiar with this area of the law.  FIRE may be able to help with this.  (It is good that FIRE released that guide, but FIRE also placed a disclaimer somewhere, with good reason, stating that the information on its website is not intended as a substitute for specific legal advice from a lawyer.)  2) Consider discussing the legal aspects of this controversy through a more private medium, such as personal (and non-university, probably) e-mail accounts, the telephone, or an in-person meeting.  3) Move quickly.

I have a few other thoughts on this, but in line with my suggestion #2, is there a person or are there people who I should e-mail?

• Login to post comments

Daniel,

I wouldn't describe what I have written as "criticism."  I thought of it more of a "caution" signal.  My first reason for sending this signal is pretty unremarkable: I wasn't sure that she (or they?) had done anything wrong, at least in rejecting one speaker.  The second is more of a practical reason: getting too carried away can spoil the movement, and it is good to remember that risk in a situation like this.  The problem in the conservative movement hasn't been that conservatives who get too carried away are being "too conservative."  The problem is that, in their excitement, they do not stop to think about whether what they are doing actually is conservative, whether it promotes conservative goals, or whether correctly applies conservative principles.  That judgment has to be made by each conservative individually (or possibly as a group, voluntarily and within each group), but the only way for me to encourage other conservatives to think about it is to bring it up.

Concerning the substance of your comment: Depending on the facts (which I found surprisingly difficult to find -- shouldn't it be easy to find the annual budget for Indiana University, if not for the board of the Indiana Memorial Union?), it may turn out to be true that the system in place is unconstitutional, but I still do not think that declining to pay a particular speaker is necessarily improper, unconstitutional, or unjust.  (Also, I do not think that the referendum rule would apply here, because even though students elect most of the members of the Union Board, the Court considered the referendum method to be the essence of subjectivity.  It is difficult even to imagine a large number of voters being asked to objectively apply a detailed standard to a fairly complicated set of facts.)  I would probably have the same opinion of this even if the facts were to turn out to be those that most favor the possibility that the Union Board's decision-making process itself is unconstitutional.  The Union Board's explanation for its decision to decline to pay Thomas Woods, Jr. to speak at IU makes sense.  Without more direct evidence than that the Union Board declined to pay for him, we cannot even infer that the reason for its decision was viewpoint discrimination.

Depending on the facts, though, it may turn out that the system does give too much discretion to a single person or group of people, lacking impartial criteria, recordings of the deliberations, the requirement of a written explanation of the decision, or a process for appealing the decision inside the university.  I would agree with you that the system itself could be a problem.

• Login to post comments

Yea, message the Indiana University admin, and club president, Sam Spaiser. I can give you his email address if you need it, otherwise you can find it on facebook.

• Login to post comments

...coming to this 9 days after the last comment.

kbt12,

Whether the rationale for provided by this voting board makes sense in anyone's view is irrelevant.  That a student organization at a public university even has to contend with a voting board for funding is already a violation of current jurisprudence; the school doesn't have to provide student groups with any funding at all; but if it does, it must do so in a manner that isn't subject to the biases of a student referendum.

See page 24 of FIRE's guide on student fees.

• Login to post comments