Fred Thompson's latest ABC column comments on a situation that would be funny if it weren't so sad:
..... One of the strangest examples (of "political correctness has crept into the halls of academia") comes from Marquette University in Wisconsin -- where a Dave Barry quip was banned. Last fall, Ph.D. student Stuart Ditsler printed out a short blurb from one of Barry's humor columns and stuck it on his office door. It read, "As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government." Of course, anybody who has ever heard of Dave Barry would know that he wasn't exactly suggesting insurrection.
The head of Marquette's philosophy department apparently didn't get it. He took down Barry's words and issued a statement that included the words, "while I am a strong supporter of academic freedom. I'm afraid that hallways and office doors are not free-speech zones." Since then, the Marquette philosophy department has stuck to its stance that Barry's words are "patently offensive," despite the fact that lots of other doors had slogans pasted on them.
As is often true in situations such as these, there's a lot more to the story. In this case, a little digging reveals not only a hypocritical academic mindset, but also shows that the next generation of journalists is on track to be even more biased than the current crop.
Shortly after the incident, John McAdams' Marquette Warrior blog carried the initial e-mail response of Marquette Philosophy Chair James South, who admitted taking down the "patently offensive" quote.
This portion of Mr. Ditsler's initial response to South's action, also posted at McAdams' blog, tells you all you need to know about the validity of South's specious "no free-speech zone" argument:
To wit, last year Dr. [redacted], who I like, respect, and admire very much, posted a cartoon by Pat Oliphant of the Washington Post about the ethical principles (or lack thereof) in the Bush administration that stayed on his door for I believe the entire academic year. The year before that, you posted a piece on your door immediately after the 2004 presidential election criticizing "family values" voters for preferring Bush and the Republican Party to Kerry and the Democrats. What this tells me is that doors and hallways are not "free speech zones" (a Bush administration term, which is ironic in itself) only when the opinions expressed are contrary to those of the majority of the members of the department.
To its credit, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, as McAdams noted in October, came down squarely on Ditsler's side. But Marquette's student newspaper, the Tribune, didn't exactly rush to Ditsler's defense and defend his academic freedom. In fact, as McAdams tells us, it took South's side. In an incoherently titled editorial ("Wild FIRE should have be extinguished" -- Huh?), its editors opined that:
The removal of the quote didn't clearly violate any freedoms granted by the Constitution, federal or state, nor by the university. Marquette's Student Handbook demonstrations policy states when people differ on whether a demonstration infringes on the rights of others in the community, an authority — in this case South — communicates his judgment and can require the demonstration be "promptly terminated."
So posting a quote on a door is a "demonstration"? And, despite the examples of other postings allowed to remain noted by Ditsler above, it didn't seem to bother the Tribune's editorialists that some "demonstrations" are clearly more equal than others.
(For those who don't know, "FIRE" is the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, whose mission is "to defend and sustain individual rights at America's colleges and universities." FIRE has written to Marquette officials several times concerning the incident. It has a page dedicated to a chronology of the correspondence to and from the university, along with other links to media coverage of the situation.)
As the kind of thinking exemplified by the Tribune editorial makes its way into the newsrooms of America, it's painfully clear that MRC and NewsBusters won't be lacking for work any time soon.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
At first glance it doesn't ma
June 16, 2007 - 09:43 ET by drillanwrAt first glance it doesn't make sense that what appears to be liberal bias in allowing such things be posted on doors. I mean, after all, the left decries the government every chance it gets.
On second glance, however, the 'federal government' would become "The State" if the neocommies ever were to take control of it ... and there is absolutely NO criticizing of "The State". Hell, Soviet prisons and mental institutions were filled with people who did such horrible things!!!
Side Bar: When I hear federal government I don't think 'President' ... I think Congress. Perhaps the head of Marquette's philosophy department thinks the same way I do when hearing 'federal government', and was appalled at the insult to the democrat held House and Senate ...
Unbelievable, the hypocricy t
June 16, 2007 - 09:52 ET by BlondeUnbelievable, the hypocricy that comes out of the left. They must have truly hated Barry's quote...first for recognizing that Americans have a common enemy (which sounds like something George Bush would say) and that it is big government....Unsane's nanny state, so beloved of the left.
Banning a Dave Barry quote from the halls of academia? I'd love to hear what Dave Barry (a well known Libertarian) would say about the situation. He'd make hash out of this mess, and have us rolling on the floor while he did so.
The defense of this idiot decision by the editorial in the student paper does indeed, prove your point, NB will be around for a long, long time...the "journalists in training" have already been corrupted.
But Blonde, they just "W
June 16, 2007 - 09:59 ET by drillanwrBut Blonde, they just "Want to make a difference" ... You know, "Change the world".
Good point, drill...Might I s
June 16, 2007 - 10:06 ET by BlondeGood point, drill...
Might I suggest these little do-gooders go to med school instead? And then move to a third world country to enjoy their change-the-world pursuits? Instead of becoming faux journalists (ooooh, I like that, faux journalists, for the obvious reason).
The really pathetic thing is that they're encouraged to act this way by the department and the university.
Not sure I want one of these
June 16, 2007 - 10:09 ET by drillanwrNot sure I want one of these types putting their hands on me if I were wheeled into the ER. As I posted on a thread a couple stories down on the home page garbage collectors and water sanitation people make more of a difference in peoples lives than journalists ...
drillanwr
June 16, 2007 - 10:38 ET by BlondePrecisely. Which is why I suggested they go to some third world country to pursue "making a difference".
As to the rest of your post, I agree wholeheartedly. And I really like the way you put that about the garbage collectors vs. journalists.
Having taught at five major u
June 16, 2007 - 10:15 ET by iveseenitallHaving taught at five major universities, I can tell you that every faculty building is littered with left-wing propaganda. From political cartoons to socialist essays, ridicule of any conservatives or conservative ideas is blatant and obvious. But the left will seize on any opprtunity to censure opposing views. Modern liberalism contains the seeds of communism and must be fought on every level. Look what it's done to our nation already.
NEVER, NEVER trust a liberal
Hey iv.......it's called &quo
June 16, 2007 - 17:52 ET by Scout FinchHey iv.......it's called "free speech for me, none for thee." Haven't you heard? Apparently only liberals themselves are unequipped to visually see the hypocrisy in that statement, or in this Marquette situation.
Blond, you are spot on!
June 16, 2007 - 11:53 ET by c5thenThe only reason that anyone could defend the decision to censor someone's free speech, is that they disagree with that speech. The opinion expressed by the professor through the Dave Barry quote was obviously unliked and hated by the dean and the students alike. So rather than fighting an opposing opinion with free speech of their own, they decided to try and supress the opposing viewpoint unconstitutionally.
Their is no hypocrisy like that expresed by a liberal.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic
While there have been overly
June 16, 2007 - 15:41 ET by dahliatraversWhile there have been overly broad interpretations of what free speech means as defined in the American Constitution, Dave Barry was criticizing our government. That's exactly the speech protected by the First Amendment.
Marquette University is openly suppressing free speech. Do they receive any federal monies? These need to end immediately.
Professor South’s academic
June 16, 2007 - 23:34 ET by maggieqpublicProfessor South’s academic discipline surprised me. The philosophy majors I’ve known (and have been married to one for 33 years) would never attempt to associate a personal political opinion with department policy. This controversy diminishes the Philosophy Department at Marquette.
as a marquette journa
June 17, 2007 - 09:35 ET by kahoonaas a marquette journalism alum (and former reporter)...i am embarrassed
(again) by the blind adherence to "politically correct" dogma. it's
just painful to watch.