DONATE

Intolerance on Campus

Blog

College Protest Response: The Good, Bad, & Ugly

/

Contrasting responses to pro-Hamas protests on campus Amid a wave of pro-Hamas protests that erupted on college campuses this spring, universities across the nation grappled with how to address the demonstrations while upholding principles of free speech and safety for all students. Some institutions were exemplary in their reaction — others, not so much… UNIVERSITIES THAT HANDLED THE PROTESTS POORLY: Columbia University was ground-zero for aggressive pro-Hamas protests. A three-week fiasco, the Columbia administration was paralyzed in the face of increasingly disorderly conduct, allowing for weeks of ongoing protests even after the students took over the campus’s famed Hamilton Hall, barricaded the entrances, and hung a banner from the window saying, “Free Palestine.” Students held the school hostage, issuing a list of wild demands that included a “complete divestment” from all Israel-related investments and amnesty from disciplinary actions for protesting students. Columbia’s pushback? An email saying that bringing back police “at this time” would be counterproductive. Things got so hot that Columbia ended up canceling its university-wide commencement ceremony. Harvard University pursued a more “inclusive” approach to the chaos. Student agitators made a mess of the Harvard campus, pushing their agenda for more than three weeks until the Ivy League school’s president Alan Garber and university officials agreed to meet with them to discuss the students’ demands that the university cut ties with Israel and businesses that support Israel. Harvard was already facing backlash after not condemning its student groups with statements claiming that Israel was “entirely responsible” for the brutal Hamas attacks on the country. U.S. Senator Ted Cruz, also a Harvard Law School graduate, wrote on X, “What the Hell is wrong with Harvard? Given the choice between standing with Israel or supporting terrorists who are raping, kidnapping & killing thousands of women & children…31 student groups choose the terrorists. Their blazing hatred & antisemitism utterly blinding.” Cornell University found itself on the receiving end of a letter from Congress criticizing their handling of the protests, asserting that “antisemitism remains a serious problem” at the school. They weren’t exaggerating: numerous students expressed concerns over the protests, citing feelings of insecurity and the fostering of antisemitic sentiment on campus. In the midst of heated campus discussions regarding antisemitism and demonstrations concerning the Israel-Hamas conflict Cornell president Martha E. Pollack announced she would be stepping down.   UNIVERSITIES THAT HANDLED THE PROTESTS WELL: University of Chicago president Paul Alivisatos pushed back with a robust statement declaring an end to spiraling protests on campus and reasserting the school’s stated values. “Free expression is the core animating value of the University of Chicago, so it is critical that we be clear about how I and my administration think about the issue of encampments, how the actions we take in response will follow directly from our principles, and specific considerations that will influence our judgments and actions. The general principle we will abide by is to provide the greatest leeway possible for free expression, even expression of viewpoints that some find deeply offensive. We only will intervene when what might have been an exercise of free expression blocks the learning or expression of others or that substantially disrupts the functioning or safety of the University. These are our principles. They are clear.” Alivisatos came out with a follow-up saying, “I believe the protesters should also consider that an encampment, with all the etymological connections of the word to military origins, is a way of using force of a kind rather than reason to persuade others…those violating university policy should expect to face disciplinary consequences.” And they did. University of Florida took a tough approach and condemned campus agitators, telling them they would face legal consequences for actions that cross the line from speech into violence. The demonstrations baffled university president Ben Sasse, who said, “We support folks’ free-speech rights, but that includes the right to make an a– and an idiot of yourself, and a lot of the protesters say ridiculously, historically and geographically ignorant things.” Sasse continued: “This is not complicated: The University of Florida is not a daycare, and we do not treat protesters like children. They knew the rules, they broke the rules, and they’ll face the consequences.” University of Texas at Austin adopted a firm approach toward protesting students and faculty alike. Pro-Palestine activists were adamant in their demands, which included the resignation UT Austin president Jay Hartzell. As UT Austin is a public university, Texas Governor Greg Abbott stepped in and responded, saying, “This will NEVER happen. The only thing that will happen is that the University and the State will use all law-enforcement tools to quickly terminate illegal protests taking place on campus that clearly violate the laws of the state of Texas and policies of the university.” In just one week, law enforcement cracked down on the law-breakers, apprehending over 100 protesters for offenses that included criminal trespassing and violations of university regulations. The differing approaches universities took to this heated moment highlight the principle of upholding free speech but also the importance of having a clear policy showing where to draw the line. The institutions of higher education that handled the protests best are the ones that upheld their stated rules and values. That’s not a coincidence.   [Photo credit: Jane Dominguez, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 DEED, via Flickr (cropped)]

Press Releases

New Tolerance Campaign Announces 2023 “Worst of the Woke” Awards

/

Amazon, Bud Light, the Academy Awards, and More Among Top 10 Worst Woke Offenders of 2023 Nonprofit watchdog the New Tolerance Campaign (NTC) has released its third annual “Worst of the Woke” list — a look back at the year’s most outrageous and disappointing examples of woke culture gone wild. NTC’s 2023 roundup features the top 10 institutions that tried to foist woke politics onto the weary public, with leaders across diverse industries — from retail to entertainment to finance — landing on the list. This year’s theme? Backlash from fed-up consumers. Consider, for example, the massive boycott that led the CEO of Target to admit that the retailer’s woke virtue signaling caused its first quarterly sales drop in six years. Or the fans that catapulted Jason Aldean’s “Try That in a Small Town” to the top of the charts after Country Music Television pulled it off the air. “In 2023, mainstream institutions leveraged everything from books to beer to promote their woke agendas,” said NTC president Gregory T. Angelo. “However, this year saw a tidal wave of consumers using their wallets and voices to push back against the woke mob, with staggering results. Americans looking for a New Year’s resolution should pledge to keep fighting back against the woke invasion of our country.” Check out NTC’s top 10 worst woke offenders — and one “Champion of Tolerance” — below:   Award Winner: Bud Light / Anheuser-Busch  Reason: For decades, Bud Light had bragging rights as America’s best-selling beer — until April, when an ill-advised marketing campaign with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney went viral for all the wrong reasons. Bud Light’s core customer base felt abandoned, and in turn they abandoned the brand. A sustained boycott led to sales falling a whopping 17%. Then, after Anheuser-Busch executives expressed remorse for the promotion, the Human Rights Campaign, an LGBTQ lobbying organization, stripped the company of its 100% rating as a “Best Place to Work for LGBTQ+ Equality.” Anheuser-Busch’s attempt at virtue signaling made them everyone’s enemy. Will the brand ever recover?   Award Winner: Target  Reason: Retail giant Target hasn’t been shy about marketing to LGBTQ consumers during “Pride Month” in June, but this year, after word spread that the brand was pushing “pride-themed” clothing for babies and kids, shoppers drew the line. In May, CEO Brian Cornell made the audacious assertion that pushing divisive social issues at the company is “the right thing for society”; by August he was explaining to upset investors that the company’s dalliance with social issues led to a “negative reaction” from consumers. Target experienced its first quarterly drop in sales in six years.   Award Winner: Bank of America Reason: Financial giant Bank of America went “full woke” in 2023, instituting race-based home financing requirements and denying loans to gun manufacturers and the fossil fuel industry. If that wasn’t enough, the company implemented a work reeducation program that insists America is a “racialized society” and encourages employes to be “woke at work.”   Award Winner: The Academy Awards Reason: The Academy Awards implemented onerous “inclusion” standards for filmmakers and movie studios to abide by if they wish to be eligible for “Best Picture” honors. The list is quite something to behold. Quotas that demand that “at least one of the lead actors must be from an underrepresented racial or ethnic group.” In addition, “30% of actors in secondary roles be from underrepresented groups such as LGBT+ and people with cognitive or physical disabilities,” and the plot must “center around an underrepresented group.” It’s estimated that of the 95 Best Pictures in the history of the Oscars, over half would not qualify under these new thresholds. Gone with the Wind, Wizard of Oz, Citizen Kane, Casablanca, Singin’ in the Rain, The Sound of Music, The Godfather, Star Wars, Taxi Driver, Goodfellas, and Schindler’s List all would have been ineligible for top honors. Even recent critically acclaimed movies such as 1917 and The Irishman wouldn’t make the cut.   Award Winner: Country Music Television Reason: Crime has run rampant in America’s cities. Enter country singer Jason Aldean, who wrote “Try That in a Small Town” to contrast the values gap between metropolitan and rural America. After race scolds slammed the song for being a “pro-lynching” anthem, Country Music Television folded fast and yanked the music video off the air. Despite the ban, “Try That in a Small Town” went on to become a #1 hit on the Billboard Hot 100.   Award Winner: Southern Poverty Law Center  Reason: The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), long known for frivolously flagging groups as “extremists,” was suddenly silent when Hamas terrorists slaughtered more than 1,200 Jewish civilians on October 7 in the worst mass-killing of Jews since the Holocaust. The group shrugged off critics, claiming that it was “outside of our purview and expertise to comment on international events” — despite loudly issuing statements on international events in the past. When CEO Margaret Huang finally spoke up nearly a month later, the schizophrenic statement barely touched on the attack, striking an “All Lives Matter” tone. Remember when we were told saying that was offensive?   Award Winner: Puffin Books  Reason: Wokeness rewrites history to fit political ends. That was literally the case this year, when Puffin Books announced it rewrote “controversial” elements of long-established Roald Dahl children’s classics such as Charlie & The Chocolate Factory, and Matilda. An “enormously fat” boy became simply “enormous,” “Cloud-Men” were now “Cloud-People.” In some cases, entire paragraphs were inserted into books that Dahl had never written. After a public outcry and harsh critiques from literary leaders, the company announced it would continue to publish the original texts.   Award Winner: Amazon  Reason: The internet shopping giant proved that “Big Brother” is closer than you may think. After an Amazon employee claimed to hear a racist remark while making a delivery, the company shut down the owner’s smart home. The kicker? The homeowner is black, wasn’t home, and has video showing the delivery driver wearing headphones at the time of the incident. Even after showing proof of his innocence to Amazon, it

Blog

The School for Scandal

/

When educators are ignorant of history, history is in danger of being rewritten.  Earlier this month, the Gadsen flag — a symbol that represents rebellion against tyranny — was ironically at the center of controversy. Jaiden Rodrigez, a 12-year-old student attending the Vanguard School in Colorado Springs, was kicked out of his seventh-grade classroom by administrators for wearing a Gadsden flag patch on his book bag. A surreptitiously recorded video released by Connor Boyack shows Jaiden and his mother having a discussion with the school’s vice principal, who declares that the reason the flag cannot be displayed is “due to its origins of slavery and the slave trade.” This is, of course, entirely false — and a gross rewriting of the Gadsden flag’s history. The iconic yellow flag, depicting a rattlesnake with the phrase “Don’t Tread On Me” below it, was designed by South Carolina soldier and delegate Christopher Gadsden in 1775 during the Revolutionary War. Soon after its creation, the first United States’ Naval commander-in-chief, Commodore Esek Hopkins, hoisted the flag from his ship, the USS Alfred. In February 1776, the flag was submitted to the Provincial Congress of South Carolina by delegate Gadsden as a pro-freedom symbol and a warning to the British not to violate the liberties of Americans. Being ignorant of the Gadsden flag’s origins is one thing, but for an educator to assert an entirely rewritten its history while simultaneously attempting to erase its display is unacceptable. The video of the exchange, filmed by Jaiden’s mother, quickly went viral, amassing eight million views in one hour and racking up tens of millions of views across all social media platforms. Online outrage soon exploded — and it was channeled into action. People across the country sent messages to Vanguard School administrators lambasting their poor decision and lack of historical knowledge. It worked. Within hours, the Vanguard School board of directors called an emergency meeting and issued a statement siding with Jaiden asserting the institution’s stated values. “From Vanguard’s founding we have proudly supported our Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the ordered liberty that all Americans have enjoyed for almost 250 years. The Vanguard School recognizes the historical significance of the Gadsden flag and its place in history. This incident is an occasion for us to reaffirm our deep commitment to a classical education in support of these American principles. At this time, the Vanguard School Board and the District have informed the student’s family that he may attend school with the Gadsden flag patch visible on his backpack.” The next day, Jaiden posted a video on social media sharing that kids were “hyped up” by the attention he gained for standing his ground. Some even put Gadsden flag stickers on their lockers as a new trend. Jaiden’s story is doubly instructive: it illustrates the courage required to combat virtue-signaling bullies with a superiority complex — even under threat of getting canceled, losing a job or friends, or getting kicked out of school. This incident also showed the power that grassroots action has to hold institutions accountable. It wasn’t just Vanguard School students and parents pushing back; it was the people, and the people got results. If Jaiden and his mother hadn’t taken a stand, the Gadsden flag would have been another piece of culture surrendered to the revisionists. Instead, their resolve provided a valuable lesson: When faced with woke bullies, don’t let them tread on you. [Photo credit: Connor Boyack / @cboyack (screenshot of video on X)]

Blog

Affirming DEI?

/

As DEI retreats in higher education, its influence continues to grow in corporate America In the wake of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) overturning affirmative action in college admissions in late June, there has been a subtle movement away from Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives on many college campuses. Despite the common refrain that ending affirmative action is racist and is deeply unpopular with the American public, it routinely is rejected by American voters across the country. California voters overwhelmingly dismissed overturning the state ban on affirmative action in 2020, with 57% voting to keep the ban in place. Nationally, a supermajority of the American public — close to 70% — oppose considering race in college admissions. The vast majority of colleges and universities condemned the affirmative action decision by the Court and vowed to maintain avenues of factoring race into their admissions process, which is clearly contrary to their stated missions of equality. Harvard, an institution of higher education at the center of the SCOTUS case, has a Mission Statement that declares, “No one should be harmed or denied an equal opportunity to thrive because of their race, sex, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, disability, or religion” — a hypocritical statement in direct conflict with the school’s affirmative action policies. In the wake of the SCOTUS decision, numerous institutions have begun to cut back on some of their so-called “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) initiatives that contradict equal opportunity for all students. The New College of Florida, for example, dissolved its DEI office, as did the University of Arkansas. The University of Missouri, the University of Kentucky, and other schools announced an end to race-based scholarships, seeing them as next in line to be challenged in the courts. But as DEI faces retreat in higher education, its influence continues to grow in corporate America. DEI initiatives across the country have been supercharged in recent years. Following the riots of 2020, major corporations such as Microsoft, JPMorgan Chase, and Goldman Sachs all pledged to enforce racial quotas and meet diversity goals within five years (2025). The corporations exceeded these goals. Microsoft, for example, hit their targets in 2023. Their response? To commit to even more divisive DEI projects. In 2019, financial giant Goldman Sachs committed to racial quotas for new interns, and financial incentives to black and hispanic workers. Tech companies such as Google and Facebook have embraced similar quotas and race-based practices. The Supreme Court decision striking down affirmative action in college admissions marked one step toward re-instituting a nationwide culture in which reward is based on merit rather than race. Whether we as a country continue on this journey in academia and in business remains to be seen.

Past Campaigns, Top Campaigns

Urge Columbia University’s New President to Hit the Reset Button on Support for Free Speech

/

University presidents wield substantial power to promote — or limit — free expression on college campuses. The president of Columbia University in New York City is no exception: From the moment she took office at the ivy league school on July 1, she inherited the challenge of protecting student and faculty free speech at an institution which maintains restrictive speech codes and ranks last in the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression’s (FIRE) “2022-23 College Free Speech Rankings.” As an adopter of the Chicago Statement, the gold standard for an institutional commitment to free expression, Columbia is obligated to defend and uphold speech rights for its students and faculty. One way to put its promise to protect free expression into practice is to reform restrictive policies in ways that satisfy various campus imperatives while also respecting free speech promises and principles. To ensure that Columbia not only promises to protect free speech but actively defends it, the New Tolerance Campaign is partnering with FIRE to empower students, alumni, and concerned citizens to urge Columbia University’s new president to improve the school’s speech policies. Ask Columbia’s new president, Nemat “Minouche” Shafik, to fulfill Columbia’s duty to protect free expression. 

Past Campaigns

Thank the Dean of Stanford Law for Recommitting to Free Speech

/

Earlier this month an insolent mob of unhinged students sabotaged a Federalist Society chapter meeting at Stanford Law School. Their goal: to shut down speaker Stuart Kyle Duncan, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. Worst of all: a member of the Stanford Law faculty led the charge! Tirien Steinbach, the school’s associate dean for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), commandeered the podium and lectured the judge, insisting he was responsible for “disenfranchisement,” “harm,” and “tearing at the fabric of this community.” In the aftermath of this shameful display, Stanford Law apologized to Duncan, igniting protests on campus. But Dean Jenny Martinez didn’t back down. Last week, Dean Martinez doubled down in a lengthy letter underscoring that a “commitment to diversity and inclusion means that we must protect the expression of all views.” Principled stands like this are becoming increasingly rare in higher education. A commitment to welcoming diverse views used to be expected at universities; these days, it is worthy of praise. Send a message of thanks to Dean Martinez using the form on this page. Hopefully her courage is contagious.       [Photo credit: Timothy Archibald / Stanford Law School (cropped)]

Past Campaigns

Emerson College Must Appoint a President Who Supports ‘Diverse Ideas’ and ‘Free Expression’

/

University presidents wield substantial power to promote — or limit — free expression on American college campuses. The future president of Emerson College in Boston, MA, is no exception: Whoever assumes this role will inherit the challenge of protecting student free speech on a campus with an unfortunate track record of limiting it. Over the past year and a half, Emerson has been embroiled in substantial controversy for suppressing student expression. Despite receiving multiple letters from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) listing concerns about its actions, Emerson has doubled and tripled down on campus censorship. Emerson’s own Community Standards affirm that “[a]s an institution dedicated to Communication and the Arts, the First Amendment of the US Constitution is of high importance.” The college’s actions over the past 18 months, however, call that commitment into question, even earning Emerson a place on FIRE’s 2022 list of the “10 Worst Colleges for Free Speech.” Now, as Emerson searches for a new university president, its Presidential Search Prospectus describes “[a]ppreciation for diverse ideas and the free expression of them” as a “non-negotiable value” underpinning the college’s search. To ensure that Emerson holds fast to this commitment, the New Tolerance Campaign is partnering with FIRE to empower students, alumni, and concerned citizens to voice their support for a pro-free speech president at Emerson. Tell Emerson’s Presidential Search Committee to fulfill its duty and appoint a president who supports free expression! UPDATE (01/12/23): Emerson College announced the appointment of Dr. Jay M. Bernhardt as the school’s next president. Our allies at FIRE are vetting Dr. Bernhardt for his record on support for different views and free speech on campus. Check back for updates!

Past Campaigns

Journalistic Ethics Require Berkeley Beacon to Run Student Rebuttal

/

Last fall, NTC advocates jumped into action when Emerson College derecognized the school’s TPUSA affiliate. The center-right student organization’s offense? They distributed stickers critical of the oppressive communist government of China. The group continues to push to have their charter reinstated, but the attacks against them from fellow students continue. The school’s student newspaper the Berkeley Beacon published an op-ed filled with smears against TPUSA and its student membership. When Emerson’s TPUSA chapter President Sam Neves asked to run a rebuttal, the response from Editor-in-Chief Vivi Smilgius was . . . NO. Ms. Smilgius cited concerns about instances of “defamation,” “misinformation,” “aggression towards a named individual,” and “questionable conjecture” in Neves’ proposed retort — but the Berkeley Beacon applied no such standards to Mr. Chen’s piece, which asserted TPUSA promotes “racist” views, is guilty of “spreading falsehoods,” termed TPUSA’s founder Charlie Kirk a “con artist,” and questioned whether the very “existence” of TPUSA should be allowed. New Tolerance Campaign President Gregory T. Angelo attempted to work with the Berkeley Beacon quietly behind-the-scenes to resolve this matter, but the Beacon refuses to act in good faith. Now, the newspaper needs to hear from you. Journalistic ethics dictate that, at the very least, the school’s TPUSA chapter be afforded the ability to respond in print to the accusations made against its members. Send a message to Berkeley Beacon Editor-in-Chief Vivi Smilgius: Journalistic ethics require that the Berkeley Beacon allow TPUSA to respond to its published allegations!

Past Campaigns

NTC Advocates Emailed Georgetown Law Asking Them To Uphold Their Own Free Speech Policy

/

Update (6-7-2022):  NTC advocates rallied to support Shaprio and emailed Georgetown Law Dean William Treanor asking him to accept Ilya Shapiro’s apology and uphold Georgetown’s policy on freedom of speech.  Sadly, Georgetown fell short of its own stated policies about free speech. After Georgtown Law’s “investigation” into Shapiro’s tweet they allowed him to stay on faculty, but made it clear that they could monitor his social media. Following that, Shapiro joined the Manhattan Institute as their Director of Constitutional Studies.  On January 21, constitutional law scholar and expert on the Supreme Court Ilya Shapiro was announced by Georgetown Law as executive director and senior lecturer at the Georgetown Center for the Constitution. Shapiro’s role was set to begin on February 1 — until a tweet about President Biden’s insistence that his next SCOTUS pick will be a black woman. “Objectively best pick for Biden is Sri Srinivasan, who is solid prog & v smart. Even has identity politics benefit of being first Asian (Indian) American,” Shapiro tweeted on January 26. “But alas doesn’t fit into the latest intersectionality hierarchy so we’ll get lesser black woman.” Shapiro deleted the tweet and apologized. Soon thereafter, Georgetown’s Black Law Students Association demanded that Shapiro’s job offer be rescinded. More generally, Shapiro was expressing a sentiment shared by an overwhelming majority of Americans, 76% of whom want Biden to consider “all possible nominees” for the highest court according to an ABC News/Ipsos poll released on January 30, rather than play identity politics and further politicize what should be an objective body. And as Dan McLaughlin framed it in National Review: “Ilya’s use of the words ‘lesser black woman’ in this context was not the ideal way of phrasing this critique, but then, Twitter is fast-moving, space-constrained, and has no edit function, so it is hardly unusual to see things phrased there awkwardly.” Contrast this with Georgetown’s handling of Georgetown professor Carol Christine Fair, who wrote in 2018 that all “entitled white” Republicans supporting the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme court deserved to be killed: “All of them deserve miserable deaths while feminists laugh as they take their last gasps,” she declared. “Bonus: we castrate their corpses and feed them to swine? Yes.” Georgetown’s response to inquiries about Ms. Fair? “Our policy does not prohibit speech based on the person presenting ideas or the content of those ideas, even when those ideas may be difficult, controversial or objectionable,” the university said in a statement to Fox News. “While faculty members may exercise freedom of speech, we expect that their classrooms and interaction with students be free of bias and geared toward thoughtful, respectful dialogue.” Georgetown’s Human Resources Policy Manual states that “it is not the proper role of a university to insulate individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive. Deliberation or debate may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even by most members of the University community to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or ill conceived. It is for the individual members of the University community, not for the University as an institution, to judge the value of ideas, and to act on those judgments not by seeking to suppress speech, but by openly and vigorously contesting those arguments and ideas that they oppose.” In the case of Ilya Shapiro, Georgetown Law will show whether these are genuine values or simply hollow words.

Past Campaigns

Emory University Charters Free Speech Forum Following 1,000+ Messages Sent by NTC Advocates

/

Update (04/11/22): Following pressure from NTC advocates, The Emory Free Speech Forum officially received a charter from the university. “The Emory Free Speech Forum is immensely grateful to the New Tolerance Campaign advocates for your support and action on our behalf.” —Emory Free Speech Forum Treasurer Cory Conley Thank you to the many New Tolerance Campaign grassroots advocates who made this victory possible! Emory University is crystal clear on their stated values. Their Respect for Open Expression policy declares the school is “committed to an environment where open expression of ideas is valued, promoted, and encouraged,” and vows to “not deny recognition to an organization because of disagreement with its mission or the viewpoints that it represents.” In the case of the Emory Free Speech Forum, it is upholding neither. The Emory Free Speech Forum is a student-led group “devoted to fostering critical discourse and open dialogue surrounding important issues in law and society.” In October, the organization was rebuffed in its application for formal chartering by the Emory Law Student Bar Association (SBA), which cited concerns that the group and its proposed topics of discussion could cause “harm.” The SBA also worried that chartering the Emory Free Speech forum would “likely give rise to a precarious environment — one where the conversation might very easily devolve,” and said it was “hesitant to issue a charter when there are no apparent safeguards in place to prevent potential and real harm that could result from these discussions.” No other campus organizations are required to have “safeguards” in order to be chartered. In the absence of a formal charter by the university, the Emory Free Speech Forum is prevented from reserving university space for meetings, denied access to university funds, and omitted from benefits enjoyed by other university student groups.   [photo: Emory University School of Law [CC BY-SA 4.0] / Wikimedia Commons]

Scroll to Top