Thursday, June 21, 2018
Student Union Memorial Center
1303 E. University Blvd, Tucson, AZ 85719
|8:00 am-8:30 am||Registration
Student Union Memorial Center (SUMC)
(outside Gallagher Theater - Level 2, main floor)
|8:45 am-10:00 am||
Politics, Student Government & Campus Speech
Keynote is open to all
|10:00 am-10:15 pm||Break|
|10:15 am-11:15 am||A) Using Speech to Justify Prejudice: College and university communities have seen themselves at the center of many protests and demonstrations related to events promoting racist and other prejudicial speech. Beyond those events garnering national publicity, higher education institutions have also increasingly grappled with inflammatory speakers within their own communities. Research by Chris Crandall has found that people high in prejudice endorsed free speech more than people low in prejudice but their endorsement was not principled; rather the justification often served to buffer racial and hate speech from disapproval. This session will offer a unique glimpse into the defensive free speech arguments used by bigots which often confound individuals and communities who hold more principled views.
Santa Rita (SUMC - Level 3)
B) Lawyer Speech Codes: Something Old, Something New: Should lawyers be permitted in their words and expressive conduct to discriminate against and harass others? The ABA, belatedly but finally, says no, but the answer in the states and in the literature has been mixed and at times conflicting. We will explore so-called speech and professionalism codes for lawyers and discuss what is old, new, and borrowed in the ABA and state approaches to the topic.
|11:15 am-12:15 pm||Lunch Break|
|12:15 pm-1:30 pm||
New Directions in Protest Policing: The right to protest peacefully is fundamental in a democracy. Yet peaceful protesters are often denied the right to protest or are subjected to arrest or the use of force by police. Protest policing practices in the United States are often found to be unconstitutional. Moreover, they have the tendency to escalate violence rather than preventing it. This session weaves together relevant findings from social science research on crowds, protests, police, and violence. It articulates a new vision for policing protests, one that is premised on preserving individual liberties and reducing violence. The session will conclude with some observations on how this new vision might apply to protests at colleges and universities.
|1:30 pm-1:45 pm||Break|
|1:45 pm-2:45 pm||
A) Restrictions on Student Athlete Expression: College student athletes face restrictions on free expression influenced by NCAA rules, institutional reputation concerns, and financial interests. As modes of expression have expanded, and as professional athletes have engaged in public and controversial protests, the voices of college athletes have been carefully controlled. This session will explore the restrictions placed upon this unique subset of the student population.
Don Gibson, Professor of Practice, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, Arizona State University
Eric Rhodes, Media Director, Nova Home Loan Arizona Bowl and Head Coach, UA Men's Soccer Club
Malcolm Holland, Student-Athlete, University of Arizona
B) One University’s Story: Embracing the Chicago Principles: In May 2015, Purdue University became the first public institution to adopt its own version of the “Chicago Principles” as an articulation of the critical importance of freedom of expression in higher education. This session will chronicle Purdue University’s journey to adopting these principles and the steps taken before and after their passing. The revisions to existing polices and the creation of a specific new student orientation session on the First Amendment and Freedom of Expression will be highlighted, as well as how these measures have complemented the university’s efforts related to diversity and inclusion.
Trent Klingerman, Assistant Legal Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer, Purdue University
C) Interrogating Civility and Respect in “Safe-Space” Discourses: University classrooms are widely imagined as egalitarian spaces in which students have the right to express themselves without the fear of repercussion and that controversial discussions should promote “civility” between interlocutors. However, just what civility looks like and should accomplish is relatively unclear. In this presentation, we analyze the notion of civility itself as well as how the quest for civil interaction in higher education classrooms may in fact silence the voices, experiences and emotions of non-normalized, non-ordinary participants, that is, anyone who is not White, male, middle class or heterosexual. We also critique the current trend in academe to address controversial topics in “safe spaces” because of the widely held supposition that dialogue that challenges, disrupts, or creates tension is otherwise unproductive. Finally, we discuss the tendency of some academics to intellectualize the concept of “freedom” within civil discourse as both an inalienable right and enduring legacy that the founding fathers gifted equally to everyone.
Jesus Jaime-Diaz, PhD Candidate, Department of Teaching, Learning, and Sociocultural Studies, University of Arizona
Richard Orozco, Assistant Professor, Secondary Education, University of Arizona South (UAS)
|2:45 pm-3:00 pm||Break|
|3:00 pm-4:00 pm||
A ) Balancing the Mix of Speech Protections for Faculty, Students and Staff: Colleges and universities, particularly public institutions, must balance the mix of differing speech and affiliation protections afforded faculty, students, and staff. They can be challenged by explosive reactions to public comments made and actions taken by various constituent groups and how best to manage and support the differing protections afforded these groups. This session will explore these distinctions and why they matter. It will contrast student speech rights with the rights and responsibilities of other groups, particularly in the role faculty, staff and administrators serve as institutional representatives. It will further suggest models and approaches for full engagement in meaningful conversation and dialogue on challenging social, cultural and political issues in ways that foster civil discourse and inclusion while appropriately managing the mix of speech protections.
B) On Campus and in the Classroom: The New Politics of Gun Rights and Rules: Gun politics has long represented a hotly contested issue in American politics and law, but in recent years, new debates about guns in the classroom have ignited. While active shootings have shaken campuses across the US, some jurisdictions now allow teachers, professors and students to carry firearms on campus and in the classroom. This panel examines how this changing landscape not only reflects and reshapes Second Amendment jurisprudence but also more broadly intersects with the politics of race, Free Speech, and higher education.
Patrick Blanchfield, Academic/Journalist, The Brooklyn Institute for Social Research