Whereas, UC Irvine is an educational institution that emphasizes generating new ideas in its mission [1], and;

Whereas, the founders of UC Irvine emphasized the school’s role of benefiting society through advancing and discovering knowledge [2], and;

Whereas, freedom of thought and freedom of speech are fundamental to advancing and discovering knowledge, and;

Whereas, intellectual freedom is dying on this campus and college campuses across the U.S. that still questionably receive federal funding [3,4], and;

Whereas, recognized conservative campus clubs endure constant harassment and bullying on campus, contrary to the mission of this university and the founders of UCI, without apparent consequence, and;

Whereas, the methods of harassment used include: tearing down posters for events; reserving tickets for events to prevent people from attending; harassing, bullying, and threatening people on event pages; spreading rumors to incite prejudice to keep people away from ideas; promote an unhealthy campus climate marked by intellectual intolerance, and;

Whereas, the UC Regents explicitly do not support, encourage, or condone intolerance, [5] and;

Whereas, the tearing down of posters that recognized campus-clubs place in accordance with UCIs posting and distribution regulations ultimately violates the club’s 1st amendment rights while the lack of consequence for the perpetrators is supporting, encouraging, and condoning intolerance, [6] and;

Whereas, the first amendment offers protections for freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, [9] and;

Whereas, UC Irvine policies section 30.00- Freedom of Speech and Advocacy explicitly states that freedom of speech is protected on this federally funded campus, [6] and;

Whereas, “The University recognizes, supports, and shall not abridge the constitutional rights of faculty, students, or staff to participate, either as individuals or as members of a group, in the political process of supporting candidates for public office or any other political activity.”, [6] and;

Whereas, under section 41.11 of UCI Policies, “Religious, political, and ideological Registered Campus Organizations and other campus organizations shall have access to University properties on the same basis as all other campus organizations, according to guidelines set forth in campus implementing regulations.”, [6] and;

Whereas, the definition of “abridge” when used in the First Amendment refers to someone else or the government cutting off what a person or persons says or writes; “someone else” may refer to students who are not paid employees of ASUCI and “government” may refer to paid employees of ASUCI who take an oath to uphold the United States Constitution when hired, [7] and;

Whereas, any paid student government employee must follow the constitution and adhere to the oath that was given during the time of hiring or risk losing federal funding for UCI if they aren’t sanctioned and/or terminated; there are no clear policies to sanction and/or fire any paid student government employee actively abridging or conspiring to abridge the 1st amendment rights of any recognized campus organization or club by tearing down club posters for events that follow UCI protocol.

Therefore, let it be resolved that policies in the employee conduct packet that is available online include a section that explicitly states that any paid student government employee who engages in abridging free speech by tearing down campus club posters that are in compliance with UCI posting and distribution regulations be fired from their position and given one appeal process administered by the student government human resources; and if such person is found guilty, that person will not be able to run for any position in student government, get rehired in student government, or intern in student government, and;

Let it further be resolved that all regulations and instructions relating to posters explicitly state that all paid employees are prohibited from removing signs that follow UCI policies and regulations or risk possible termination because they put UCI at risk of losing federal funding for abridging 1st amendment rights, and;

Let it further be resolved that paid student government employees who engage in the repeated and/or continuous abridgment of free speech and free thought, by bullying campaigns, online harassment, tearing down posters, reserving large quantities of tickets to events they don’t want UCI students to hear, whether these actions were perpetrated alone or with a group, with the intent of silencing dialogue and obstructing forums of dialogue ideas brought forth by recognized student organizations and their guests, be subject to expulsion, and;

Let it further be resolved that if paid employees of UCI do not act to protect free speech on campus and won’t sanction those paid student government employees who are not following the United States Constitution, UCI student government and UCI administrators should make a choice to either support, encourage, and condone intolerance and give up federal funding or to choose to protect the 1st amendment rights of all UCI undergraduate students and campus clubs and protect federal funding for UCI.

Citations and further reading

[1] https://uci.edu/about/

“In 1965, the University of California, Irvine was founded with a mission to catalyze the community and enhance lives through rigorous academics, cutting-edge research, and dedicated public service. Today, we draw on the unyielding spirit of our pioneering faculty, staff and students who arrived on campus with a dream to inspire change and generate new ideas. We believe that true progress is made when different perspectives come together to advance our understanding of the world around us. And we enlighten our communities and point the way to a better future. At UCI, we shine brighter.”

[2] http://ucop.edu/uc-mission/

"The distinctive mission of the University is to serve society as a center of higher learning, providing long-term societal benefits through transmitting advanced knowledge, discovering new knowledge, and functioning as an active working repository of organized knowledge. That obligation, more specifically, includes undergraduate education, graduate and professional education, research, and other kinds of public service, which are shaped and bounded by the central pervasive mission of discovering and advancing knowledge."

— Mission statement from the University of California Academic Plan, 1974-1978

[3] Michael Glanzel. Free speech is necessary. The Cornell Daily Sun http://cornellsun.com/2017/09/10/glanzel-free-speech-is-necessary/

“By forcing Rice to rescind Rutgers’s speaking invitation, the students at the university were essentially stating that anyone who does not align with their political views is not welcome to speak. And, unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident. From Ann Coulter at Berkeley to Ben Shapiro at Cal State, college campuses across the nation are beginning to embrace these sorts of restrictions. If one does not possess the political views of the students, they are unwelcome to speak on their campus.

This philosophy is disturbing on a number of grounds. First of all, these refusals to listen to another person’s ideas and opinions carry a sort of medieval ignorance. Ostracizing those who do not adhere to the majority view is the sort of thinking that led to Galileo and Darwin’s rejection from society. Furthermore, refusing to listen to someone else’s ideas doesn’t make you principled — it makes you weak and insecure. Those who are truly grounded in their ideals and principles are those who truly understand the other side of the argument.

But perhaps the most concerning aspect of this philosophy is that further deepens the divide of this country. You may think that Ann Coulter and Ben Shapiro’s ideas are outlandish — but nearly half the country agrees with these people. By refusing to listen to their thoughts and ideas, you are effectively refusing to understand how the other half of this country thinks.”

[4] Peter W. Wood. It’s Time To Talk About Defunding Universities That Won’t Defend Free Speech. The Federalist.

http://thefederalist.com/2017/02/08/time-talk-defunding-universities-wont-defend-free-speech/

UCs are obligated to uphold the 1st amendment as long as they accept federal funding.

[5] UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE Regents Policy: Principles Against Intolerance, https://aisc.uci.edu/policies/pacaos/principles-against-intolerance.php

a. The mission of the University is to promote discovery and create and disseminate knowledge, to expand opportunities for all, and to educate a civil populace and the next generation of leaders. The University therefore strives to foster an environment in which all are included, all are given an equal opportunity to learn and explore, in which differences as well as commonalities are celebrated, and in which dissenting viewpoints are not only tolerated but encouraged. Acts of hatred and other intolerant conduct, as well as acts of discrimination that demean our differences, are antithetical to the values of the University and serve to undermine its purpose.

b. University policy prohibits discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender, gender expression, gender identity, pregnancy, physical or mental disability, medical condition (cancer-related or genetic characteristics), genetic information (including family medical history), ancestry, marital status, age, sexual orientation, citizenship, service in the uniformed services, or the intersection of any of these factors. Prohibited discrimination arising from historical biases, stereotypes and prejudices jeopardizes the research, teaching and service mission of the University. This mission is best served when members of the University community collaborate to foster an equal learning environment for all, in which all members of the community are welcomed and confident of their physical safety.

c. Human history encompasses many periods in which biased, stereotypical or prejudiced discourse, left unchallenged and uncontested, has led to enormous tragedy. In a community of learners, teachers, and knowledge-seekers, the University is best served when its leaders challenge speech and action reflecting bias, stereotypes, and/or intolerance. Anti-Semitism and other forms of discrimination have no place in the University. The Regents call on University leaders actively to challenge anti-Semitism and other forms of discrimination when and wherever they emerge within the University community.

d. Freedom of expression and freedom of inquiry are paramount in a public research university and form the bedrock on which our mission of discovery is founded. The University will vigorously defend the principles of the First Amendment and academic freedom against any efforts to subvert or abridge them.

e. Each member of the University community is entitled to speak, to be heard, and to be engaged based on the merits of their views, and unburdened by historical biases, stereotypes and prejudices. Discourse that reflects such biases, stereotypes or prejudice can undermine the equal and welcoming learning environment that the University of California strives to foster. The University seeks to educate members of the community to recognize, understand and avoid biases, stereotypes and prejudices.

f. Regardless of whether one has a legal right to speak in a manner that reflects bias, stereotypes, prejudice and intolerance, each member of the University community is expected to consider his or her responsibilities as well as his or her rights. Intellectual and creative expression that is intended to shock has a place in our community. Nevertheless, mutual respect and civility within debate and dialogue advance the mission of the University, advance each of us as learners and teachers, and advance a democratic society.

g. Candidates for University leadership positions are entitled to consideration based on their stated views and actions, and in a manner consistent with the University’s nondiscrimination policy. Efforts to discredit such candidates based on bias or stereotyping should not go unchallenged.

h. Actions that physically or otherwise interfere with the ability of an individual or group to assemble, speak, and share or hear the opinions of others (within time place and manner restrictions adopted by the University) impair the mission and intellectual life of the University and will not be tolerated.

i. Harassment, threats, assaults, vandalism, and destruction of property, as defined by University policy, will not be tolerated within the University community. Where investigation establishes that such unlawful conduct was targeted at an individual or individuals based on discrimination prohibited by University policy, University administrators should consider discipline that includes enhanced sanctions. In addition to discipline and consistent with the University’s mission to educate members of our community, University administrators should use all available tools, including restorative justice techniques, to address such unlawful conduct, in order to foster learning and mutual respect.

j. The Regents call on University leaders to apply these Principles Against Intolerance and all other University policies directed to discrimination and intolerance to the full extent permissible under law. University leaders should assure that they have processes in place to respond promptly, and at the highest levels of the University, when appropriate, when intolerant and/or discriminatory acts occur. Such response should include consideration of support for members of the community directly affected by such acts.

[6]https://aisc.uci.edu/policies/pacaos/uc_uci_policies.pdf

[7] Ronald K. L. Collins, About that word ‘abridging’ in the First Amendment … The First Amendment Center

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/about-that-word-%E2%80%98abridging%E2%80%99-in-the-first-amendment-%E2%80%A6/

Etymologically speaking, abridging is when someone else, particularly the government, cuts off what we say or write. To abridge is to abbreviate, to command brevity. Such a command means that a censor — one who scrutinizes a work for objectionable content — can shorten any message by deleting as much as he wishes. Constitutionally speaking, all of this is abhorrent because we should be able to speak our minds uninterrupted. Thus, no “previous restraints” on freedom of speech or of the press.

In this sense, “viewpoint discrimination” is necessarily linked to “abridging.”

[8] http://www.policies.uci.edu/policies/pols/900-12.html

Policies regarding poster and distribution regulations.

[9] https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/amendment-i

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Further reading

SJP UCI2: https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=8023

“UCI values its diverse mix of cultures and opinions,” he wrote. “We support and defend groups exercising free speech and assembly, yet we must protect everyone’s right to express themselves without disruption. This is a bedrock principle of our university. Let’s continue to work together to foster a safe environment that allows the open, civil, and robust exchange of ideas to flourish.”

http://www.overcominghateportal.org/group-think.html

http://www.mindingthecampus.org/2017/02/there-is-no-campus-rape-epidemic-but-a-lot-of-media-malpractice/

“Whether the reason is groupthink or a strategy of firing up the newspaper’s liberal base, The Times’ coverage of alleged sexual assault on college campuses has represented a journalistic failure—and a particularly troubling one, given the paper’s earlier failure on this issue in the Duke lacrosse case.”

https://www.expertprogrammanagement.com/2011/03/groupthink-examples-avoidance/

Description of groupthink and how to avoid.

https://www.christianpost.com/news/if-intolerant-liberals-succeed-conservatives-should-be-very-afraid-expert-says-interview-164336/

"Progressives may think that they are merely updating progressivism. But I don't think they are. They are veering off into an entirely new and different direction. And frankly, the direction that they are veering off into, what I call a cultural illiberalism, can only survive by doubling down on authoritarian control and by trying to eliminate opposing points of view. Because, if you let in the light of another standard or another objective or way of looking at the world, their worldview doesn't stand up very well to scrutiny and criticism."

http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/18/the-rise-of-intolerant-liberals/

“There’s an old saying, he who controls knowledge controls power. Liberals get this adage instinctively. They treat truth not as wisdom—as something to be discovered—but as a will to power to be imposed by law and governmental fiat.

In this quest for power, they have become masters at controlling not only knowledge, but popular culture. For example, when Americans watch entertainers like Jon Stewart, they don’t see an ideologue channeling liberal clichés. They see just a really funny guy. The ideology is completely buried. Young people respond in lockstep not because they were indoctrinated by some boring Maoist, but because they think the whole thing is great fun.

What we have here is nothing less than a new and highly attractive form of illiberalism—an illiberal liberalism, if you will. Intolerance is championed in the name of tolerance, closed-mindedness in the name of open-mindedness, and hatred in the name of compassion. It’s classic double-think, and the deception is precisely the danger. Americans don’t expect liberals to be authoritarian wolves in sheep’s clothing. They are not prepared to be on guard all the time because liberals are supposed to be the good guys—the guardians of freedom of speech and the like.

Alas, they are not. Just ask Condi Rice or anyone else who has been denied the opportunity to speak on an American campus.”

https://quizlet.com/29419831/groupthink-flash-cards/

An informative quiz on groupthink.