Right Calls

Back in August Georgia Tech by order of the Federal District Court repealed a policy on allowable speech. Two students filed suit with representation by Alliance Defense Fund, the complaint being that school rules outlawed speech considered to be intolerant.

In the case Sklar v. Clough Georgia Tech was putting the squeeze on hate speech....

Officials at Georgia Tech had been enforcing draconian speech codes that prohibited any kind of student speech they deemed to be ‘intolerant'.

The ruling of U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia prohibits the university from changing its new student speech policy without court approval for the next five years.

• As an engineering school the student population is decidedly more conservative than many universities. Policies were instituted by an administration out of step with both the student population and legality. Acceptable public discourse as this time gives full voice to minority positions and suppresses any dissension expressed as either racism, hate or ignorance. Administration took this a step further by creation of penalties for exercising free speech they deemed intolerant. Dean Clough should have known better, perhaps the Smithsonian will have group of subject more willing to accept liberal dogma.

Now it looks like Tech did not agree with the spirit of the court's decision because last Wednesday the same court ruled additionally that provisions of the school’s “Safe Space” program discriminate against religion and are therefore unconstitutional.

Alliance Defense Fund Senior Counsel Nate Kellum said....

A public university should not be openly disparaging the beliefs of students who hold to a biblical view of homosexual behavior while endorsing other views. The university’s ‘Safe Space’ program had no business siding with certain religious beliefs while viciously attacking others. The program openly ridiculed the faith of many students while declaring that people in other religious groups have the ‘correct’ beliefs. The court was right to declare that portion of the program unconstitutional.

This is the second part of a federal civil rights lawsuit was filed against university officials on behalf of students Orit Sklar and Ruth Malhotra in March 2006. The ruling was again against the school administration, ending discriminatory provisions of the “Safe Space” training program, in which officials supported religious positions favoring homosexual behavior while disparaging those in opposition. The court ordered the removal of discriminatory religious information from the program’s training manual, finding that officials had “violated the Establishment Clause by favoring one religion over another in the state-associated Safe Space Program.”

• We are all familiar with what was going on here. In an attempt to promote first safety and second acceptance for minority groups, the school administration made an attempt to create an environment in which these could grow. In that they must suppress the typical voice of a casual public.
• Thank you to the complainants, in the character of good Yellow Jackets, smart, stubborn, self assured and hard working.
• In my opinion this favoritism for minority dominance comes from a liberal belief that can be summarized as self loathing of community .