Professor Censors, Insults Student During Speech

I wish I knew what went through the minds of far-left liberals just before they opened their mouths to speak. You will too after hearing about the Los Angeles City College professor who called his student a “fascist bastard” during the students’ speech on marriage.

 

In a story reported by Citizenlink, and on the website freerepublic.com, the Alliance Defense Fund is suing the Los Angeles School for censorship and threatening to expel a student after Professor John Matteson abruptly ended the speech of student Jonathan Lopez for sharing his views on marriage and faith.

 

But that’s not all, according to the article,

 

“Instead of allowing Lopez to finish, Matteson told the other students they could leave if they were offended. When no one left, Matteson dismissed the class. Refusing to grade the assigned speech, Matteson wrote on Lopez’s evaluation, ‘Ask God what your grade is.’”

 

I won’t even pretend to hide my disgust and disdain for such atrocious behavior. This is a man who is supposed to be an adult, an example of what it means to foster free speech in what is supposed to be the marketplace of ideas, our college campuses. But instead he retrieved to name calling, and childish insults.

 

Now, had that been a Muslim student sharing, no such incident would have occurred. And had the student shared views that the Professor agreed with, no such incident would have occurred. But because Jonathan Lopez shared his own personal views during an assignment which afforded him the freedom to do so, he was called names, insulted, and later threatened with expulsion. As the article reports,

 

“One week later, after seeing Lopez talking to the college’s dean of academic affairs, Matteson told Lopez that  he would make sure he’d be expelled from school.”

 

At what point does the free exchange of ideas cease to exist? Where does the ability to have independent, personal thoughts and views end? And when does it become right for anyone, let alone a teacher in a classroom, to penalize and discriminate against a person just because his or her ideas are different?

 

ADF Senior Counsel David French said correctly,

 

“Public institutions of higher learning cannot selectively censor Christian speech. This student was speaking well within the confines of his professor’s assignment when he was censored and ultimately threatened with expulsion. Professor Matteson clearly violated Mr. Lopez’s free speech rights by engaging in viewpoint discrimination and retaliation because he disagreed with the student’s religious beliefs.”

 

I would encourage Los Angeles City College President Jamillah Moore to remove Professor Matteson from her faculty. Such people have no place in a room with students. Students do not need to wonder if it is ok to speak their mind, or if they will be targeted by Professor Matteson the way Jonathan Lopez was. College classrooms need to be a place where everyone has the right to share their views, and feel comfortable doing so. Obviously Professor Matteson has not cultivated such a classroom.

 

Further Food for Thought:

Is Religious Worship on Campuses in Danger?

 

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to the Family Voice, the official blog of the Family Policy Council of West Virginia

Is Religious Worship on Campuses in Danger?:

The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) has posted an article which first appeared on World Net Daily’s website detailing the attempt to censor free speech on college campuses across America.

 

The article, which appears in its entirety below, shows how the new President and his administration talk a good game about how “faith can promote a greater good for all of us,” but there does not seem to be much substance to their empty rhetoric.

 

Stimulus to Ban Religious Worship: ‘This isn’t like a convenient oversight, this is intentional’
February 6, 2009 By Bob Unruh, WorldNetDaily President Obama’s proposed economic stimulus plan makes a deliberate – and unconstitutional – attempt to censor religious speech and worship on school campuses across the nation, according to a lawyer who argued related cases before the U.S. Supreme Court 20 years ago and won them all. “This isn’t like a convenient oversight. This is intentional. This legislation pokes its finger in the eyes of people who hold religious beliefs,” Jay Sekulow, chief of the American Center for Law and Justice, told WND today. His was the organization that decades ago argued on behalf of speech freedom on school campuses, winning repeatedly at the U.S. Supreme Court. Since then, the 2001 Good News Club v. Milford Central School District decision was added, clarifying that restricting religious speech within the context of public shared-use facilities is unconstitutional. The problem in the proposed stimulus bill comes from a provision that states: “PROHIBITED USES OF FUNDS. – No funds awarded under this section may be used for – (C) modernization, renovation, or repair of facilities – (i) used for sectarian instruction, religious worship, or a school or department of divinity; or (ii) in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a religious mission.” The wording that specifically targets religious speech already has been approved by the majority Democrats in the U.S. House – all GOP members opposed it. In the Senate, Jim DeMint, R-S.C., proposed an amendment to eliminate it, but again majority Democrats decided to keep the provision targeting religious instruction and activities. Critics argued schools would accept any money offered, then impose a ban on religious events. DeMint warned organizations such as the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, Campus Crusade for Christ, Catholic Student Ministries, Hillel and other religious groups would face new bans on access to public facilities that would not apply to other organizations. “This is a direct attack on students of faith, and I’m outraged Democrats are using an economic stimulus bill to promote discrimination,” DeMint said. “Democrats should be ashamed of themselves for siding with the ACLU over millions of students of faith.” DeMint’s comments have been posted online and are available here.  “These students simply want equal access to public facilities, which is their constitutional right. This hostility toward religion must end. Those who voted to for this discrimination are standing in the schoolhouse door to deny people of faith from entering any campus building renovated by this bill,” said DeMint. The senator said the stimulus bill now becomes an “ACLU stimulus” that has the goal of triggering lawsuits “designed to intimidate religious organizations across the nation.” “This language is so vague, it’s not clear if students can even pray in a dorm room renovated with this funding since that is a form of ‘religious worship.’ If this provision remains in the bill, it will have a chilling effect on students of faith in America,” he said. DeMint cited Obama’s statement at the National Prayer Breakfast this week that faith “can promote a greater good for all of us.” “This provision is an assault against both. It’s un-American and it’s unconstitutional. Intolerant and it’s intolerable,” DeMint said. The ban on religious organizations is linked to the $3.5 billion intended for “renovation of public or private college and university facilities.” The ACLJ, which focuses on constitutional law, said the provision “has nothing to do with economic stimulus and everything to do with religious discrimination.” “The thing is I litigated these cases on these exact issues 20 years ago,” Sekulow told WND. “Not only did we win, two of the decisions were unanimous and the other was 8-1. “We’re seeing a rollback to the 1970s regarding church-state relations,” he said. “That’s what is troubling. It is a complete rollback that now institutionalizes discrimination through targeting religion.” Sekulow said he already is drafting a complaint that will challenge the constitutionality of the provision, to be used if it isn’t removed. He said under current court precedents, it will be a open-and-shut victory. However, he also warned that the problem is the damage that can be done within the probable four years it would take to get the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court and what that court would look like at that point. Under Obama, he said, “there will be an ideology shift.” New appointments to the bench by Obama, he said, would be “much more left of where Justices (Ruth Bader) Ginsburg and (Stephen) Breyer are.”

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to the Family Voice, the official blog of the Family Policy Council of West Virginia