TBN (addressing the studio audience):
"In October, 2001 Duke shut down Duke Professor Gary Hull's webpage after he posted an article calling for a strong military response to the terrorist attacks.
FIRE ( Foundation for Individual Rights in Education ) took the case to the media. Shamed by widespread pubilicity, Duke reinstated Hull's webpage but required that he add a disclaimer stating that the article did not represent the views of Duke.
Contrast this to Duke's reaction to the 88's Listening Statement. As discussed in KC's 12/24/07 DIW post, the Statement was prominently displayed on the African American Studies homepage for months after the Statement first appeared in the Chronicle ; there was no required disclaimer stating that the Statement did not represent the views of Duke. "
Welcome Contestant Brodhead
Round One : Tidbits:
Q. Did you require the 88 to say that the opinions were there own, not Duke's?
A. No, we can't do that. They have the right to free speech. We can't interfere.
Q. Have you ever required such a disclaimer?
A: To the best of my knowledge, No!
Tidbits: ” Oh I'm sorry, wrong answer!
Round Two: ACC Esq:
Q. I see. Let's clear it up, then. Let me show you Prof. Gary Hull's webpage that was published in September 2001. Do you see the bold disclaimer there that says -- let me quote this to make sure it is absolutely clear to you and the audience -- "The contents of this publication do not reflect the views of Duke University"?
Q. Prof. Hull was a professor at Duke at that time, correct.
Q. And in his case, Duke University actually shut down Prof. Hull's webpage for over 2 weeks before it allowed Prof. Hull to publish it again but with this disclaimer; correct?
Q. Duke University did in fact interfere with Prof. Hull's free speech rights in that case; correct?
Q. Prof. Hull's article did not reflect the official position of Duke so the University required a disclaimer before it permitted him to republish his article over 2 weeks later; correct?
Q. And it is important to Duke University to make sure its professors' articles are not construed as the University's official policy if the articles do not reflect the University's official position on issues; important enough to censor or suppress a professor's precious right of free speech until he includes a disclaimer; correct?
Q. Now there is no need for a disclaimer if a professor's views do reflect the official position of Duke University; is there?
A. No, there's not.
Q. So you would agree now that Duke University does have the right to interfere with a professor's free speech if it does not conform to the University's official position or policy; correct?
Q. Duke did not require a disclaimer on the Listening Statement that was signed by 88 of its professors and that was purportedly approved by several of its academic departments, did it?
Q. And isn't it true that one of Duke's most prominent academic departments prominently featured a link to this Statement on its official Department home page for 132 days in the spring and summer of 2006?
Q. And it never had a disclaimer for that entire period of time did it?
A. Er, no.
Q. So you must agree that this Listening Statement represented the official position or policy of Duke University?
A. errh ah, “We’re F*#@*d too?”
Hat Tip: TBN, Tidbits, ACC Esq