Poli-sci professor hosts free speech workshop for Constitution Day

Jacob Downey

He/Him

Editor-in-Chief

9/19/23

In honor of Constitution Day on Monday, professors Rebecca Noel, Kelsie Eckert, and Jason Charrette planned a workshop themed around freedom of speech. Charrette is known by his students for his simulation-based courses in which students effectively role-play in order to learn political science by living it. 

Students as well as professors in attendance were put into the shoes of a student review board and instructed that “While on this Board, you, along with your fellow board members, will be asked to decide the outcome of Freedom of Speech controversies at your school” and to “use your power wisely.”

The cases were based on real-life issues faced by state colleges and universities but fictionalized so as to avoid someone who had taken Constitutional Law with Mark Fischler referring back to their notes for the answers. 

One such issue was the “Case of the Pugilist Pullover”. Student X comes to class wearing their favorite “punch Nazis” t-shirt. Student X is then confronted by their professor due to their shirt making other students uncomfortable and told to remove or cover up the shirt. In small groups, it was then our duty to choose with whom to side, the student expressing himself or the professor who did not believe advocating violence toward anyone, Nazis included, was appropriate in a classroom setting. While my group disagreed on the reasoning, with one bloc deeming it not X’s problem how people feel about his shirt and I, more concerned with how the genocidal nature of Nazi ideology is in itself an act of violence of greater concern than calls for hands to be thrown in response, we ultimately found ourself in support of X to the agreement of much of the room.

A case that left the room less on the same page was that of “The Angry Art Critic.” This case saw a “Historical Art Club” sponsor an art gallery featuring a historical image of The Prophet Muhammed created by Rashid-al-Din (1247-1318) of the Ilkhanate in what is now modern Iran. While Sunni Muslims would consider this painting blasphemous, the Shia sect to which al-Din and the Ilkhanate belong are far less strict on this issue. The case continues to say that another unnamed student club has demanded the Historical Art Club remove the illustration due to concerns that it is “undeniably inconsiderate and disrespectful”. Much of the room said that context is key and that due to the painting’s historical value and the theme of the exhibit, there was some leeway that could be called upon in the form of additional sectioning or encouraged protests by the unnamed group. One particular table stressed that across the board it is irresponsible and disrespectful to depict another person’s religion in ways they find offensive.

Charrette, who identifies as a free-speech absolutist, claims that in every case discussed, he would side with students. In an invitation forwarded to the student body preceding the event, Charrette stressed that “This event is an opportunity for students, faculty, staff, and anyone else to discuss and learn more about how the Constitution is interpreted and applied in daily life and how those interpretations can change over time. It’s a great extra credit, club, or class visit opportunity and, we hope, of value to everyone.”

Senior Luke Missale thought the event was “… very cool” and appreciated especially hearing professors weigh in on the free-speech dilemmas.