Tag: rights

  • Mercury in retrograde: How UT Dallas tried to roll back student press rights

    Mercury in retrograde: How UT Dallas tried to roll back student press rights

    At the University of Texas at Dallas, a new independent newspaper is bearing witness to an authoritarian streak undermining student rights on campus. Last week, The Retrograde published its first print edition — cementing its status as the successor to The Mercury, the historic student newspaper that administrators silenced last spring for expressing dissenting opinions. 

    The new paper’s name — a reference to the astrological phenomenon of “Mercury in retrograde” — also references student journalists’ perception that the university is “going in reverse” on important issues like free speech.

    “We are seeing the school backslide and we want to make sure that each step backwards is criticized and documented,” said Gregorio Olivares Gutierrez, former editor-in-chief of The Mercury and current editor of The Retrograde.

    Concerns about academic freedom on college campuses spurred an interest in journalism for Gutierrez, a UT Dallas sophomore studying political science and philosophy. In an interview with FIRE, Gutierrez explained that he joined The Mercury in October 2023, “mainly because I was hearing a lot of commotion around the removal of DEI from the classroom.” 

    Although Senate Bill 17 — which Texas passed in 2023 to ban DEI offices, training, and statements at public universities — included exceptions for teaching and research, headlines revealed in November 2024 that administrators were, in fact, subjecting teaching and research to “intense scrutiny” under the law.

    As Gutierrez tells it, he saw warning signs at the University of North Texas, UT Dallas’ closest neighbor in the statewide system, where administrators unilaterally removed references to concepts like diversity and critical race theory from course titles and syllabi. “Despite these being higher-ed concepts, you couldn’t even talk about them,” Gutierrez said. FIRE wrote a letter to North Texas on Dec. 6, 2024, urging administrators “to refrain from unlawfully ordering changes to faculty’s pedagogical material as part of UNT’s overreaching compliance with state law.”

    We are seeing the school backslide and we want to make sure that each step backwards is criticized and documented.

    At UT Dallas, Gutierrez describes the emergence of a similar climate, where faculty “are scared that what they’re going to say isn’t allowed or that it will get them in trouble,” or might be “a mark against them” in tenure review.

    Gutierrez says The Mercury was a watchdog not just at UT Dallas, but within the statewide system. 

    Retrograde editor Gregorio Olivares Gutierrez

    “Anytime [Governor] Greg Abbott wants to crack down on higher ed,” Gutierrez told FIRE, “he usually starts with UT Austin, and then the other presidents in the UT system will either . . . do the same themselves or . . . get the consequences thrown their way.” And these changes affect UT Dallas. As Gutierrez explains it, “if there’s something’s going on in one Texas school, it’s very likely that our administration is going to like what they see and try to incorporate that into our campus policy.”

    It was exactly this watchdog role that got Gutierrez and The Mercury into trouble. Last spring, after a police crackdown on First Amendment-protected protests at UT Austin, Gutierrez recalls asking, “If encampments form at UT Dallas, what will we do? How do we protect our student journalists if there are police there? Can we make sure that we’re not getting arrested while doing this important coverage?” 

    The Mercury’s journalists were not arrested by the state troopers that UT Dallas deployed to break up pro-Palestinian protests, but the newspaper’s relationship with the administration deteriorated after its coverage criticized the university for quashing peaceful protests. In the end, administrators forced Gutierrez out, firing him as editor-in-chief and then firing more staff when they went on strike in protest. To make it worse, administrators completed these terminations without following official policy on the removal of editors — denying due process to Gutierrez and his colleagues.

    It would have been very easy for us to just roll over and let the campus administration do whatever they wanted with the student newspaper. But that would be a failure on our part to do proper journalism. It would be a huge dereliction of our duty as student journalists.

    Over a thousand people signed The Mercury’s solidarity petition after Gutierrez was fired. Not only that, as Gutierrez recounted to FIRE, “The student government passed multiple resolutions denouncing the actions from campus administration and then supporting our new endeavors with The Retrograde, officially recognizing it as the student newspaper. And the faculty’s academic senate has also been in support of us. They passed a resolution, which was just like — We’ll support the student government’s decision.”

    For the student journalists behind The Mercury, the administration’s attempt to silence them marked the beginning of a new chapter for independent student expression. 

    Gutierrez told FIRE that The Retrograde is working to get 501(c)(3) status and is currently registered as a nonprofit in the state of Texas. This move would give the newspaper full control over its operations — unlike The Mercury, which was beholden to administrators and faculty on the university-sponsored Student Media Oversight Board. 

    Front page of the first issue of The Retrograde independent student newspaper at UT Dallas Jan 21 2025

    The first issue of The Retrograde independent student newspaper at UT Dallas published on Jan. 21, 2025.

    But this new era of editorial freedom has not come without challenges. Gutierrez told FIRE that although “we do what we want as student journalists and we don’t have to fear campus reprisal when it comes to our actions, the administration has been very insistent that they don’t want this structure to exist at all.” While The Retrograde is free from direct retaliation, the university has engaged in what Gutierrez calls a “subtle form of censorship” by directing inquiries to PR officials, ensuring that the official university response is the only one that gets heard.

    Administrators at UT Dallas have a lengthy history of suppressing transparency and keeping student voices under their control. During Gutierrez’s freshman year, he recalls a cat torturer being exposed in a front page article in The Mercury as an employee of the university. Although the investigation was thorough and newsworthy, Gutierrez says, “The university didn’t like that we were talking about it . . . They were like, oh, we’re dealing with this internally, so you don’t need to make it public.” And in the spring of 2020, when the paper covered a series of suicides on campus, administrators allegedly removed copies of the paper from campus kiosks.

    For Gutierrez, reporting on matters of public concern is often a question of safety. 

    “Students want to know that the people at the testing center [like the cat torturer] might not all be the safest individuals in that very specific circumstance,” he says, “and yet campus administrators don’t talk about stuff like that.” 

    Despite these challenges, Gutierrez believes student journalists have a sacred obligation to uphold the freedoms promised by the Constitution. “It would have been very easy for us to just roll over and let the campus administration do whatever they wanted with the student newspaper. But that would be a failure on our part to do proper journalism. It would be a huge dereliction of our duty as student journalists,” he added, “to allow this huge infringement upon the First Amendment to occur on campus.” 

    FIRE to University of Texas at Dallas: Stop censoring the student press

    News

    Join FIRE in demanding UT Dallas compensate journalists, protect student media from interference.


    Read More

    Gutierrez credits FIRE, the Student Press Law Center, and the Society of Professional Journalists for stepping in with support, resources, and advice. He encourages other student journalists to reach out to these groups if censorship comes their way. 

    “I think it’s really important for student journalists facing censorship to reach out to others, work together and fight back against the current regime of censorship that a lot of universities are so fond of,” he concluded.

    The Retrograde’s plans to hold UT Dallas administrators accountable are as ambitious as ever. After the May 1, 2024 police raid on a peaceful protest at UT Dallas, Gutierrez and his fellow journalists filed a public records request. 

    “Right now, we’re working through over 1,500 pages of emails that we’ve gotten from our FOIA request,” said Gutierrez, “and a lot of the information in there is damning.” 

    You can take action to remind President Richard Benson that UT Dallas is a public institution that must abide by the First Amendment and uphold freedom of the press, even when the administration disagrees with student reporting. As Gutierrez says, “I hope it will shame our university administrators into acting normally for once.”

    Source link

  • The Chicago Canon | The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression

    The Chicago Canon | The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression

    The University of Chicago is known for its commitment to free
    speech and academic freedom. Why are these values important to the
    university? Where do they originate? And how do they help
    administrators navigate conflicts and controversies?

    Tony Banout and Tom Ginsburg direct the University of
    Chicago’s Forum for Free Inquiry
    and Expression
    , which
    received a $100 million gift
    last year. They are also
    editors of “The
    Chicago Canon on Free Inquiry and Expression
    ,” a new book
    that collects foundational texts that inform the university’s free
    speech tradition.

    Enjoy listening to our podcast? Donate to FIRE today and
    get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and
    more. If you became a FIRE Member
    through a donation to FIRE at thefire.org and would like access to
    Substack’s paid subscriber podcast feed, please email
    [email protected].


    Read the transcript
    .

    Timestamps:

    00:00 Intro

    03:31 Origin of book

    07:14 UChicago’s founding principles

    12:41 Free speech in a university context

    19:17 2015 UChicago committee report

    32:03 1967 Kalven report

    38:02 Institutional neutrality

    57:41 Applying free speech principles beyond the
    university

    01:04:21 Future steps for the Forum

    01:06:35 Outro

    Show notes:


    The University of Chicago’s Report of the Committee on Freedom of
    Expression
    (2015)


    Chicago Statement: University and Faculty Body Support

    (last updated 2024)


    The University of Chicago Kalven Report
    (1967)

    Source link

  • Biden Issues Historic Posthumous Pardon to Civil Rights Leader Marcus Garvey

    Biden Issues Historic Posthumous Pardon to Civil Rights Leader Marcus Garvey

    In one of his final acts as president, Joe Biden granted a posthumous pardon to Marcus Mosiah Garvey Jr., the influential civil rights leader and founder of the UniversalMarcus Garvey Negro Improvement Association (UNIA), clearing his name of a 1923 mail fraud conviction that many have long viewed as unjust.

    The pardon, announced just before the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, came after years of advocacy from Howard University School of Law professors and students, led by Professor Justin Hansford, who worked closely with Garvey’s son, Dr. Julius Garvey.

    “In the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Marcus Garvey was ‘the first man of color in the history of the United States to lead and develop a mass movement,’” said Hansford, who published Jailing a Rainbow: The Unjust Trial and Conviction of Marcus Garvey last year. “He was convicted of mail fraud in a trial widely recognized as a miscarriage of justice.”

    The pardon effort gained significant support from 21 members of Congress, primarily from the Congressional Black Caucus, who urged Biden to “honor his work for the Black community, remove the shadow of an unjust conviction, and further your administration’s promise to advance racial justice.” Last year, Diverse featured a podcast on the subject. 

    Garvey, Jamaica’s first national hero, was convicted in 1923 on one count of mail fraud related to his role as president of the Black Star Line shipping company. He received the maximum sentence of five years imprisonment and a $1,000 fine.

    The UNIA founder was a pioneering advocate for human rights and Pan-Africanism, building a movement that reached 6 million members across 40 countries.

    The presidential pardon marks the end of a century-long struggle to clear Garvey’s name. Previous attempts included congressional hearings in 1987 led by Representatives John Conyers and Charlie Rangel, who introduced resolutions to exonerate him.

    The exoneration comes 84 years after Garvey’s death in 1940, affirming his innocence and recognizing his significant contributions to civil rights and human rights advocacy worldwide.

    Source link

  • FIRE to SCOTUS: TikTok ban violates Americans’ First Amendment rights

    FIRE to SCOTUS: TikTok ban violates Americans’ First Amendment rights

    Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit found that the law to ban TikTok in the United States did not violate Americans’ First Amendment rights. Never before has Congress taken the extraordinary step of effectively banning a platform for communication, let alone one used by half the country.

    The First Amendment requires an explanation of why such a dramatic restriction of the right to speak and receive information is necessary, and compelling evidence to support it. The government failed to provide either.

    What little Congress did place on the public record includes statements from lawmakers raising diffuse concerns about national security and, more disturbingly, their desire to control the American public’s information diet in a way that strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. 

    Today, FIRE and a coalition of organizations filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to reverse the decision.

    FIRE is proud to be joined by the following organizations and individuals for today’s brief:

    • The Institute for Justice
    • Reason Foundation
    • The Future of Free Speech
    • The Woodhull Freedom Foundation
    • The First Amendment Lawyers Association
    • Stop Child Predators
    • The Pelican Institute for Public Policy 
    • CJ Pearson

    Will Creeley, legal director at FIRE: “The government doesn’t have the power to pull the plug on TikTok without demonstrating exactly why such a dramatic step is absolutely necessary. It has failed to publicly lay out the case for cutting off an avenue of expression that 170 million of us use. The First Amendment requires a lot more than just the government’s say-so. Fifty years after the publication of the Pentagon Papers, Americans understand that invoking ‘national security’ doesn’t grant the government free rein to censor. By failing to properly hold the government to its constitutionally required burden of proof, the court’s decision erodes First Amendment rights now and in the future.”

    Jacob Mchangama, executive director of The Future of Free Speech and senior fellow at FIRE: “For decades, the United States has been the global gold standard for free speech protections. The unprecedented bipartisan push to effectively shut down TikTok — an online platform where millions exercise their right to free expression and access information — represents a troubling shift from this proud legacy. If enacted, this ban would make the U.S. the first free and open democracy to impose such sweeping restrictions, drawing uncomfortable parallels with authoritarian regimes like Somalia, Iran, and Afghanistan, which use similar measures to suppress dissent and control their populations. This is not just about a single app; it is a litmus test for the resilience of First Amendment principles in the digital age. The Supreme Court must ensure that Congress is held to the highest standard before permitting actions of such profound consequence. A TikTok ban risks setting a dangerous precedent that undermines the very freedoms distinguishing democracies from autocracies.”

    The D.C. Circuit’s decision justifies the Act’s sweeping censorship by invoking “free speech fundamentals.” In so doing, it confuses the First Amendment values at stake, and sacrifices our constitutional tradition of debate and dialogue for enforced silence. The D.C. Circuit’s misguided reasoning is sharply at odds with longstanding First Amendment precedent, violating the constitutional protections it claims to preserve. Instead of following the instructive example set by Taiwan, which has eschewed a blanket TikTok ban in favor of robust counterspeech, the D.C. Circuit’s logic echoes the authoritarianism of North Korea and Iran.

    READ THE FULL BRIEF BELOW

    Source link