Joanne Jacob's got the goods on the latest news about Steve Hinkle, the Cal Poly student who unwittingly caused an uproar while posting flyers for an upcoming talk in his campus's Multicultural Center. Granted, the book that the black speaker would be promoting at the talk had a provocative title, but it seemed that the white male student was quickly being railroaded on charges of racial harassment. Cal Poly's actions towards the young man have been absolutely outrageous; during a seven-hour hearing, it was decided that Hinkle had disrupted a "Bible study session" and would have to issue a formal apology. The educational foundation FIRE had to step in, and they've printed a copy of the disciplinary hearing transcript on their website. Their conclusion is that Hinkle's First Amendment Rights were violated in this case.
Joanne cites a few lines from the transcript that reveal the "disruption" for what it really was:
The offended students admitted they objected to the content of the flyer, which advertised the speaker's book, It's OK to Leave the Plantation. Here's Hinkle questioning Student 6, who called the police.
SH: And you said I asked you, “Why can’t we sit down and talk about it?”
S6: Yes.
SH: Okay. And you told me, “Take the flier elsewhere or I will call public safety”?
S6: Yes. I said, “Take that elsewhere or I will call public safety.” And then that’s when you tried to debate, even more debate, and I went and called public safety because I wasn’t, I wasn’t up for it. It was just, the timing was horrible.
The hearing officer asks if Hinkle's demeanor was threatening or abusive.
S6: You’re talking about Steve’s demeanor? Was his demeanor threatening?
RG: M-hmm, or abusive?
S6: No.
So Hinkle basically tried to have a discussion with a student who questioned the flyer he was posting, and when he asked her to explain her views, in a non-abusive manner, she called the police. Right. Cornel Morton, the VP of student affairs, comes across even more shamefully:
CM: Well, it’s clear that we have an identifiably young white male who has been self-identified as a member of the College Republicans group. And although the College Republican group, I’m certain, is not exclusively white or male, there are some implications. And on the other side of this we had a group of students of color, at least identifiably, largely students of color, and the mix, unfortunately, and the collision of experience, that is, the collision of your experience with theirs, on that day at that time was placed inside a larger context, as you recall. And namely these fliers that were posted and the concern that some had about the nature of the speaker’s message and all the rest …. And then to learn later after some investigation that the College Republicans had sponsored the speaker. I think that chemistry, if you will, without question, had racial implications, not reduced solely or purely to a matter of race. But again, I think we would be naïve if we did not acknowledge at least that; we would have to acknowledge that.
What does Hinkle being a member of the College Republicans have to do with anything? Is that illegal at Cal Poly? Is that justification for calling the police? What does his being white have to do with anything? Is that not part of the "multiculture" in the Multicultural center? And why is the "acknowledgement" that race played some part of this justification for prosecuting Hinkle? Regardless of the race of either party, he was posting flyers for a college-approved talk in a public space, and a few observers decided that he didn't have the right to do that. Why did this lead to the decision that Hinkle was somehow at fault?
As Joanne puts it:
It seems like Morton is acknowledging that Hinkle was disruptive by virtue of being a white Republican in the not-so-multi-cultural center. Apparently, Cal Poly officials think that black students have a right to be sheltered from contrary political beliefs or believers. A polite invitation to discuss a conflict is taken as disruption.
Posted by kswygert at August 11, 2003 01:19 PM