WISN
ADRIENNE: FREE SPEECH ON CAMPUS.
I’M ADRIENNE PEDERSEN.
TODAY ON "UPFRONT," THE PLAN TO
PUNISH STUDENTS WHO DISRUPT
CAMPUS SPEAKERS.
TWO LAWMAKERS DEBATE IT AND WE
ASK, WHOSE SPEECH IS BEING HURT?
PLUS, THE DEMOCRAT WHO SAYS
THERE’S A PATH TO VICTORY IN THE
HEAVILY REPUBLICAN FIFTH
CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT.
and --
>> In general, I think the level
of interest in politics is much
higher than it has been in the
past.
ADRIENNE: WHAT’S DRIVING STUDENT
INTEREST IN POLITICS.
Announcer: this is upfront.
ADRIENNE: THANKS FOR JOINING US.
IT’S A HOT TOPIC IN HIGHER ED.
SHOULD STUDENTS WHO DISRUPT
SPEAKING EVENTS ON CAMPUS BE
KICKED OUT OF SCHOOL?
THAT QUESTION IS AT THE CENTER
OF THE CAMPUS FREE SPEECH DEBATE
IN WISCONSIN.
THE ISSUE HERE ACTUALLY GOES
BACK A FEW YEARS, TO 2016, WHEN
A GROUP OF PROTESTERS SHOUTED
DOWN CONSERVATIVE SPEAKER BEN
SHAPIRO IN HIS APPEARANCE AT
U.W. MADISON.
REPUBLICAN STATE LAWMAKERS WENT
TO WORK ON A BILL THAT WOULD
ALLOW U.W. TO PUNISH STUDENTS
WHO DISRUPT CAMPUS SPEAKERS.
REPUBLICANS RECENTLY
REINTRODUCED THAT BILL.
AND RIGHT NOW, U.W. REGENTS ARE
working on A RULE THAT WOULD
ALLOW SUSPENSION OR EXPULSION OF
STUDENTS WHO DISRUPT SPEAKERS ON
MULTIPLE OCCASSIONS.
WE’RE LOOKING AT THE ISSUE TODAY
WITH TWO STATE LAWMAKERS.
REPUBLICAN DAVE MURPHY OF
GREENVILLE IS CO-SPONSORING THE
ASSEMBLY FREE SPEECH BILL.
DEMOCRAT GRETA NEUBAUER OF
RACINE OPPOSES IT.
They are both joining us now for
a debate.
Thank you both for being here.
Representative Murphy, I want to
start with you.
I read a piece he wrote saying
here in Wisconsin, we don’t wait
for disaster to react.
Disaster is a strong word.
What do you mean by that
Representative Murphy: It’s one
of our most fundamental
freedoms.
When you infringe upon it, you
are going right to the heart of
life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness.
ADRIENNE: some conservative
groups are coming out against
this saying it is squelching
speech to protect it.
How do you respond?
Representative Murphy: I have
spoken to a lot of college
students on our campuses.
And conservative students are
telling me that they feel like
their ideas and their thoughts
are being oppressed, and they
feel like they are a minority on
campus, and they feel like they
need protections like other
minorities might.
ADRIENNE: you are not for this
bill.
Explain why.
Rep. NEUBAUER: it is important
that we protect everyone’s right
to free speech, at the Capitol
and on campus.
This undermines free speech.
All the way to the right and all
the way to the left you have
groups opposing this bill.
And we have not seen the public
show up in support of this bill
either.
To get a little more specific,
as you mentioned, this provides
a two and three strike policy,
but it mandates that chancellors
suspend someone after two
strikes or expel them after
three, but it is not clear what
constitutes a strike.
It is vague, difficult to
enforce, and potentially
unconstitutional.
Many people have raise that
concern.
Chancellors right now have the
ability to determine appropriate
action if they feel someone has
violated that.
They have the right to suspend
or expel a student.
We should allow our chancellors
to maintain that discretion.
ADRIENNE: why should someone who
has interrupted a speech several
times be kicked out?
Is that not considered a
behavior issue?
Rep. NEUBAUER: the Constitution
protects everyone’s right to
free speech.
Ben Shapiro was allowed to make
his comments.
Protesters opposed him.
He was allowed to proceed with
his comments.
I don’t think we should be
stepping into murky waters and
creating rules that are
potentially unconstitutional for
something that is not really a
problem.
Rep. Murphy: no student would be
suspended for one incident.
That wouldn’t happen.
The law does not say that.
Also, this policy is very
similar, and is modeled after
the free-speech policy at yale
University, at the University of
Chicago, and these are some of
the most prominent universities
when it comes to protecting free
speech rights.
ADRIENNE: why do you think the
law is necessary on top of the
University guidelines?
Rep. Murphy: we introduce this
bill in last session and people
would tell us this is not
necessary, the Board of Regents
will deal with it.
Now, as the Board of Regents
looks like they are going to put
this in place, the governor says
he will not sign on to it.
So, it is imperative to put this
in place so that it has that
strength of law behind it.
ADRIENNE: if the governor does
not support it, can he veto it?
Rep. Murphy: he could, but then
he would need to explain his
position and tell us if he has
another plan.
Governor, do you have something
better in mind than what
universities like Yale and the
University of Chicago have in
place?
ADRIENNE: how do you make sure
there is still diversity of
thought when you don’t agree
with protesters going up there
and trying to shut down or
interrupt an event?
How do you make sure everyone
still has their voices heard?
Rep. NEUBAUER: the Constitution
is very clear that everyone has
the right to free speech, that
students, teachers, everyone on
campus maintains that right.
Wisconsin in this country have a
long and proud tradition of open
dialogue of protest, of dissent,
and that is critical for
conversation for students to
learn and grow.
ADRIENNE: where is the line?
How do you decide what is not
appropriate?
Rep. NEUBAUER: I would say that
chancellors are having that
conversation.
They are determining that as we
speak on their campuses in
response to incidents that have
happened in the past and will be
ongoing.
As I said, then Shapiro was able
to finish his speech.
Student protesters left the room
and he was able to continue.
I think we need to continue to
allow our chancellors to
continue to use their
discretion, and if they
determine students are
attempting to shut down an event
or an incident, trying to impair
someone’s free speech, they
should determine the appropriate
action with the tools they have,
which include suspension a
expulsion.
Rep. Murphy: to hear him and to
listen.
They are both infringed upon.
Because free-speech is not just
about speech but the
communication of it.
ADRIENNE: does the audience have
a right to respond?
Rep. Murphy: the audience has a
right to listen.
Response, yes.
I think there is sort of a gray
area.
Applause is a response.
If you jeer, that is a response.
That doesn’t stop somebody from
speaking, and I think that’s
where the difference comes in.
There is a difference between
disruption and demonstration.
I stood with a large group of
college students who came from
all different campuses and they
asked me about this.
I said there are lots of ways to
demonstrate and protest.
If Ben Shapiro is speaking and I
don’t like what he is saying, I
can take it outside, I can try
to find another speaker to come
in and give the opposing point
of view, and there is probably a
lot more I’m not thinking of.
There are lots of things you can
do besides stopping Ben Shapiro
from giving his point of view.
ADRIENNE: what do you consider a
disruption that should face
punishment?
Rep. Murphy: in the situation
with Ben Shapiro, students went
up and stood in front of him so
that nobody could see him.
That’s a disruption.
Rep. NEUBAUER: I think the
concern is, and representative
Murphy in some ways highlighted
it, we don’t know what action
constitutes a strike.
It’s not clear in the policy.
Saying two strikes mandate
suspension or three strikes
expulsion when it’s not at all
clear to anyone what would
constitute one of those strikes
I think is really problematic.
ADRIENNE: thank you both for
being here.
Rep. NEUBAUER: thank you for
having us.
Rep. Murphy: thank you.
ADRIENNE: LATER ON UPFRONT,
ANOTHER STORY FROM CAMPUS.
THE TRUMP EFFECT ON STUDENTS.
THERE IS ONE, AND IT’S NOT WHAT
YOU MIGHT THINK.
BUT FIRST, THE DEMOCRAT
COMPETING IN THE F
