U of Florida tramples free speech rights to protect the sensibilities...of a Republican. Again.

From AP -

Protest ban at Florida university after anti-Sasse rally

The University of Florida is going to start enforcing a decades-old 

prohibition against indoor protests following a raucous 

demonstration earlier this month against the selection of 

U.S. Sen. Ben Sasse as a finalist for the school president’s job.

Sasse, a Republican in his second Senate term, has drawn 

criticism from some at the school for his opposition to 

same-sex marriage.

[snip]

The regulation against protests inside campus buildings 

has been on the books for two decades, but it wasn’t enforced 

in recent years because protesters “were respectful of 

others and their rights to speak and to hear,” Fuchs said.

The policy will be enforced next week when the school’s 

board of trustees meets to consider Sasse’s candidacy, 

and students who violate it may be subject to 

discipline, [current university president] Fuchs said.

This isn't the first time that UF has stepped out of line regarding free speech.

From Axios, dated 11/1/2021 -

UF experts barred from sharing expertise

Three University of Florida political science professors have been barred by the University from testifying in a case challenging the new Republican-backed state election law that imposes more restrictions on voting, the Times/Herald reports.

Why it matters: The university's decision to reject the professors' request for permission to testify could have far-reaching free speech implications for higher education faculty across Florida.

Of course, they were slapped down for their efforts.

Also from Axios, dated 1/22/2022, emphasis added by me -

Judge sides with University of Florida professors in academic freedom case

A federal judge on Friday in a decisive free speech ruling ordered that the University of Florida stop enforcing its conflict of interest policy against six professors who were barred from giving expert testimony in lawsuits against the state.

Driving the news: Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker for the Northern District of Florida accused the university of silencing the professors and granted them a preliminary injunction.

• Walker likened the university's actions to Hong Kong University removing a sculpture commemorating the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre.
• "In many ways, the Pillar’s demise was emblematic of the demise of academic freedom in Hong Kong," Walker said, linking it to the University of Florida's conflict of interest policy.
• "Defendants must take no steps to enforce its conflict-of-interests policy with respect to faculty and staff requests to engage as expert witnesses or provide legal consulting in litigation involving the State of Florida until otherwise ordered," Walker ordered.

[snip]

What he's saying:  "UF has bowed to perceived pressure from Florida’s political leaders and has sanctioned the unconstitutional suppression of ideas out of favor with Florida’s ruling party."

What to watch: Walker set a bench trial for Nov. 7.

It's almost like they *know* Ron DeSantis, Florida's current governor, plans to run for president in 2024 and UF leaders think that if their students and faculty are anything other than Stepford students and faculty, they may upset that particular apple cart.

In the wake of the Navy Yard mass shooting, a University of Kansas professor posts a tweet critical of the NRA; professor placed on leave

From the New York Daily News, written by Michael Walsh -

The University of Kansas placed a tenured journalism professor on administrative leave Friday after a controversial Tweet in which he suggested victims for the country's next mass shooting: children of National Rifle Association members.

"The blood is on the hands of the #NRA. Next time, let it be YOUR sons and daughters. Shame on you. May God damn you," tenured associate professor David Guth said in the wake of the Navy Yard shooting in Washington, D.C.

A snippy of the tweet at issue, courtesy the same article -

When asked about the tweet, Guth stated that his tweet was in no way threatening or advocating violence, and upon reading it, I agree.  

I would have phrased it differently, something along the lines of "if the NRA's adherents and families were doing the dying instead of the killing, maybe their reaction to calls for better gun safety measures would be more thoughtful and reasoned than their current standard of reflexively hysterical."

In other words, if they were directly experiencing the same tragedies and losses as civil society, maybe they would be a little less enthusiastic about the effect of their attitude that the best way to deal with gun violence in society is to introduce more guns into society

However, Republicans in the Kansas legislature aren't fans of free speech, especially when they disagree with the speech in question.  

They are calling for the University to fire Guth and threatening the school's budget if it doesn't accede to their demands.

From Huffington Post -

While the university has taken steps against Guth, Republican state lawmakers want Guth fired. If he isn't, they say, the school could face consequences. State Senate President Susan Wagle (R-Wichita) and Senate Majority Leader Terry Bruce (R-Hutchison) have both issued statements calling for Guth's dismissal. State Sen. Greg Smith (R-Overland Park) released a statement Friday saying that unless further action is taken against Guth, he will react.

"As a public educator in the Kansas high school education system, I am often consulted by my students as to which college they should attend," Smith said in his statement. "As long as Professor Guth remains employed by the University of Kansas I will no longer recommend the university as an institution worthy of attendance by any of my students nor, as a state senator, will I support any budget proposals or recommendations for the University of Kansas."

Much of the rightwing echo chamber has leaped on this, twisting Guth's words in ways ranging from "he wants to kill the children of NRA members" to "he wants to take the guns of, and kill the children of, NRA members".

Guth, to his credit, hasn't backed down from his tweet, saying that perhaps his words were too "nuanced" for certain segments of society.

For what it's worth, I don't think that his words were nuanced, not even a little bit.

I think that they were words very obviously filled with outrage, frustration, and grief.

I also think that certain segments of society have deliberately misinterpreted them in order to cover their own bloodlust with a mask of false equivalency.

Guth has a blog here.  While I don't agree with everything that he's published, I give credit where it is due - he's not afraid to call people out for their BS as he sees it.