Amen Jim. Thanks for posting.

My friends and I started a liberty club at UVU a few years ago called Young American’s for Liberty. When we drafted our club’s constitution and by-laws we wrote that our funds could only come from voluntary donations. No one was allowed to take money from the school because we saw it as an unfair redistribution of people’s money. Not everyone believed in our cause and we didn’t feel right taking people’s money (directly or indirectly) if they did not donate it by choice.

In case anyone here is wondering- clubs at UVU (at least last year) receive $250/semester plus $100/month if a rep showes up for UVU’s club meetings. We refused any funds that were offered by UVU (to their disgusted surprise).

While I definitely don’t take sides with “Free” on his/her philosophical views I think he/she brings up a valid point. If we are to be consistent in principle then clubs such as ACME (Advocates for Cooperation in the Middle East…a pro-Israel club) and the College Republicans – two clubs with whom many subscribers to Utah’s Republic might likely agree with – should not be receiving state funds either.

While Oak blows many things out of proportion and finds conspiracies where none exist, this is one area where he is right. My tax dollars, which I am forced to pay, should not in any way be used to invite speakers to our state who wish to promote the destruction of economic and civil liberties. I have no problem with students exercising their First Amendment right to peaceably assemble with whomever they choose, but no taxpayer should have to subsidize the existence of such a group or to pay for the speakers they invite.

I agree that it’s ironic that tax dollars are being used to allow people who would take away free speech have their free speech.  However, that’s what makes those of us who believe in free speech different.  I love to see my tax-dollar funded police out protecting some controversial (or even lunatic) group’s rally.  It comforts me to know that we defend our principles even if it becomes uncomfortable.  We put our money where our mouth is, as it were.  If tax dollars pay lawmakers’ time to listen when you address them on education, shouldn’t tax dollars pay to have them listen to an opposing view?  Every time a body of legislators meet, tax dollars are sponsoring free speech.  Every time we hold an election, tax dollars fund free speech.  Every member of our armed forces is a symbol of taxpayer money sponsoring our Bill of Rights. 

It’s evident that you, Mr. Norton, wish to limit certain people’s access to free speech and thought.  I certainly don’t agree with the RSU’s opinions in the least, and I will speak out against their philosophy at any opportunity; but I will treat them with the respect that I would expect for myself.  If I ran a club for conservative capitalists at UVU and had invited speakers or presenters, I would hope the university would support me.  I would hope no one would deride the university’s academics because they were willing to support me.  I woudn’t use derrogatory, childish, and belittling terms like “commies” when I disagree with someone in the hopes that they wouldn’t use terms like that in their disagreements with me.  Civil discourse and an open exchange of ideas are the high road.  If I want my rights, I must offer them to others.

As far as “most” universities being “more than happy” to accept leftist speakers and “loathe” to accept others, I have not found that to be true.  At each of the four universities I attended, I worked as a sound tech for presentations of all kinds.  I never saw a university representative anything but enthusiastic to recieve guest speakers  or presenters regardless of political leaning (and yes, there were many conservative speakers though the majority seemed to lean liberal).  Now if you have some sort of evidence (based on fact and research rather than anecdote) that the majority of liberal over conservative speakers stems from some higher education conspiracy, then I guess those university officials must be liberal and want only to hear liberal views they can agree with.  Hmmm.  That’s bad.  Maybe we should fight that by being just as bad as they are, only on the other side?

Yep.  I smell the hypocrisy just fine. 

Comrade, “virtually no funding?” No club should receive funding from the state or university. Anti-capitalist, workers of the world unite rhetoric is the communist, Marxist mantra. If you actually believe you can espouse that and aren’t a communist at heart, I guess the propaganda really does its job.

By the way; we pay taxes, we pay tuition, and yet we still receive virtually no funding from the state or our universities.

Actually Free, I can’t “smell” the hypocrisy. What’s ironic is that groups like this are funded by tax dollars and if they rose to power would end all opposition speech. Glenn Beck is all about free speech, but the communists are not. They silence all opposition, permanently.

Also, why should a government entity “sponsor” free speech? Free speech is a natural right. Nobody needs to sponsor it. Most universities are more than happy to bring in left-wing socialist revolutionaries to speak, but loathe to bring in conservatives. There are precious few opportunities in this country for students to get a balanced perspective. I don’t think our Founders sponsored left and right wing speakers to come in and “educate” the people with tax dollars. There was no need. The capitalist private market (ie. press) took care of that for the public as they should today.