Adam Kissel, an individual rights advocate for FIRE, talks to students about their rights. Photo by Will Taylor- Mustang Daily

The crops house incident, the Michael Pollan controversy and the Steve Hinkle case were all discussed on Feb. 17 in a speech hosted by the Cal Poly College Republicans.

Adam Kissel, director of the individual rights defense program for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), spoke for more than an hour, highlighting rights issues and cases from across the nation, including some that have occurred at Cal Poly. Kissel was  introduced by materials engineering senior Eric Blank, president of the College Republicans.

“The College Republicans felt that there were a lot of free speech issues on campus. It’s a necessity for people to be able to freely say what they want,” Blank said. “We wanted to bring someone in to educate about it and let students know their rights.”

FIRE’s mission is to defend and sustain individual rights on college campuses, Kissel said. Those rights include freedom of speech, conscience, equality, association and due process. FIRE is a non-partisan group that will protect any individual or group having their rights denied, he said. The group is involved in numerous cases across the country and has offices located in Philadelphia and New York.

“You have to protect everyone’s speech,” Blank said. “You don’t know when a majority view might become the minority view in terms of free speech.”

Kissel began his talk with examples of violations of student rights from across the country. These violations included cases about controversial books being read in staff rooms, offensive postings on dorm room walls and shaming students for their beliefs.

Kissel moved on to issues in California and then to Cal Poly. FIRE rates colleges on a green, yellow and red scale. There is a color rating for the policies a school has regarding student rights and also an action rating. The action rating is what the school actually does when students’ rights are violated.

“There are no red lights at Cal Poly. They’re yellow lights,” Kissel said. “The school is better than average in terms of policies.”

Despite a mid-range policy rating, FIRE has been involved in several cases at Cal Poly, including the Hinkle case. Kissel said the case was “one of the worse we’ve seen.”

In 2002, Hinkle, then a Cal Poly student and member of the Cal Poly College Republicans, was putting up posters in the University Union (UU) promoting a black social critic the club was bringing to campus to talk about his new book. A Christian group gathering in the UU before a meeting said they found the posters offensive. An argument started and escalated until the authorities were called. Hinkle was punished by Cal Poly for “disrupting an event” and was asked to apologize to the individuals he offended.

Ultimately, Hinkle sued the university and after a year and a half the case was settled. Cal Poly paid Hinkle’s legal fees, which Kissel said were about $40,000, and dropped all charges.

The Hinkle case was FIRE’s first involvement with Cal Poly, according to Kissel. Since then there have been several rights issues on campus, including censorship of Smile and Nod posters, the disbanding of CARE-net and the crops house incident. These issues cause great concern to FIRE and were all serious violations of student rights, Kissel said.

“Cal Poly is significantly below average in terms of violations of policies regarding the first amendment,” he said.

Kissel said yellow light policies regarding student rights, like the ones at Cal Poly, can have a chilling effect on speech due to ambiguous wording. When the phrasing or language involved in a policy allows subjective interpretation, students can be unclear about what rights they might or might not have, he said. From there, administration can apply the policies as they see fit.

Laura Freberg, adviser for the College Republicans and psychology professor, said she would like to see the university improve its individual rights protection.

“Personally I would want the university to really attend to the expertise of FIRE. You don’t want to have another Steve Hinkle case. You don’t want (the university) to be on the national news as that case was,” she said. “I would want to see Cal Poly do what they need to do to get into that green light position.”

Free speech is the cornerstone of American government and the foundation of democracy. We have all heard the unusual arguments for free speech in situations of burning flags, but we often fail to acknowledge the day-to-day restriction of free speech on college campuses.

College campuses are perceived to be the exemplum of free speech. During the Vietnam War, organized groups of college students held some of the largest demonstrations in the history of America, and gained considerable media attention with their mass protests against government policy.

Well, four decades have come and gone, and the concept of free speech seems to be fading away as well. Students are still protesting against the government’s foreign policy and social issues, but the times have changed, and “freedom of speech” has gradually come to mean “freedom of liberal speech.” The conservative voice is frequently muted on campus under the social pressure of professors and peers alike. Conservative students feel like they have to look both ways before talking politics or discussing their viewpoints.

Cal Poly did not receive national media attention for its activism during the Vietnam era, and its largest student protest was probably the Poly Royal Riot of 1990, which was over alcohol. Nonetheless, restrictions on free speech have become more and more prevalent on our campus. The issue exploded in 2002 when Cal Poly officials tried to censor a student who was simply exercising one of his First Amendment rights.

Most current students are probably unaware of this major controversy, in which Poly student Steve Hinkle posted a flyer on the Multicultural Center bulletin board announcing a Cal Poly-sponsored speech by social critic Mason Weaver.

The flier contained the title of Weaver’s book, It’s OK to Leave the Plantation, as well as his picture, and the time and place of the event. The flyer was misinterpreted as being racially offensive when the speaker was actually arguing that government dependence has placed African-Americans into “circumstances similar to slavery.”

Hinkle was reported to the police, and accused of “disrupting” a bible study group at the Multicultural Center. The Cal Poly Office of Judicial Affairs deemed it a “disruption of a campus event,” even though there was never proof of an “official” event at that location and time. Hinkle had quietly posted the flier, and was “civil” during the entire engagement. Although the Judicial Affairs Office argued that the matter had nothing to do with First Amendment rights, it was clear that their argument of a “disruption” was merely a false cover-up. Hinkle refused to apologize, as demanded by Cal Poly, and the university was soon under FIRE.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (commonly known as FIRE), which prides itself in defending and sustaining individual rights on college campuses, took Hinkle’s case immediately. After a seven hour long hearing, Cal Poly refused to restore Hinkle’s basic First Amendment rights. FIRE organized a lawsuit against President Baker and other administrators, and made the case nationally known.

In the end, Cal Poly settled, but not until they suffered nationwide embarrassment and significant legal fees for their blatant rejection of individual rights. It is also important to note that Cal Poly never actually apologized for their wrongdoing, but simply dropped the case without explanation. So much for setting an example.

The college campus is supposed to be a place where students are encouraged to stand up for their beliefs and discuss their opinions with others. It is troubling to see campuses restrict free speech, and take the politically correct side of an argument, instead of the one with the greatest constitutional support. Political “sensitivity” should never infringe upon basic individual rights.

Tonight, the Cal Poly College Republicans and Office of Student Affairs will be hosting Adam Kissel, the director of the Individual Rights Defense Program for FIRE. Mr. Kissel will be discussing freedom of speech on college campuses in further depth. The presentation will be from 7-8 p.m. in 52-E27. This event is free to the general public, and I encourage your attendance. Freedom of speech is a constitutional right; as the future of America, we need to work actively to promote and defend it.

Aaron Berk is a computer engineering junior and Mustang Daily political columnist.

In the spirit of Thanksgiving, I’d like to take this opportunity to focus on what’s right with our country. In my family, during Thanksgiving dinner we go around the table and say what we’re thankful for. So rather than critique things or express what I’d like to see in the future, I want to focus on the things that I’m proud of and thankful for right now.

I’m thankful for our media. Whether you like getting your news from the television, newspaper, radio or the Internet, we have quite the abundance of choices in the United States. Thank goodness we don’t live behind the great firewall of China or have the system the Iranians do where the government has blocked sites like YouTube, Twitter and Facebook in the past. It’s very easy to take for granted all the information we have access to since there’s so much information out there that we can easily get our hands on. Even the fact that you can go into the school library and pick up a copy from a newspaper from a country on the other side of the world as us really goes to show you that we do have a lot of freedom when it comes to the press and media.

I’m thankful for our Constitution. The more I learn about the Constitution the more I come to appreciate it and what it set out for our country. It describes core rights that we have that are essential for our freedom and well being. These rights are not always respected as they should be, but we can always point back to the Constitution as the supreme law of the land and remind people of our rights as both human beings and Americans. It was written so the people could be the masters of it, and as such it’s relatively easy to understand (even without a law degree) and it’s not too lengthy. The Constitution in my eyes is one of the most powerful and important documents ever written.

I’m thankful for our judicial system. I know it’s not perfect but overall I’m very happy with it. The idea that we are judged by our peers is a powerful concept. In a world where public outrage is easily formed, it’s reassuring to see that usually cooler heads prevail and arguments are heard in a court of law. The rule of law is a great thing and without it life would be very unstable and much more difficult for all of us.

I’m thankful for all the land that makes up the United States; what a diversity of terrain we have from Alaska down to Florida. Even in San Luis Obispo you can go downtown for a more urban setting or you can head just a few miles to where Foothill  Blvd. meets Los Osos Valley Road and it’s like you’re in a totally different setting with all the open land. We have a lot of great national parks in addition to access to two oceans and many terrific lakes in between.

I’m thankful for our innovative spirit. In a country where refrigeration, motorcycles, jeans, airplanes, supermarkets, masking tape, chemotherapy, transistors, defibrillators, cable television, credit cards, barcodes, the polio vaccine and even spandex were created, you have to see that we’re a pretty innovative country. These innovations are beneficial to literally billions of people around the world and help improve our quality of life. I can only imagine what we’ll invent in the future that will further improve our lives.

Last but not least, I’m thankful for my greater family that is the American public. I think we have some of the brightest, kindest and resourceful minds among us. The other day it dawned on me how diverse we all are and yet how well we get along. I saw a Lamborghini and an old clunker on the same stretch of road, and I’m sure the owners live very different lives, yet they both call the United States home and can share the same road together. We are indeed a great melting pot of cultures, ethnicities, religions and philosophies. I have a great deal of confidence in our future because of the strength of the people that make the up the United States.

Aaron Berk is a computer engineering junior and Mustang Daily political columnist.

Cal Poly’s College of Liberal Arts sponsored an event in honor of Constitution Day last Thursday. Dartmouth College government professor Dr. Sonu Bedi lectured on his book, “Rejecting Rights.” He argued that rights are the traditional way to protect basic freedoms, but that this fails to realize liberty and democratic thought. The goal of his lecture was to reframe how people view limited government and have them realize the value of speaking in reasons rather than rights.

“We do best not to speak in the language of rights, rather we ought to limit democratic government by limiting the reasons or rationales on which the state may act … We need to further democratic debate and secure liberty by rejecting rights,” Bedi said.

Basically, Bedi believes that rights are not a proper way to rationalize laws. He argued that reasons provide better grounds for democratic deliberation. In his lecture, Bedi presented two serious case studies to prove his principle: same sex marriage and abortion.

In the discussion of same sex marriage, he said that those who are gay fight for equal rights. This is not true because it is not equal rights, since minors don’t have the right to marry. There is also the argument on whether being gay is by birth or by choice.

If you look at rights, “it is illegitimate, because there is no good reason to reject the rights of gays, just like there is no good reason to reject whether someone prefers chocolate or vanilla ice cream,” Bedi said.

According to the speaker, there is no reason to prohibit one group of marriage. It doesn’t matter if it’s a choice or not. Bedi says that some may argue that marriage is traditionally between a man and a woman, but tradition is not a reason since slavery was also a tradition.

In the second example of his presentation, abortion, there is an argument in this country on whether abortion is a right to life, right to privacy or a right of women.

“Rights pose the wrong questions,” Bedi said.

He argued that if a woman is not allowed the choice of abortion for the sake that it saves the life of a baby, isn’t this similar to being a Good Samaritan? If there is only one person who can save someone’s life, for example, if someone is drowning in a lake and you are the only one around, then are you obliged to save the person?

Bedi brought up the point that there are only six states with forced Good Samaritan laws, and the penalty for not being a Good Samaritan in Vermont is a mere fine of $100. He asked, then why is abortion looked at differently?

Bedi closed his lecture with words from Alexander Hamilton, who objected to having a Bill of Rights in No. 84 of the Federalist Papers. Hamilton felt that rights were things granted by kings and not needed in a democracy. If you have reasons, you should not be confined to rights.

“This lecture was great. Dr.Bedi is very knowledgeable and brought up some important points. It is a debatable matter, but he argued it well. It makes you think in a different way,” Badr Hussain, an environmental horticulture science senior, said.

Political science senior Erin Mellon agreed, adding that this is a topic that most people only look at in one way.

“I thought it was interesting. It flips what you originally thought into a whole new concept,” she said.

For a more in-depth argument, Dr. Sonu Bedi’s book, “Rejecting Rights,” is available.

Courtesy image.

The Cal Poly College of Architecture and Environmental Design, already known for its inroads into the construction industry, is adding one more benefit for its students and their future employers. Construction on a new and unique lab is slated to begin on Oct. 16 next to the Construction Innovations Center.

The Simpson Strong-Tie Materials Demonstration Lab will focus on the materials students will be working with or designing in the industry upon graduation.

“One of the main things we’re looking at in this lab is the assembly, because it’s the stuff in between the different materials where the problems develop,” Allan Hauck, construction management department head, said. “Knowledge of these materials is what’s central to all the majors in the College of Architecture and Environmental Design.”

Students agree that experience in the field is important.

“Some students don’t get to work in a hands-on environment,” Dominic Cacciatore, a construction management senior said. “I think that’s crucial for someone working in the industry.”

The building itself is meant to be ‘part of the pedagogy’ and is one of only a handful of these labs across the country, the nearest being at Boise State, Hauck said. The lighting, wiring and connections will all be apparent and exposed so students from the College of Architecture and Environmental Design will be able to study and understand the interaction of the materials.

Some architectural engineering students are taking advantage of the building before and during the process. Kimberly Orth and Joseph Klimczyk are doing their senior project on the construction process behind the new lab. “It’s pretty important to know what goes on in the industry besides just in (architectural engineering),” Orth said. “You have to understand the scheduling and timing beyond the engineering and in the office.”

Orth also mentioned that materials testing is something that students don’t get to do often enough. There is a concrete testing lab, but Orth said that they are “pretty limited on what (they) can test in the lab.”

The framing of the building Orth and Klimczyk are studying is the first of its kind for a public, institutional building, Hauck said. The frame is a “heavy timber brace frame” composed of 6-by-6 timbers and larger. Under national and state building codes, public buildings (including all state university buildings) must adhere to higher safety standards regarding hazards like fires and earthquakes. Before, timber was excluded for these safety issues, while traditionally, other buildings on campus are composed mostly of steel and concrete because of their strength and fire resistance. A new code was put in place about a year and a half ago that allowed the building to be built with a timber frame, which can handle seismic loads and is fire resistant, Hauck said.

The goal of the timber frame is to use more environmentally-conscious materials. “What we’re trying to do with this building as well is the use of a sustainable, recyclable material, which is timber,” Hauck said.

The building, which has been in the planning stages for four to five years, is finally ready to break ground, Hauck said. The contract was given to San Luis Obispo construction management company Newton Construction for $1,675,000, less than the Cal Poly estimate. “The trend over the last year is that all projects have been coming in lower on their estimates,” Perry Judd, project manager under the Facilities Management Department said.

The project will cut off half of the thoroughfare between the Construction Innovations Center and the Engineering West building and will close the road in between the Center and the Graphic Arts building, although the sidewalk will remain open, Judd said.

It is a benchmark in the construction industry, Alan Hanson, Simpson Strong-Tie’s West Coast representative said. Simpson donated $500,000 to have their name on the lab. They have worked closely with Cal Poly for years and have hired 15 to 20 graduates, Hanson said.

“We want to further the relationship that we’ve had for a long time,” Hanson said. “It’s been great for us, because Cal Poly is considered by many people the premier engineering school West of the Rockies.”

The building is scheduled to be finished for the beginning of fall quarter 2010.

Local gay marriage advocates gathered at Mitchell Park Tuesday to oppose the California Supreme Court’s ruling to uphold Proposition 8, the proposition passed last November that banned same-sex marriage.

About 250 community members congregated for an event organized by the San Luis Obispo chapter of Marriage Equality USA. The 6-1 ruling determined that the 18,000 same-sex marriages that took place before the vote remain valid.

After the passage of Porposition 8, several same-sex couples took the vote results to the courts, stating that the ballot measure was unconstitutional under state law.

The court rejected those claims, with the majority opinion stating that it is not the court’s role to determine whether Proposition 8 “is wise or sound as a matter of policy or whether we, as individuals believe it should be a part of the California Constitution,” but instead “is limited to interpreting and applying the principles and rules embodied in the California Constitution, setting aside our own personal beliefs and values.”

According to public law and political theory professor Ronald Den Otter , the ruling was almost inevitable.

“The decision wasn’t unexpected,” Den Otter said. “Very few people thought that the court would find that Proposition 8 constituted a constitutional revision and therefore, required approval of the legislature before being submitted to the voters. Very few people also thought that Proposition 8 was retroactive and therefore invalidated the approximattely 18,000 same-sex marriages that had been performed before November 4, 2009.”

Some Cal Poly student organizations attended to show their support for same-sex marriage, including the Pride Center and Delta Lambda Phi, a fraternity for gay, bisexual and progressive men.

The Supreme Court decision was a let-down for Delta Lambda Phi president Brad Purpura, who was optimistic about the possibility of Proposition 8 being overruled.

“I’m completely dumb-founded actually,” Purpura said. “I was sure that it was going to get overruled. Given what the justices said last year when they originally allowed gay marriage, I thought there was no way they were going to go back on that, but the decision today lit a fire inside myself. Now I’m fighting harder than I did prior because it’s just a matter of time until I’m afforded the rights of everyone else.”

David Kilburn, San Luis Obispo’s chapter leader of Marriage Equality USA, said that although he and his husband get to keep their marriage, it’s unfair that same-sex couples do not have the opportunity to marry.

“I’m not giving it up, but at the same time, it has a whole different meaning now that I know that we’ve been forced into a situation of having a special right,” he said. “We didn’t ask for a special right. We asked for marriage equality. That’s all we wanted.”

The crowd at Mitchell Park waved signs supporting same-sex marriage at oncoming cars and members of various organizations dedicated their support.

Helen Carroll, a clergywoman from the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of San Luis Obispo County, offered words of encouragement to the crowd and led all participants in a prayer. Carroll emphasized that she is one of many church affiliates who supports marriage equality.

“The court made the decision that they thought best met the people’s wishes,” Carroll said. “What the decision did, beyond disappointing me, was gave me a road map for how it is to go about making justice. That road map involved changing the constitution. I have already made a covenant that I will not sanctify marriages by signing certificates until I can sign them for everyone.”

A few Proposition 8 supporters were present as well. Rather than approaching the matter from a religious angle, they argued that the group at Mitchell Park should respect the decision made by California voters.

“People voted twice on this issue,” San Luis Obispo resident Dane Senser said. “To me, it’s not about equality. I believe there is plenty of equality. It’s not about being homophobic or anything else … How many times do you have to vote on this? You have to go with the will of the people.”

Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Maine and Iowa have legalized same-sex marriage and Vermont will be added to the list in September.

But supporters of gay marriage in California are hopeful, like Devin Ward, a teacher in Santa Maria, who was wearing a shirt that read “No More Mr. Nice Gay.”

“There’s a momentum. A momentum that cannot be denied that’s happening slowly but surely throughout the country,” Ward said.

Supporters from California and around the nation will meet in Fresno this Saturday for the Meet in the Middle 4 Equality conference — the next step at organizing grassroots efforts for legalizing gay marriage.