Canceling Starr ‘two steps back’
UNM Law School’s handling of matter ‘dangerous precedent’
Over 32 years ago, the University of New Mexico Board of Regents, at the urging of the Archbishop, banned the campus showing of “Hail Mary,” a foreign film which offended some Catholics. A gross violation of the First Amendment, the regents’ unconstitutional act was met with a swift lawsuit.
I know this because as UNM’s student body president in 1986, I was one of two students who filed the suit. After a brief federal court hearing, regents followed the advice of anyone who ever read the U.S. Constitution and reversed the ban. The film went forward with minor protests, a major victory for the First Amendment.
I was only 22 years old, but I knew a university was the quintessential marketplace of ideas, and free speech was a hallmark of our democracy. Obviously, the regents’ ban was a suppression of free expression, which amounted to government censorship. By standing up to regents with the help of an excellent lawyer, we felt the lawsuit would advance the principles of free speech on campus for decades to come.
Last week, that one step forward was met with UNM’s two steps back. The UNM Law School halted former Solicitor General Kenneth Starr from speaking on campus about presidential investigations because, suspiciously, the timing wasn’t right. Out of all institutions that should respect the tenets of the First Amendment, the Law School’s handling of this matter smacks of censorship and is bereft of credibility.
The UNM Law School admitted to unilaterally requesting an indefinite postponement with a meager explanation from its assistant dean while alluding some Starr naysayers played a role in the decision. By deferring to an unidentified few who objected to Starr, UNM created a subjective litmus test for “timing” on future campus speakers whose opinions are controversial or outside of the mainstream, a dangerous precedent.
No assurance by UNM it will find a less-offensive date should minimize this was an act of viewpoint discrimination. Depriving the community’s ability to hear a different opinion in a university setting is unconstitutional. I’m sure many of the fine law professors I was fortunate enough to have at UNM feel the same way.
For what it’s worth,
I’m no fan of Starr, his politics or tenure at Baylor University. I’m a lifelong Democrat who’d probably not agree with much of what he had to say. But in this day where there are legitimate questions on the limits of presidential power, Starr’s experience investigating a former president and running a university may have been interesting, prompted intellectual curiosity and done exactly what the First Amendment was designed to do: encourage debate of differing viewpoints.
But that won’t happen now because some selfappointed sensitivity police have preposterously decided we’re not emotionally ready right now to hear Starr’s thoughts. It’s even more offensive that UNM felt it could pull this off with such a tepid explanation. I’d suggest a mea culpa is in order. Call it a teachable moment.
The First Amendment is not a law of convenience supporting popular speech only. It can be difficult to hear other opinions. But as former Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote almost 100 years ago, society’s ultimate good “is better reached by free trade in ideas — that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.” UNM flunked this badly.
After the ban was lifted, the film was shown to several sold-out audiences on campus. Ironically, even though I filed the lawsuit, I chose not to attend. Thirtytwo years later, I still have not seen it. But that was my choice.
With regard to Starr’s thoughts, UNM wrongly made that decision for all of us.