Michigan Tech University Infringes on Civil Rights
As many people know, I am a graduate of Michigan Technological University. I’ve always been a proud one at that. The school is not an easy one to graduate from and they expect a lot from their students.
Today, my pride in that institution has diminished. During my time at MTU, I was a member of one of the longest lasting and most storied living communities on campus, La Maison de Gaite (colloquially named, Maggot Hall). I met some of my best friends in college through Maggot Hall and various events that we put on. We have been one of the most well known (though not always well behaved) halls in history at Tech and we’re damn proud of it. One of our many long standing traditions is the Maggot Hall chant. An adaptation of a George Carlin skit, passed down from generation to generation for some time now. It goes something like this.
Rat shit, bat shit, nasty old twat;
69 assholes tied in a knot;
Eat, suck, fuck, gobble, nibble, chew;
We’re from La Maison so hey, fuck you!
Not exactly the most eloquent of chants, but hey, it’s our tradition it’s only words and if you don’t like it you don’t have to listen to it. Sometime this week, however, the administration of Tech finally decided they have had enough of that whole 1st amendment thing, they didn’t like our chant so they were banning it under threat of punishment.
From: Ryan H <address removed>
To: Hall Maggots <mailing list removed>
Sent: Thu Sep 10 12:54:06 2009
Subject: [lamaison-l] Hall Chant and Incident ReportsHey guys,
I have some bad news. As of now if you are caught saying the hall chant
by a michigan tech staff member(Residents Assistant, Program Coordinator,
Community Coordinator, Assistant Director, Director or any other staff
member) you will get an automatic INCIDENT REPORT. As you may remember me
saying at our second hall meeting this type of report is REALLY REALLY BAD.
As far as I know it will be on your school record for two years after you
graduate. This matters because a potential employer my contact the
University to see if you have anything on record and then they might hear
about it.Just trying to look out for you guys,
-Ryan
Now then, if this were a private institution then that would be the end of it, private institutions can ban speech if they so choose, however, Michigan Tech is a public university. It is government funded and it has decided to dictate what it’s students can and cannot say. That is a blatant and flagrant violation of the civil rights of the students and alumni of Maggot Hall. You can argue that the chant is inappropriate, sure maybe it is, but that by no means gives a government funded university the right to tell us we can’t say it. The chant doesn’t incite anyone to violence, it’s not shouting fire in a crowded (or, more likely the case in Houghton, nearly empty) theater, it’s not racist, homophobic or any other form of hate speech. It doesn’t hurt anyone. It’s just words, words some people don’t like perhaps, words that some people find distasteful even, but that’s what the 1st amendment is there for. To protect people who have something to say that others, even the majority, might not like.
Recently, this follow up email was sent to our hall mailing list.
Hey Guys,
So it’s come to my attention that our freedom of speech has been infringed upon by the university by not allowing us to say our chant that has been a hall tradition for many years.
I recommend all of maggots past and present raise hell.
I’ve already filed a complaint http://www.thefire.org/ which is a Civil Liberties association regarding this incident and intend to contact Susanna Peters in the social sciences department who specializes in Civil Liberties law and will soon contact the ACLU about this incident.
I would recommend all maggots submit complaints and emails to the following;
http://www.thefire.org/cases/submit/
http://www.aclu.org/affiliates/michigan.html
Michigan ACLU Dept. Contact Information:
ACLU of Michigan
Executive Director: Kary Moss, Esq.
2966 Woodward Avenue
Detroit, MI 48201
Phone: 313-578-6800
Fax: 313-578-6811http://www.social.mtu.edu/people/speters.htm
Susanna Peters
Office Location: 218 Academic Offices
Office Phone: 906.487.2391
Email: speters@mtu.eduMaggots, don’t stand for this. This is your First Amendment Right that MTU is trouncing upon. Please do your part and contact the above groups. What the university is doing is illegal.
Sincerely Pissed Off,
-Justin W——
Mr. Justin W
Michigan Technological University
I stand behind his sentiment as well as his call to action. I encourage anyone who reads this and is appalled at a public institution pissing on the 1st Amendment to please, do anything in your power to help spread the word and fight back against this injustice. Threatening college students with disciplinary action if they say something the administration finds distasteful is downright un-American, and I will not stand for it. Oh, and to Michigan Tech, I’m from La Maison so hey, fuck you.
Note: I attempted to remove the personal information from the senders and recipients of the emails I have listed for their protection in case MTU decides to further crack down on students for expressing themselves. If I missed something, please feel free to let me know at rfdeshon[at]stealinurmegahurtz[dot]com and I’ll do my best to fix it.
Meh, universities have never been much for free speech. Kids are routinely bounced out of state-funded institutions for saying things that are not P.C. (especially sexist or racist speech), so it wouldn’t surprise me that they’ve started to ban swearing too.
You are incorrect, a public institution such as a school can restrict freedoms of speech as well as other things to foster and enhance the learning environment. The Supreme Court of the US has ruled on this multiple times, look up the Bethel V. Fraser case. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethel_School_District_v._Fraser Obscene speech in a school setting is not supported by the 1st Amendment. I think the hall should be allowed to say their chant, but the fact of the matter is they have no legal backing to make the school allow them to, in fact the school has the law on their side.
umm, just curious, how can you say it’s not hateful when you are saying “hey, fuck you!”???
Just wondering if you understand what that means…
@anon
I said it’s not hate speech. Hate speech is rigorously defined as speech meant to disparage a specific group of people, namely a minority. Hey fuck you is not hate speech, you may find it distasteful but not everyone agrees with you.
@anon
The case you are citing involves a High School, not a college. Since college education is not compulsory and the vast majority of students attending Universities are adults, this case would likely not apply. Also, if you start limiting freedom of speech on college campuses what’s next? Do you start censoring the research that students perform there if it’s too challenging to the status quo? Are universities allowed to quash the speech of people who don’t agree with school policy, who make political statements that don’t agree with what the administrators believe, etc? Where does it end?
I posted this on the Lode’s website under another article regarding La Maison, however, I thought I’d post it here, since I’d like to hear your opinion.
There are, obviously, as evidenced here, endless opinions that can be expressed regarding ethics, dark humour, etc., however, I’m particularly interested in discussing James’ previous statement regarding freedom of speech.
Despite common misconceptions, freedom of speech isn’t without boundaries, and an examination of Supreme Court decisions certainly implicates La Maison’s chant as potentially culpable.
Restrictions exist against speech that incites a clear and present danger, fighting words, and, obscenity. Of course, defining obscenity is problematic; however, the Supreme Court maintains a three-part test for identifying obscene language:
1. Would the average person, applying the contemporary community standards, viewing the work as a whole, find the work appeals to the prurient* interest?
2. Does the work depict or describe sexual conduct in a patently offensive way?
3. Does the work taken as a whole lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value?
[Merriam-Webster defines 'prurient' as, "marked by or arousing an immoderate or unwholesome interest or desire; especially : marked by, arousing, or appealing to sexual desire"]
Let’s examine La Maison’s chant according to these guidelines. Here is a transcript of the chant, as posted by a self-described “maggot”:
Rat Shit, Bat Shit, Nasty Old Twat
Sixty-Nine Assholes Tied In A Knot
Eat, Suck, Fuck
Gobble, Nibble, Chew
We’re From La Maison
So hey, FUCK YOU!
(http://stealinurmegahurtz.com/2009/09/michigan-tech-university-infringes-on-civil-rights/)
1. Would the average person, applying the contemporary community standards, viewing the work as a whole, find the work appeals to the prurient* interest?
I doubt anyone would disagree that the chant is vulgar (another “maggot” describes it as such here: http://www.mtulode.com/opinion/2010/01/28/la-maison-hall-chant-banned-by-university/ – post by “Fellow Maggot”); whether it fits the definition of appealing to a prurient interest may be disputed, however.
2. Does the work depict or describe sexual conduct in a patently offensive way?
Although the term “fuck” has gained colloquial use in many areas of society, it is still defined as being “usually obscene,” (Merriam-Webster) and describes a sexual act in a way that is generally considered offensive.
3. Does the work taken as a whole lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value?
I would be happy to listen to anyone making a reasonable argument for La Maison’s chant having serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. If you feel you can make that justification somehow, please, enlighten me.
I concede that there may be debate regarding whether or not the chant patently fails on each of the three questions that the Supreme Court uses to define obscene and prohibited speech. I am an ardent defendant of freedom of speech, and I am extremely wary of any attempt at censorship; slippery slopes are concerning. However, as we exercise our rights to free speech, we ought to also ask the question, just because we can say something, does it mean that we should? In the case of La Maison’s chant, what is gained?