FIRE Says U. California System Cannot Ban Use of the Term ‘Chinese Virus’
“The UC System is a public university system bound by the First Amendment.”
Whenever there is a question about free speech, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education leads the way.
The College Fix reports:
Free speech group: U. California system cannot ban term ‘Chinese virus’
A First Amendment organization has chimed in on the University of California system’s recent “guidance” forbidding use of terms like “Chinese virus,” saying officials need to rethink their approach.
Earlier this month, the Council of Chief Diversity Officers at UC issued the document “Equity and Inclusion during COVID-19,” which states
Do not use terms such as “Chinese Virus” or other terms which cast either intentional or unintentional projections of hatred toward Asian communities, and do not allow the use of these terms by others. Refer to the virus as either “COVID-19” or “coronavirus” in both oral and written communications.
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education notes the edict is “framed as ‘guidance,’ suggesting the directives are merely aspirational.” The problem is the words “do not,” which appear to indicate a mandate.
What will happen to those who don’t adhere to the “guidelines,” FIRE asks. Will students be punished? Will professors be passed over for tenure?
From FIRE’s statement:
The UC System is a public university system bound by the First Amendment. As a government actor, it may not prohibit protected speech, no matter its intention in doing so. Statements like these directives impermissibly chill protected expression, as students and faculty may self-censor for fear of crossing a line they cannot see.
UC may certainly take a “more speech” approach to addressing inclusivity on its campus during this unprecedented moment in history. It may educate students on the effects of discourse surrounding the novel coronavirus, as other government actors have. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization, for example, both provide guidance on the best practices for disease-naming, as well as information about why COVID-19 was so named. Both organizations explain why they have concluded that avoiding associating a disease with its nation of origin is an important part of ensuring broader public health. UC and other public universities that now confront similar questions may do the same. They may not, however, appear to ban speech outright.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
I prefer “The Wuhanic Plague”.
You’re confusing it with the medieval “Plague of Color.”
Pinko commie Chinese Wuhan virus is most accurate.
What about “chemical warfare”?
Without The Second Amendment, The First Amendment would not be around for long.
Why does the Left so hate The First Amendment, the right of all people to speak freely anywhere, any time, about anything? The answer is simple. The Leftist agenda is, and has always been, based on lies, misinformation, and deception. Truth, facts, and reality are the ultimate enemies of the Left. When they are unable to control the discussion, and even the words that can be used in the discussion, they know they will always lose any argument or debate, and then they are finished because they will be exposed for the liars and frauds that they are.
I prefer Jim Treacher‘s name for it: “The Chinese coronavirus from Wuhan, a city in China ruled by Chinese Communists where the Chinese-sourced Sino-virus came from.”