Community college tramples First Amendment...

A bit wordy, but still very will written.

Good evening.

I stumbled on this forum while researching an article about Mr. Dew and the letter that was sent.

As much as it pains me to do so, I must agree that the policy is likely technically restricting his right to free speech. And if that were the only issue at play here, I would agree.

However, in this specific case, allow me to present the following:

To the best of my understanding, when Mr. Dew started his proselytizing last semester, he was NOT a student at Pellissippi. It was last semester when campus security informed him that he had to be a part of a group on campus to pass out his literature.

A few posters above have said that if he talked to them they would just ignore him. The problem is, Mr. Dew is known around the campus for following people who say no thank you and continuing to speak for him. He is also known for sitting in the cafeteria, eavesdropping on other people's conversations, and then interrupting and loudly proclaiming that the people talking are "going to hell". He is a fire and brimstone type evangelist, and he has been complained about numerous times to faculty, staff, and security.

While the over arching issue may be his first amendment rights, the reality is that he is trying to counter the numerous complaints he has received.

And before anyone questions it, I am currently a student at Pellissippi, and myself and numerous friends have been on the receiving end of his type of "evangelism".

If what you say is true than what he is doing is harassment. No means no. I am not a big fan of proselytizing myself but understand that to some people that is practicing their religion.Still if you cross a certain boundary it is harassment.

sudden valley gunner said:

so·lic·it (s-lst)
v. so·lic·it·ed, so·lic·it·ing, so·lic·its
v.tr.
1. To seek to obtain by persuasion, entreaty, or formal application: a candidate who solicited votes among the factory workers.

Click to expand...

Then by your very definition, and in the context of the the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, this young student IS, in fact, engaged in solicitation.

Christians are required by the words of Yeshua Ben Joseph in Matthew 28:19 (KJV) to "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Christians are MANDATED to convert the world. Anything less is, in writings of Yeshua ben Joseph, "lukewarm"...

He is soliciting these people--not for money, or to buy his wares--but for their very souls, because that is what his religion COMMANDS he do...

Proselytizing IS a form of solicitation.

He is using the threat of eternal damnation to coerce or persuade people that his particular brand of deific devotion is THE WAY. And if THAT isn't solicitation, then I'm not sure what is.

If he wants to stand on a street corner and do it, that's one thing, but as a grad student, I can totally see why this university doesn't want people using their student body as a captive audience for religious proselytizing..

This isn't about "free speech". It's about maintaining an environment that is conducive to learning--and having to navigate around some hormone-laden junior street preacher doesn't seem like a very friendly atmosphere to me...

I see your point, I would say that the many, "teaching" wouldn't be soliciting, and that it is voluntary to become a "christian". Yeshua also said when not accepted to shake the dust off your feet and 'move on'.

This kid isn't moving on and you are right at that point it is coercive, beyond sharing and could be considered soliciting.

Dew v. Ashford, Pellissippi

I am an attorney in this case and I am constrained on what I can say at this time. But, the facts alleged in the complaint are that Mark Dew was a student at all times relevant to the complaint. He is a student at Pellissippi, and seeks to have the right to speak about his faith. This is a government institution, and he does not shed his First Amendment rights when he enters the campus.

Here is a link a press release and a copy of the actual complaint

http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/4884

By the way, if you are interested in where I stand on 2nd Amendment issues, or for that matter, TN Constitution Art. I, Sec. 26, the TN state right to bear arms clause, I direct you to this article, which I was interviewed for:

http://www.metropulse.com/news/2010/nov/03/why-do-east-tennesseans-love-their-guns/

Andy

Andy Fox said:

I am an attorney in this case and I am constrained on what I can say at this time. But, the facts alleged in the complaint are that Mark Dew was a student at all times relevant to the complaint. He is a student at Pellissippi, and seeks to have the right to speak about his faith. This is a government institution, and he does not shed his First Amendment rights when he enters the campus.

Here is a link a press release and a copy of the actual complaint

http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/4884

By the way, if you are interested in where I stand on 2nd Amendment issues, or for that matter, TN Constitution Art. I, Sec. 26, the TN state right to bear arms clause, I direct you to this article, which I was interviewed for:

http://www.metropulse.com/news/2010/nov/03/why-do-east-tennesseans-love-their-guns/

Andy

Click to expand...

Thanks for your input Andy, and welcome to the forum!

Hope you stick around, read and appreciate your viewpoints pointed out in the article.

It is beyond my understanding why colleges, who should be encouraging a free exchange of ideas, don't just have an "open solicitation era," complete with soapboxes for those who want them.

Obviously people make whatever rules they want on private property, I guess, but one would think an institution of higher education would want to encourage the free exchange of ideas.

I'm an atheist and were I a college student, I would have no objection to people handing me religious tracts or political propaganda or whatever. I can think for myself and I appreciate the opportunity to hear a wide variety of viewpoints. Now I live in a subdivision where Christians occasionally come door-to-door.

This is an irritant when it wakes me up in the morning, but a far bigger irritant would be the inability to have a free exchange of ideas. It is worth it to be offended, or to be annoyed periodically by the doorbell ringing or someone being loud and obnoxious if it means we have a rich marketplace of ideas.

It may well be, for example, that private property owners can ban firearms from their premises, and for all of the energy spent on soliloquys about this distinction, this is barely in dispute.

But I don't like gun free private property "gun ban zones" and I certainly don't like private property "censorship zones." That a proprietor *can* do something doesn't indicate that he should.

crisisweasel said:

It is beyond my understanding why colleges, who should be encouraging a free exchange of ideas, don't just have an "open solicitation era," complete with soapboxes for those who want them...

Click to expand...

That would be an excellent idea, along with having places on campus (most of the campus) where free exchange of ideas is allowed, but actual direct solicitation is not, thereby allowing students to go about their business without constantly being stopped by others trying to "sell" stuff--including religion.

crisisweasel said:

It is beyond my understanding why colleges, who should be encouraging a free exchange of ideas, don't just have an "open solicitation era," complete with soapboxes for those who want them.

Click to expand...

Institutions of higher learning used to champion such ideas. These days, higher education isn't a calling. It's a business. There's no way they can allow students free speech, as the disgruntled students might actually say something negative against the school! Heaven forbid!!!

I agree with the rest of your post as well.

irish52084 said:

When attending a school you agree to abide by their rules and regulations. It is not compulsory to attend the college, and therefore the student is free to move on at any time. Any attempt at solicitation could have an adverse affect on other students and there ability to get everything out of their education. What gives this guy the "right" to impede others rights?

Click to expand...

Going to a city or state park is not a compulsory activity either. Can the state ban free speech there too? If someone is interrupting classes or lectures and things like that then I would say that is interfering with someones education, but if this is done in the halls or the "public square" then it does not interfere with education.

irish52084 said:

......I know that if someone had sat outside or in a common area of my college handing out information or talking to me about their religion I would have been rather annoyed and that's a hassle I really wouldn't want or need to deal with at school. Bad enough some go door to door. This is of course my personal opinion.

Click to expand...

You do not have the right to not be "rather annoyed" on the contrary, in a free society you will necessarily be annoyed from time to time. You will also annoy others from time to time. Annoyance is a rather small price to pay for Liberty.