The Founding Fathers and the CMU Fiasco

Introduction: First a quick re cap of events so far. Back in April of last year, Gary Peters was hired by Central Michigan University to be their distinguished Griffin Chair. This was a controversial hire since Peters had already made his intentions known that he was about to run for U.S. Congress in a district hundreds of miles away. As such, CMU student Dennis Lennox began tracking the case. For months he painstakingly followed the case. On more than one occasion he confronted either Peters himself or others in the administration. Following a highly controversial, and videotaped, incident between Lennox and Dean of Students Pamela Gates, the story metamorphisized into his own confrontation with the administration. In the months that followed, the administration levvied multiple charges that I and others saw as dubious. On multiple occasions, disciplinary hearings were scheduled only to be cancelled. Finally, Lennox showed up to a disciplinary hearing with multiple reporters only to have the administration cancel that hearing and announce that the next one would be held in private.

I make no secret of my bias toward Lennox. This bias is for several reasons. First, Lennox has spoken to me multiple times whereas the only contact the administration has given me is a form email. Second, we are admittedly ideological allies. Third, and most importantly in my mind, I believe that in this case Lennox is clearly right and the administration is clearly wrong. I am a blogger not a traditional journalist. The rules are a lot less strict in my world and I will add commentary to reporting whenever I please. If you feel I am biased and with an agenda, I will cede that point. If you think that bias clouds my judgement and perspective to see the truth here, I will strongly disagree and challenge that notion.

Since I began blogging, I have always wondered how the founding fathers would view blogging. (While I usually hate to get into other's heads especially people no longer alive, I will for this piece) I suspect they would view blogging quite positively. I suspect the founding fathers always envisioned the first amendment being used eventually in ways they never imagined only with the same principles. The idea of citizens speaking their minds and then having the power to have those words reach anyone anywhere in the world is a concept they would likely embrace.

I suspect that the founding fathers would view the CMU fiasco both with a sense of pride and admiration and at the same a sense of horror. In many ways, Lennox has updated many of the techniques of the founding fathers for the 21st century. The founding fathers were not only men of honor, courage and principle, but they were also quite media savvy. They created fliers and petition. They organized townhall meetings, debates, or even meetings in someone's basement. The founding fathers not only had something to say, but they knew how to maximize the media of the day so that as many people as possible heard them.

In many ways that is what Lennox has done. Whereas petitions and fliers have been replaced by the internet, cell phones, and email. Just as the founding fathers organized media campaigns to spread their message, of the British tyranny and the principles of the new nation they wanted to form, so to has Lennox done the same thing here. In fact, the main purpose behind the first amendment is exactly for the purpose that Lennox has used it for. The main purpose of the first amendment is to give the media enough power to be a watchdog of the powerful. The founding fathers were always weary of government, and they were well aware of the corrossive effect of power. The founding fathers knew that the best check on power was a vibrant media.

That is what Lennox is doing in this case. He is holding his own powerful force, the adminisration of the school he attends, accountable. It is exactly for the Dennis Lennox' of the world that the founding fathers intended the first amendment. Furthermore, Lennox has shown a media savvy that the founding fathers would likely have been impressed with. Not only has he vigorously used his first amendment right but he has also used it creatively. He has created his own newsletter, a website, spoken at CPAC, and even allied himself with the Michigan Republican Party to start a Where's Gary Peters media campaign. Despite being threatened with expulsion and other disciplinary action, Lennox never stopped his media campaign and that campaign continues today.

The administration, on the other hand, from the beginning have twisted and perverted the very principles that many of the founding fathers risked their lives to give us. Since the beginning the administration has failed to answer some basic questions...If the Griffin Chair is supposed to be a non partisan position why is a partisan running for Congress as a Democrat holding the position? If the Chair is a three year position why are you hiring someone that will likely only serve a portion of that term? How is Peters expected to simultaneously run for Congress in a district hundreds of miles away and fulfill the duties of the Chair?

More importantly, they have used the full power of their position to subvert many of the principles that the founding fathers risked their lives for. I am not a legal scholar so I don't want to debate whether or not their actions were or were not technically unconstitutional, however I am expert enough to know that they violated many of its spirits.

In October, following several highly controversial PUBLIC confrontations between Lennox and members of the administration including Peters himself, CMU banned the use of videtapes in public on the campus. This step was so extreme that the ACLU stepped in and sided with Lennox and demanded the ban be lifted. The founding fathers weren't exposed to videotape, and thus it isn't necessarily clear how they would view videotaping in public. That said, I suspect that they would view this as an extension of the first amendment right. Furthermore, I bet they would view the action of the administration as the subversion of that right in order to insulate itself from the scrutiny the first amendment was meant to create.

Not only did the administration violate the spirit of Lennox' first amendment rights in order to insulate itself from scrutiny, they violated the spirit of all principles of due process in going after Lennox for disciplinary violations. The main disciplinary action came after a confrontation between Lennox and English Professor Peter Koper. Lennox was passing out literature inside a university building at about 9 in the evening. First, the action of passing out this literature was in and of itself a violation of the CMU student code of conduct. This rule is itself not only draconian but totally against all principles of free speech.

The administration first refused to let Lennox see the evidence against him. Only after he raised a stink did they let him see the evidence. Even then, they only let him view it in an administration office and refused to let him copy it. They allowed him to be represented by counsel at his disciplinary hearing but refused to allow the counsel to speak.

They delayed the hearing multiple times, likely not coincidentally when the media firestorm reached fever pitch. Finally, a few weeks ago Lennox showed up at his disciplinary hearing with multiple media and a video camera. They refused to proceed because they didn't want Lennox videotaping the procedures. They announced that not only was the hearing cancelled but that the subsequent hearing would be held without Lennox there to defend himself. They held a secret meeting over spring break and disciplined Lennox without his attendance to defend himself or document the proceedings.

Of course things like right to counsel, fair and open hearings, being able to view the evidence against you, and a speedy trial are likely all principles that the founding fathers would have felt were vital. They are all principles the administration not only ignored but frankly trampled on. While they protected a public official, Gary Peters, from relevant and necesary questions, they also trampled on the principle of free speech, due process, as well as the 14th amendment which I haven't touched on now but did in this link. (While the 14th amendment was created after most of the founding fathers had passed, I suspect that given their decendency from outcasts who were themselves targeted and singled out that is another principle they would hold dear)

The whole fiasco is a surreal dichotomy between the best and worst of the principles that our founding fathers risked everything for.