Campus intolerance in the national spotlight

Editor's note: The following editorials first appeared in the Jefferson City News-Tribune and the Columbia Daily Tribune last week.

Missouri again is vaulting into the national news for all the wrong reasons.

A recent episode involved an attempt by protesting students at the University of Missouri-Columbia -- and some faculty members -- to block the media from a public place on campus.

Although the protesters eventually relented and welcomed the media to share their message, a video of their assault on free speech went viral.

Our readers are aware of the resignations by two university administrators in response to a graduate student's hunger strike that escalated into a more widespread protest focused on what protesters considered an insufficient response by the school to racial incidents on campus.

Following the resignations and end to the hunger strike, photographer Tim Tai, a student working freelance for ESPN, visited the protesters' encampment on campus to document their activities.

A video shot by another student shows Tai being blocked and told to "leave these students alone" in their "personal space." The video also captures Melissa Click, an assistant professor in the school's communication department, calling for "muscle" to remove the student from the site.

First, the protesters' behavior was nonsensical; a public protest is designed to gain attention, but a media member able to provide it was turned away.

In addition to being senseless, the behavior was entirely antithetical to concepts embraced by higher education and our nation.

An educational institution is designed to promote the free exchange of ideas. That concept is the foundation for tenure, designed to protect teachers from being punished by thought police. Click later resigned her "courtesy title" within the School of Journalism, although a more appropriate action would have been for her to resign from her communication department job, as well.

Beyond that, the behavior flies in the face of our First Amendment right to speak freely.

Among national reactions to the incident was a Washington Post editorial, which read: "The incident was especially troubling since a rising tide of student activism, admirable in many respects, seems increasingly infected by a strain of intolerance of dissenting views."

Although we appreciate that the protesters later reversed their stance, much damage has been done. And it continues, with reports of online threats against students resulting in an arrest and discredited rumors of a KKK presence on campus.

The University of Missouri has much work ahead to repair the damage, including evidence of intolerance -- in a variety of forms.

Columbia Daily Tribune: Assessing racism and finding blame on campus

As we look at recent confrontations on the University of Missouri campus, most of us are somewhat puzzled.

We should respect the allegations of black students who say they and their peers experience too much racial bigotry. Who are any of us to say they are overstating their feelings of alienation?

But when they form an army to demand administrative redress, we wonder what leaders should or can do. The only thing one can readily grasp is the charge of indifference, a factor leaders can control. Beyond that, what is "systemic" racism, the charge often leveled?

"Systemic" racism sounds like some sort of conscious policy of racial bias crafted in University Hall or Jesse Hall. If an unfortunate racial atmosphere seems extant on campus, it surely reflects an accumulation of misdeeds by scurrilous individuals aiming slurs at other individuals. Campus chancellors and system presidents learn of these events after the fact. Inevitably they issue condemning statements. They form task forces and adopt policies calling for diversity training. If they can find a perpetrator, which is rare, they are willing to punish as much as possible.

Mostly they are hampered by the nature of the "crime." Laws generally do not forbid personal slurs unless accompanied by some sort of physical abuse or public disturbance. Even then, it is the physical misconduct, not the speech, that can be punished.

One of the recent incidents said to have sent students to the streets was the use of feces to paint a swastika on a public restroom wall. How can this be blamed on campus leaders? How can it even be related to oppression of blacks? If any group might have been particularly angry over the swastika, it would Jews, but no protest against anti-Semitism emerged.

Heads had to roll to quiet the campus protesters and allow a scheduled football game to proceed. Withal, the question remains: "What do they want us to do?"

Clearing out the mansion has certain vaguely related advantages. Everyone with a stake in a good and better university is focused. The UM Board of Curators is pondering big issues of university governance as never before. New chief executives will pay better attention to the racial atmosphere on campus, seeking ways to interact more effectively with so-called "marginal" students. Very good interim appointments have been made to keep the ship afloat.

But we will reiterate a comment made here the other day: The student protesters will have to do their part by adopting reasonable expectations. It won't be possible to suddenly enlarge the numbers of well-qualified faculty and students, for instance.

Working together, not at odds, students, faculty and administration can make progress. It won't be a slam dunk.