Satire and mockery are legitimate tools when engaging in political debate. Using humor illustrates points that the logical mind might otherwise ignore.

On college campuses, such forms of argument resonate with students. Snark appeal is one of the main reasons for the popularity of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, two people who are very effective at conveying political messages wrapped in satire.

It’s no surprise, then, that students will often use satire and mockery to make political points. You see this when students hold “affirmative action bake sales,” where students sell pastries as different prices depending on the race of the buyer. The purpose is not to engage in racial discrimination, the purpose is to condemn the racial discrimination used in the college admissions process. And yet, in many cases, the very schools that proudly discriminate based on race when determining who gets an acceptance letter will not allow students to illustrate it by engaging in the exact same behavior.

By deciding that burning the American flag was protected by the First Amendment, the Supreme Court made a powerful statement that action can constitute political speech. And on public university campuses, courts have routinely held that the First Amendment applies without restriction.

So why, then, has the University of Rhode Island—a public university—not stopped the de-funding and de-recognition of the College Republicans for engaging in protected political speech?

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education is on the case:

For months, the Student Senate has demanded that the group publicly apologize for advertising a satirical $100 “scholarship” for white, heterosexual, American males. [...]

“Neither the Student Senate nor anyone else at URI has the power to force the College Republicans to say things against their will,” FIRE President Greg Lukianoff said. “As bad as it may be to tell people what they cannot say, it is still worse to tell them what they must say. The Supreme Court has long recognized that compelled speech is not compatible with free societies. It is stunning that URI’s student government would show such contempt for fundamental rights, especially after URI’s own president explained it to them.”

The College Republicans student organization first advertised the satirical “White, Heterosexual, American Male” “scholarship” in November, 2006. The scholarship consisted of a nominal $100 to be awarded to someone fitting those criteria who submitted an application and an essay on the adversities he has faced. College Republicans President Ryan Bilodeau explained that the point was to use satire to protest scholarships awarded on the basis of race, gender, or nationality. Over 40 URI students applied for the “scholarship,” many submitting equally satirical application essays.

In a meeting on February 19, the Student Senate’s Student Organizations Advisory and Review Committee (SOARC) prohibited the College Republicans from disbursing the money. The group agreed that it would not give out the $100, but SOARC decided that even advertising the satirical “scholarship” violated URI’s anti-discrimination bylaws and demanded that the group publish an apology in the campus newspaper. Unwilling to apologize, Bilodeau appealed SOARC’s decision. The Senate denied that appeal.

FIRE wrote to Senate President Neil Cavanaugh on March 13, stating that because the Student Senate derives its authority from a public university, it must comply with the First Amendment prohibition on compelled speech. The Student Senate, however, in a memo to the College Republicans on March 27, ruled again that the College Republicans must publish an apology and claimed authority to force them to do so. That sanction was later reduced to an “explanation” to be published in the campus newspaper and a mandatory apology to be sent to all of the students who applied for the scholarship.

[...]

“URI’s student government thinks it is above the law—that it can take fees extracted from students by a state university and yet ignore the constitutional obligations that come with them. It is sadly mistaken,” Lukianoff said. “President Carothers must act now to stop this rogue organization from conducting these unlawful acts under the aegis of the university.”

In academia, it’s not only legitimate but legal to award scholarships based purely on one’s group identity, but to protest that by doing the exact same thing is somehow out of bounds. What seems boundless is academia’s capacity for double-standards.