James C. Foster
Department of Political Science
First Amendment Values
(2) N.B.: This paper is not a legal memo. It offers no formal legal opinions on the constitutionality of faculty responses under either the federal or Oregon constitutions. Rather, it is a position paper advocating a specific sort of faculty response consonant with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and, hence, presumable legitimate under it.
(3) American Heritage Dictionary (1971 ed.), defining "obscene."
(4) Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568.
(5) Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15.
(6) Catharine A. MacKinnon, Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on Life and Law (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987), pp. 82, 92.
(7) The Oregonian, Wednesday, March 10, 1993, B6.
(8) Unpublished letter on file with author.
(9) This view accords with the institutional commitments underpinning the anti-discriminatory harassment policies promulgated in the 12/91 OSU brochure, "Sticks and Stones Can Break My Bones but Words Can Never Hurt Me."
(10) 337 U.S. 1 (1949)
(11) New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).
(12) My position is in contrast to Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, holding that public high school officials need not tolerate student speech inconsistent with its "basic educational mission, " hence could discipline a student for having delivered a sexually explicit speech at a school assembly.
(13) Paul Brest and Sanford Levinson, Processes of Constitutional Decisionmaking: Cases and Materials (Boston: Little, Brown, 1983), p. 1094.
(14) Catherine A. MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989), p. 205.