On September 7, Sharon Fuhrmann of Aberdeen signed a facilities use agreement with Northern State University to allow her fearful, bigoted friends to host an anti-Islam rally at the Krikac Auditorium on campus. Fuhrmann agreed to pony up $300 use of the august lecture hall, plus $25 an hour for janitorial service and $50 an hour for any lighting/sound tech assistance.
Fuhrmann also agreed to provide a million dollars of liability insurance coverage.
Unfortunately for Fuhrmann, she has already violated this agreement by allowing to be published the big color ad in Sunday’s Aberdeen American News. Section 12.1 of the agreement obliges the user to submit copy for all such advertisements to the university “for written approval prior to publication.” NSU Director of Communications and Marketing Justin R. Fraase tells this blog, “The university was never consulted regarding the advertisement in Sunday’s Aberdeen American News.”
The contract does not make clear what consequences accrue from violating Section 12 of the Facilities Use Agreement. But this violation indicates what we might suspect of the Trumpists who’ve been hauling these unreliable out-of-state speakers to stir fear and hate in our community: they just don’t read very attentively.
The contract also stipulates (12.2) that “The institution’s name shall not be used to suggest co-sponsorship or endorsement of any activity, without prior written approval by the director.” The display of the NSU logo in the ad was clearly designed to imply co-spnsorship and endorsement. Many commenters on Facebook were led to assume that Northern was involved in the event.
They may have broken the contract, probably in a material way, thus voiding the contract. It could be that the contractee will argue the people who did the advertising were not party to the contract. It indicates to me that whoever signed the contract may have been working to defraud NSU, something you would expect from these folks, as it is their MO. I’m sure these clowns intend to take NSU to court, costing taxpayers money if they would void the contract. This is how these hate fest folks work. They are the scum of the earth.
Perhaps it is time to take names and levy breach-of-contract penalties… or just cancel the contract and the event… and keep the deposit.
Let’s flush out the rats. They play these games, passing around the hat, assigning different people to pick up the expenses, run the ads, whatever, hiding behind this trickery because they recognize that, ultimately, sponsoring these hate rallies will be a net negative for their reputations.
Notice no business leaders stand up for these rallies… except for Al Novstrup… whose supposedly family-friendly business doesn’t seem to fit with his hateful attitude toward newcomers. I wonder if he kicks Somalis and Mexicans off of his carnival rides.
But Cory, Al is “nice to everybody.” Well, everybody who looks like him. He should smile more.
Ha! You’re right: if anyone in this town needs to smile more, it’s all the angry people who think shouting “America First!” excuses their bigotry.
Neal Tapio always seems dour and pained. He should smile more.
Brock Greenfield smiled a fair amount at Saturday’s candidate forum. Before the show, I got him to smile and laugh at a joke. I think he also smiled when he joked in his opener about my “flailing” arms.
Drew Dennert goes to those hate rallies, but as a newlywed, he smiles a lot. He has a full life ahead of him, and plenty to smile about.
Donald Trump doesn’t smile. He frequently bares a rictus of aggression, but I don’t think that counts. Trump epitomizes the constant agony of anger.
Know that NSU’s administration was not able to make this decision guided by their own policies or principles. Consider these ominous recent developments: the Board of Regents has a new executive AND a new board president (Kevin Schieffer, who took over when Bob Sutton moved up at Avera) who had the chance to weigh heavily into the choice of that executive. Obvious pressure is being applied by some GOP legislators, evidenced by the wide-ranging letter sent by Leader Lee Qualm to the BOR last month regarding “freedom of speech” issues on our campuses. I don’t know Mr. Schieffer personally, but I have reason to believe he is going to be much more willing to misuse his new position to play partisan politics with our universities than recent leadership has been.
Legislators just last Friday received copies from the BOR of several draft policy changes that will be considered at their October 2-4 meetings, and acted upon in December. Please, someone with patience and time, review the changes they are making and help get the word out. Someone with real freedom of speech interests at heart needs to be at those meetings and they need to know what they are talking about.
I would be glad to forward the drafts to anyone who contacts me at my state email address. I’m not sure where else you can find them. I would think they ought to be publicly posted, but I haven’t spent much time looking for them.
Yup. They want the “freedom of speech” to conduct their Nazi rallies. This is an issue on many campuses where the Nazis and racists claim the right to harass and intimidate anyone who opposes hate. Mostly they are going to come from off-campus, because students are not going to be putting up with this nonsense.
Here’s a link to the Board of Regents media release and further links to the new draft policies on free speech.
https://www.sdbor.edu/mediapubs/New%20Press%20Releases/091418_Policies.pdf
You can submit written comments on them! The Argus has interviewed Mr. Schieffer and done a story about the initiative; story posted last night.
Demanding unlimited free speech on campus is like pulling the pin on social hand grenades. Those grenades are now sitting squarely in the laps of legislators. Republican legislators are sacrificing the safety of hate speakers and hate speech organizers simply to salve those legislator’s Trumpian bigotries and white supremacy.
– The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that hate speech is legally protected free speech under the First Amendment, EXCEPT where such speech is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. Hate speech anywhere is apt to incite lawless action and violence from those being targeted by that hate speech.
Rep. Susan Wismer wrote:
“Know that NSU’s administration was not able to make this decision guided by their own policies or principles.”
Why do you think they should be able to?
Do you not agree with the First Amendment?
Are you aware of the lawsuits against Berkeley and the University of Minnesota?
The taxpayers of Minnesota and California are going to be paying because Democrats don’t believe in the First Amendment.
Jason tries to mislead the facts and predict the future. Show the decisions in the lawsuits you cite.
This is how smart Porter is. He says I’m predicting the future concerning the lawsuits and then asks me for the decisions in the lawsuits.
Porter is smart enough to know the difference between ISIS and peaceful Islam, practiced by a billion worldwide. I’m also smart enough to spot a Russian influencer trying to sow discontent in USA during election season. Defend your actions or STFU.
You must have a little dyslexia, JaceMan the SpaceMan. First tell me if there have been any decisions in the lawsuits over free speech on campus. (Any fool can file a lawsuit.) Then defend your ability to predict what’s going to happen.