South Texas College of Law Annotations (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 22, No. 4, Ed. 1, February, 1994 Page: 10 of 12
12 pages : page 13 x 8.5 in. Digitized from 35 mm. microfilm.View a full description of this newspaper.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
February 1994
Page 10
Movies
continued from page 1
Breaker Morant, The Verdict, and — one of my all-time favor-
ites ~ Witness for the Prosecution). My choices are in no
particular order.
1. Anatomy of a Murder. Otto Preminger directed an
all-star lineup that included Jimmy Stewart, George C. Scott,
Ben Gazzarra, Lee Remick and Eve Arden. A must-see for
those who wonder what an "irresistible impulse" is!
2. Cape Fear. Not the new one. The old one. Just as
tense, but without the graphic violence. Starring Robert
Mitchum as the ex-convict who turns the life of lawyer Gregory
Peck into a living hell.
3. The Paper Chase. Is there a law professor who
hasn't compared himself or herself to Professor Kingsfield? Is
there a law student who hasn't prepared a course outline compa-
rable to (or at least as voluminous as) "Bell on Property?"
4. The Ox-Bow Incident. This movie (starring a young
Henry Fonda) drives home the potential horror of vigilante
justice.
5. Les Miserables. One of the earliest screen adapta-
tions of Victor Hugo's classic novel, with Charles Laughton as
Inspector Javert and Fredric March as Jean Valjean.
6. Mr. and Mrs. Smith. Alfred Hitchcock's only
comedy, featuring Robert Montgomery (as a lawyer) and
Carole Lombard as a married couple who suddenly find them-
selves not legally married.
7. Billy Budd. Who can watch this cinematic gem
without second-guessing the merits of the justice meted out by
Peter Ustinov as the captain? Robert Ryan's portrayal of evil
Master-at-Arms John Claggert is riveting.
8. Adam's Rib. Spencer Tracy and Kate Hepburn prove
that husband-and-wife lawyers can live happily ever after —
even when trying opposite sides of the same case.
9. Miracle on 34th Street. What litigator with young
children would dare put Kris Kringle on the witness stand and
question his veracity? Only in the movies!
10. Body Heat. Any movie that can weave the "Rule
Against Perpetuities" into the plot deserves my vote! Ted
Danson of Cheers has a small role.
'"JU
Speech
Continued from page 3
ethnicity, religion, sex or sexual
orientation. The problem is that
administrations often enforce these
policies through speech codes.
Unfortunately, as the Phi
Kappa Sigma fraternity discov-
ered, students and faculty are
facing a Big Brother-like atmo-
sphere with the introduction of
these codes. Of course, the free-
dom to speak is not unlimited. As
a result, not all codes offend the
First Amendment. And those that
do not, rightfully attempt to
eliminate deplorable behavior,
including hate speech. For ex-
ample, speech codes specifically
drafted to suppress fighting
words, obscenities, defamation or
credible threats of violence are
within the Constitution.
But that should be the
extent to which state-supported
colleges and universities curb
speech. They do not stop there,
however. According to the Free-
dom Forum's statistics, a signifi-
cant number of schools of higher
education are acting as the
"speech police" by attacking
protected speech and by threaten-
ing the accused, who are unaware
of the law, with formal hearings
unless they voluntarily accept
sanctions. For instance, more than
60 percent of the 383 public
schools which have some type of
speech code prohibit all "verbal
abuse and harassment." Thirty-
five percent of those schools
surveyed punish individuals for
"verbal abuse or verbal harass-
ment directed at members of a
particular group." And finally,
about 28 percent of the state-
supported institutions in the
Freedom Forum's report ban
students and faculty from "advo-
cating an offensive or outrageous
viewpoint." These types of codes
that prohibit protected speech have
no place in schools of higher
education regardless of their social
utility.
Moreover, some schools
degrade themselves further by
threatening students accused of
violating regulations with formal
hearings, in hopes that the accused
will accept a voluntary punish-
ment, and then failing to inform
the student that the Constitution
might protect the speech or con-
duct in question. For instance, the
University of Michigan convinced
a student to publicly apologize and
attend a "gay rap" session for
allegedly encouraging homophobia
through the recitation of a limer-
ick in class. As deplorable and
offensive as the student's remarks
were and are to some, the Univ-
ersity's utilization of such
McCarthy-type tactics only exac-
erbates the problems of speech
codes.
Universities do have a
compelling interest in maintaining
an educational environment free of
discrimination. But silencing
speech on the basis of its view-
point is not reasonably necessary
to achieve that interest. Speech
codes are an easy way for admin-
istrations to combat a complicated
problem. Short-term solutions are
not the answer. As President
Clinton said in his State of the
Union address with regard to
crime, a "tough" and "smart"
approach is a more appropriate
means to tackle racism and harass-
ment on college and university
campuses. Administrations should
be "tough" by enforcing policies
that regulate unprotected conduct
and speech which create an insuf-
ferable environment for minority
students. And they should be
"smart" by fostering a sense of
tolerance in its students; that is
part their responsibility as educa-
tors. One method of fostering this
sense might be for schools to
sponsor forums in which minority
and majority groups can partici-
pate in an open dialogue and listen
to each other's concerns regarding
discrimination and harassment.
Hate speech on campuses
is a long-term problem, and
speech codes are not the answer,
but an affront to the spirit of
higher education and to the Con-
stitution. In short, students do not
lose their constitutionally pro-
tected rights to speak freely,
subject to reasonable time, place
and manner restrictions, simply by
attending state-supported institu-
tions.
For Vincent Del Piazzo at
the University of California, this
is a fact he should know all too
well by now. Indeed, the Phi
Kappa Sigma fraternity hired an
attorney and reached an out-of-
court settlement that ordered the
school to reinstate the fraternity
and Del Piazzo to attend a First
Amendment sensitivity training
class.
SBA
continued from page 3
Social Service Activity:
Plans are starting for a softball
tournament to raise money for
local charities. Hopefully, this
tournament will include the other
law schools and medical schools
in Houston.
Mentor Program: We have
a program set up for first-semester
students. If you have any STCL
continued on page 11
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Piller, Ruth. South Texas College of Law Annotations (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 22, No. 4, Ed. 1, February, 1994, newspaper, February 1994; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth144497/m1/10/: accessed May 21, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting South Texas College of Law.