• News
• Fringe
• Sports
• Editorial
• UH Section
• Archives

• About
• Join the Post
• Contact
• Advertising

• E-mail
• Print
• Text size:

In response to a Post public records request, The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee released this week its reply to a scathing letter sent by the attorney for controversial speaker David Horowitz.

Horowitz’s attorney, William Becker, sent UWM a letter on May 29 that described the protest-laden events surrounding Horowitz’s April 30 speech, requested numerous policies and asked questions about UWM’s financial relationship with student organizations and “why the individuals who disrupted a peaceful assembly evidently have not been investigated.”

In the letter, Becker wrote “[c]olleges and universities have a duty to protect free speech on campus and to take reasonable steps to protect on-campus speakers and organizations from conduct intended to obstruct and undermine peaceful expressions of viewpoints that may be unpopular.” Becker goes on to claim that UWM is “particularly hostile and indifferent to civil liberties and First Amendment protections.”

In a June 5 response letter, written by UWM attorney Joely Urdan, the university said that “UWM believes its handling of [the] situation to have been entirely reasonable,” and noted that “UWM was not aware of a single complaint concerning the advertising for the event, protest activity, security or any other event logistics” before Horowitz’s letter was received.

The response goes on to address Horowitz’s complaints point-by-point.

According to Laura Glawe, Director of University Relations, UWM has not heard back from Horowitz’s attorney since the response letter was sent in early June.

Tyler Kristopeit of the Conservative Union, the organization that sponsored Horowitz's speech, told the Post that he has been in talks with Horowitz’s legal team regarding the letter, but that his contribution has been to simply answer questions.

Kristopeit said that while the Conservative Union thanked university officials for their assistance in planning the event, they were disappointed with the disruptive audience members and the way university officials dealt with those disruptions.

“I think people need to learn how to debate rather than lash out emotionally,” said Kristopeit.

UWM’s response letter said that no arrests were warranted and that forcible removal may have caused greater disruption.

“Often, intervening with force can actually escalate a security situation and further disrupt an event,” wrote Urdan. “For this reason, Union staff addressed any distracting conduct first by asking the audience member to stop and then to leave.”

Still, Kristopeit thinks university officials didn’t do enough.

“I would like to see them pulled out rather than tapping them on the shoulders like three different times and saying hey could you quiet down maybe,” said Kristopeit. “I think they need to just be pulled out.”

Horowitz’s attorney did not respond to a request for comment.

> Comments