http://www.detnews.com/2003/editorial/0311/18/a11-328180.htm
Tuesday, November 18, 2003
Until this summer, the gazebo at Texas Tech University in Lubbock,
Texas, was the only area on campus where students were allowed to give
speeches, demonstrate and hand out pamphlets. Two groups sued the
university policy as an illegal restriction on student speech.
Losing Liberty: First Amendment
Universities become censorship zones
College students get punished for exercising basic constitutional
rights on campus
By Greg Lukianoff / Special to The Detroit News
For those who still believe America's colleges and universities
treasure free speech, I would like to introduce Texas Tech
University's "free speech gazebo." It is only 20 feet in diameter,
but, up until this summer, it was the sole area on campus where Tech's
28,000 students could demonstrate, make speeches and pamphleteer
without giving the university six days' advance notice.
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) and the
Alliance Defense Fund launched a legal challenge to Tech's speech
policies last June, as part of FIRE's assault on speech codes
nationwide. In response, the university added larger "free speech
zones." However, the policy now bans any speech that might "cause
reasonable apprehension" or "psychological harm" if it is expressed
with the intent of "humiliating, demeaning or degrading any member of
the university community."
This broad and vague policy is almost certainly unconstitutional at a
public university and could be used to ban anything from pro-life
protests to anti-Bush activism, to virtually any form of satire or
parody.
Texas Tech seems to be saying it will fight for every inch of
repression of free speech allowed under the law. This is no way for an
institution ostensibly devoted to free inquiry to behave. Speech codes
and speech zones that turn most of the campus into censorship zones --
which are common in academia -- teach students that free speech is at
best a joke and at worst a menace.
Students have been learning that lesson well for years. A spring 2002
New York Times article titled, "Debate? Dissent? Don't Go There!"
explored the growing perception that college students are more guarded
about their views than students of previous generations. The author
presented potential causes, including the unifying effect of September
11, disgust with partisan politics, the uncivil debates on cable news
programs and simple politeness.
But there was no mention that students know that they may be punished
for exercising their basic constitutional rights on campus.
Today's students know they can be arrested for trespassing if they
protest outside the speech zones. This happened recently at both
Florida State University and California's Citrus College, among other
schools.
Students know that they can be brought up on charges for publishing
satire, because this happened at the University of California San
Diego, Stetson University and Tufts University, among other schools.
Students know that they can be punished for merely criticizing the
administration, because this happened at Harvard Business School, Shaw
University, Hampton University and SUNY Suffolk during the last year.
They may also be aware that most colleges, probably even their own,
have speech codes that ban clearly protected expression.
In Michigan, students surely know that they can be forced to take down
signs supporting the war on terrorism if administrators deem such
postings "offensive" because this happened at Central Michigan
University in the wake of September 11. Other students in Michigan may
know of Professor John Bonnell, who has been repeatedly disciplined
for using graphic language in his literature class at Macomb County
Community College in Warren.
And students are probably aware of the legacy of the University of
Michigan's infamous speech code, which banned speech that "stigmatizes
or victimizes" other students on the basis of "ancestry," "creed" and
other categories. They may also have heard of Central Michigan
University's code that banned "demeaning or slurring individuals."
Both policies were ruled unconstitutional by federal courts in the
late 1980s and early '90s.
The phenomenon of "free speech areas" perhaps best represents the
attitude toward free speech on many campuses: Free expression will be
tolerated, but grudgingly, and only when it is agreeable, tightly
controlled and strictly regulated. These tiny censorship zones exist
or have existed at dozens of institutions, such as Western Illinois
University, West Virginia University, University of Nebraska at Omaha,
University of Houston and University of Alabama.
With so many schools showing such hostility to expression, where are
students supposed to learn to value freedom of speech? They won't
learn it in their classes where students apparently do not feel
comfortable expressing their opinions. They won't learn it through
their student activities, which are tightly regulated and controlled.
They are even unlikely to learn respect for free speech from their
fellow students. There is the continuing problem of students stealing
and destroying newspapers to repress viewpoints that they dislike.
More than five dozen examples have been documented by FIRE and the
Student Press Law Center.
If this mob censorship represents this generation's attitude toward
free speech, we should all be worried.
The way to free up repressive campuses and censorship-happy students
is complex and involves more than just defeating speech codes,
eliminating censorship zones and reinvigorating academic freedom. For
the sake of future generations, we must educate the current generation
about the value of free speech, not just about its perceived "down
side."
People who believe in free speech on campus must stop feeling they
need to apologize for those beliefs. The messy, chaotic and, yes,
sometimes offensive nature of a college campus that embraces free
speech should not be feared. It should be celebrated as proof of our
society's diversity, passion and vitality.
Greg Lukianoff is an attorney and the director of legal and public
advocacy for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education in
Philadelphia. Send letters to letters@detnews.com.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Vote for Bush. Why vote for the lesser of two evils?
No matter the candidates the superstition industry wins.
'Jesus' is a sock-puppet Christians utilize to add 'authority' to
whatever action they intend on taking. -Stoney
.
|
