WVU Free Speech Consortium
Guest Column
he
latest volley in a year-long struggle between free speech advocates and
the University came Monday. Hours before the policy’s release, its loudest
critic, the WVU Free Speech Consortium, held a press conference to remind
the University of its ideal free speech policy: the First Amendment. Later
that afternoon, WVU replaced its unconstitutional free speech policy with
a new one that is not much better.
The public now gets two weeks to comment before the policy goes back to the faculty senate for a month of revisions. President Hardesty will finally decide the fate of free speech at WVU in mid-May, after most students have left for the summer -- a convenient arrangement for the administration.
The faculty senate proposal is marginally better than the former policy, but it remains a disappointment to defenders of civil liberties. Four issues are of particular concern:
n Free Expression (For Those Who Can Pay)
Section A-5: “The University reserves the right to require security at protests and demonstrations at the expense of the individual or organization planning the event.”
The possibility of a security fee amounts to a tax on free expression. This could easily discourage some would-be speakers, and is what constitutional attorneys refer to as a “chilling effect.” Such an effect is grounds for a court to throw out a policy. Students already pay for the campus police through student fees. Forcing those who exercise their rights to pay twice makes free speech available only to those who can afford it.
The courts have established that a policy is unconstitutional if it allows a group to be billed for security at the whim of authorities -- there must be clear, publicly available standards about what situations warrant additional security (Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 1992).
n 15 or 50 -- Pick a Number, Any Number
Section A-4: “Picketing -- Quiet picketing in an orderly fashion may occur with 15 participants or less on the grounds outside of University buildings with the exception of Residence Hall buildings and Medical Clinics. Picketing with more than 15 participants is considered a protest or demonstration.”
Section A-5: “Events that are anticipated to attract a large crowd (over 50 attendants) or those planned during non-business hours must have advanced reservations ... ”
Section B: “Reservations are required for protests and demonstrations to be held before or after normal business hours and/or that are anticipated to attract over 50 attendants and are encouraged for all protests and demonstrations ... ”
The National Labor Relations Act of 1935 established the legality of mass picketing. With this policy WVU compromises a protected workers’ right.
The University imposes limits based on group characteristics rather than group conduct. Fourteen people can be disruptive and 500 people can be peaceful. The permit is irrelevant.
n Office Hours Only, Please
Section A-5: “The areas may be used during business hours (8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.) for small events without advanced reservation.”
Section B: “Reservations are required for protests and demonstrations to be held before or after normal business hours ... ”
Many protests and demonstrations on campus take place after normal business hours, so this regulation means a lot more work for people with a message. (Remember the phrase “chilling effect?”)
Will after-hours expression by small groups always be relegated to “free expression areas,” or will speakers retain their daytime rights? The policy is unclear on this point.
While the University claims the permitting process will be blind to content of the speech, the Consortium has serious doubts about the University’s objectivity based on its past spotty enforcement of free speech regulations. A clear statement of how the permitting process will work is missing from the policy proposal, setting the stage for “unbridled discretion,” on the part of the University, which is unconstitutional (Thomas vs. Chicago Park District, 2002).
Time restrictions on free speech must be narrowly defined, not overbroad (United States vs. O'Brien, 1968). A restriction that effects 16 hours out of a day and weekends is not a narrow restriction.
n Speech Zones/Expression Areas -- New Name, Same Shame
Section A-5: “The University has designated locations throughout the campus where any individual or group of individuals may gather for the purpose of peaceful dissent, protest, or demonstration. These locations have been selected so as to allow protests and demonstrations with minimal disruption to the orderly operation of the University.”
The WVU Free Speech Consortium formed to abolish free speech zones at West Virginia University. In a classic bit of doublespeak, WVU has introduced free expression areas in the place of free speech zones. None of us are fooled. We believe First Amendment rights apply throughout campus, not only in selected locations.
Rulings in our own circuit have established a right to “directed speech.” In other words, if an event is being held in Clark Hall, the University may not order protesters to stand in a zone across campus (Students Against Apartheid Coalition v. Virginia, 1987).
Even President Hardesty has publicly stated that he believes the zones should go. In a Feb. 12 interview on West Virginia Public Radio he said, “I do think we can liberalize this policy and we should, and the concept of a zone should be replaced with ideas about conduct.” We are perplexed and frustrated that the University persists in confusing constitutionally protected free expression with disruption.
Restricting speech to a small percent of campus sends the message that speech is something to be feared and contained. Consortium members would like to believe that WVU is about more than selling diplomas -- that our administrators value and encourage political participation and democracy. That is not the message this policy sends. As a sign at the Feb. 12 protest read, “It’s a university, damnit!”
While on slightly firmer legal ground, the proposed policy is a moral failure. It indicates a profound distrust of students -- instead of encouraging the voices of the leaders of tomorrow, it confines many forms of non-disruptive expression to narrowly defined times and places. This is not the way to ensure a vibrant, healthy democracy, rich with diverse perspectives.
Your rights are at stake. Read the policy and submit your comments to ad hoc free speech committee chair Dr. Robert Griffith (rgriffith@hsc.wvu.edu). For more information on the Free Speech Consortium and our campaign against the free speech zones, please visit http://www.wvejc.org/speech.
Comments regarding the WVU Free Speech Consortium guest column can be sent to: DAPerspectives@mail.wvu.edu.
|
|
Feedback | Search
| Opinions | Arts & Entertainment | Sports | Classifieds |
| Campus Calendar | Comics | Horoscopes |
| Archives | Information |
All Rights Reserved.
