Owen from Southern Appeal points out a photograph of a “free speech” zone at my old alma mater, the University of North Texas:
For those who can't make out the words, the plaque reads "Free Speech Area: To Schedule, Contact Dean of Students Office." That's pretty brazen, don't you think? As Truett muses, "if I were designing a university website, I'd think twice about whether or not the first thing I want people to notice is that, at my school, students are only allowed to exercise their free speech rights within specified zones, and by appointment only."
In his conclusion he asks, “Isn't it just good policy to abolish "free speech zones?"
I have a better suggestion. Why not just rename the areas “Freedom of Assembly Zones?”
The reason such zones are needed is because of the sheer size of the school. Currently there are about 30,000 students on a 500 acres campus, an increase of over 10,000 since 1987 when I was a freshman. I recall how even then it was difficult just getting from one end of the campus to another on a normal day; if there were a protest or other type of organized event you might as well skip class and stay in your dorm.
Call me old-fashioned but I think the first priority of any university should be to provide an education for its students. Obviously, organized student events have a role to play in that process but like everything else in academia it has to fit into the university’s structure. Besides, when space is limited declaring the entire campus a “free speech zone” could lead to chaos, especially now when virtually ever activity falls under the rubric of "speech.”
The problem, in my opinion, isn't so much in the concept but in the name. Even at UNT you have an almost unfettered right to free speech anywhere on the university. What you don’t have, however, is the ability to lead demonstrations and assemblies in undesignated areas.
1
Technically, the entire country is a free speech (and freedom of assembly) zone, private residences possibly notwithstanding.
This has always troubled me. Any time you try to put restrictions on when, where, and how speech and assembly rights might be exercised, it presents problems, even though I acknowledge that there can be pragmatic reasons for doing so.
posted on 03.19.2004 10:23 AM2
Cutting it down to a single campus location is unecessary... Surely certain areas could be closed off where trouble might erupt, while still keeping the lion's share of the university open to peaceful protests. For Pete's sake, you can't even hand out pamphlets in anywhere but that single field. It's highly restrictive. The university is surely worse off as a result.
posted on 03.19.2004 11:10 AM3
Owen,
Actually, UNT has six different "Free Speech Zones." Considering that most activities took place right around the student union building I think that is a more than adequate accomadation.
posted on 03.19.2004 12:32 PM4
For the first time I find myself agreeing with tg. A Republican heckler at the Democratic National Convention should be kicked out, if only for the sake of decorum, if not his own safety. Likewise, in an engineering class about Fluids and Wave Motion, I should not necessarily be allowed to drone on about politics and religion.
But a college campus should represent a free exchange of ideas, values, and ideals. Professors and students alike should be made to defend their judgments, and their critiques of others. In classes for the political sciences, economics, law, literature--let the First Amendment reign.
posted on 03.19.2004 2:29 PM5
Kevin,
As I mentioned before, the issue isn't really about speech at all. It's about having the right of "free assembly." If it were simply a matter of students having to go to these designated areas in order to be able to talk freely I would be against it also. But the real issue is about where on campus students should be allowed to set up PA systems and hold demonstrations.
As someone who hated having to wade through PETA demonstrators just to get into the door of the student union, I think the idea has a lot of merit.
posted on 03.19.2004 2:43 PM6
Joe:
The problem, of course, is that it's a slippery slope. (D'oh!) If we can limit where and when they assemble, what's to prevent us from limiting their assemblies to places where their message won't be heard? The Bush Administration has already done this with several of his apperances, setting up "first amendment zones" to move protesters to locations that are nowhere near the Bush appearance.
If there's any place where a protester ought to be able to display their sign, it's where a politician is giving a public speech. (And I don't care who the politician is, and who the protestor is).
That's where I have problems with it. I understand the practical reasons for wanting to do so, but I don't like the doors it opens.
posted on 03.19.2004 3:43 PM7
I understand the logistics arguments you present. I lived in North Texas and have spoken on that campus before. However, I believe that it is the repsonsibility of the presenter, not the school to do an effective job of assembling and presenting their message.
posted on 03.19.2004 7:28 PM