COLUMN: Utah State policy should reflect Utah State culture

Editor’s Note: To submit a response to this column, or submit a letter to the editor on a new topic, email your submission to opinion@usustatesman.com.

By Micah Safsten

There is a story, probably apocryphal, that occurred when Dwight D. Eisenhower was serving as president of Columbia University. The university campus was in need of new and improved sidewalks, and two groups of students were each backing two completely different layouts for where these sidewalks would be built. According to legend, Eisenhower delayed the decision over which sidewalk plan would be implemented by one year and allowed students to walk over and through the grass wherever they pleased during this time. Soon, paths began to emerge in the grass where students had trampled over it. Sidewalks where then simply paved over these paths that naturally revealed themselves. Interestingly, the plan that was actually implemented was different from either of the two plans that had each received support a year earlier.

This story tells us a lot about how effective policy, even law, should be created. It should, at least in part, grow out of the culture that must live by it. In other words, polices are not meant to drive culture, culture drives polices. Such it is with Utah State University policy, specifically, it’s policies regarding speech and civility.

Utah State University policy in regards to free speech is poor. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a non-profit law firm that rates the speech codes of universities across the nation, has given USU a “Red Light” rating- which FIRE defines as an “institution that has at least one policy that both clearly and substantially restricts freedom of speech”. In December 2017, FIRE even highlighted one of Utah State’s speech codes as their “Speech Code of the Month.”

So what exactly are the policies in question and why are they a problem? Utah State’s “Housing and Residential Life Philosophy” requires that the “Utah State University Housing community supports, practices, and respects the… Dignity of all persons, by not demeaning, teasing, ridiculing, or insulting individuals or groups.” These are noble and worthy principles to live by, but this policy allows for vast interpretation, is open to abuse, and prohibits constitutionally protected speech.

The specific policy highlighted by FIRE in December 2017 is located in Article II, Section II-1 of Utah State’s Code of Policy and Procedure for Students. It states that “All interactions with faculty members, staff members, and other students shall be conducted with courtesy, civility, decency, and a concern for personal dignity.” While faculty and administration are free to encourage civility and decency, they can not dictate the general temperament of a student’s speech. Doing so deprives the student of the opportunity to choose to be civil and respectful.  By choosing civility, students will see that it is a superior method of persuasion. When students are strong-armed into acting civilly, they will simply grow to resent civility itself and inevitably act less civil in the future.

This is a phenomena that has been seen on campuses across the country. In the last few years, violent protests have erupted at schools like the University of California, Berkeley, Middlebury College, Evergreen State University, and Yale University. All of these schools have either a “Yellow Light” or “Red Light” rating from FIRE.

This is not to suggest that Utah State University should be considered fertile ground for a violent protest against a controversial speaker, student, or faculty member. To assume as much would be to ignore half of the equation. Indeed, it is not only improbable, but highly unlikely that the current student body of Utah State University would erupt in violent protests, the likes of which have been seen at Middlebury College and Evergreen State. Anyone who has been around this University for any period of time would agree that it is not a part of the culture of our University to express disagreement through rage and protest, but through civility and respect.

Some may wonder why this is a concern then, if the Utah State student body is already unlikely to erupt with incivility. This is a fair point, but cultures, like sidewalk plans, change over time. In the 1960s, the University of California, Berkeley was the home of the free speech movement. Historically, no other University has contributed more to free speech on campus than Berkeley. In the last decade, however, Berkeley has become notoriously hostile to free speech. Violent protests of unpopular speakers have become, to some, the school’s unfortunate trademark.

This relatively abrupt shift in culture, all within one public University, illustrates the need for Utah State to act sooner rather than later. I encourage, even plead, with the school administration and student government organizations to amend University policy in a way that reflects University culture. I would encourage them to both study and adopt The Chicago Statement, a commitment to free expression on campus created and set forth by the University of Chicago, and adopted by some 35 Universities nationwide.

My claim is that Utah State policies requiring civility and respect are unnecessary and may ultimately achieve the opposite of what they intend. Regardless of whether or not you agree, the fact remains that they are also out of line with the First Amendment of the Constitution and are extraordinarily vague and open to abuse. As a public University, Utah State is required to protect its students First Amendment rights, yet its policies suggest the opposite is true.

Our campus is riddled with paths that have been trampled in the grass and full of sidewalks that are seldom, if ever, used. It is time to pave sidewalk over these footpaths and then to rip out the sidewalks that receive no traffic. The effort to protect free expression on campus is worth it, especially for a campus so worthy of it like ours.