Faculty evaluate proposed Speech and Advocacy policy
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
On these grounds, a debate has arisen over the proposed Speech and Advocacy policy which was created to provide guidelines to protesters at Utah State University.
Some faculty are concerned the new policy is a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution, but the administration has assured that their intent was to protect these rights and not restrict them.
“In my mind, it’s a violation of the spirit of the Constitution,” Ted Pease, journalism and communications department head, said. “Beyond just the spirit, it’s most certainly a violation of what universities are all about – the expansion and exchange of ideas.”
The policy was made to re-affirm the university’s commitment to the First Amendment, not to deny or restrict it, said Craig Simper, the university council (attorney), at a Faculty Senate Meeting on Sept. 10.
The first line of the policy states: “The university is committed to ensuring that all persons may exercise the constitutionally protected rights of free expression, speech, assembly and worship.”
“I feel like it’s to the benefit of students. I don’t think it really limits speech but provides a means to use that speech and protects those who don’t want to be an audience,” said Steve Palmer, Associated Students of Utah State University president.
Other faculty members have also voiced concern about the policy.
“It appears that this university believes in free speech, unless their lawyer doesn’t,” said Randy Simmons, head of the political science department.
Having a policy is not a problem, Simmons said, but this policy goes “way beyond what the first amendment would suggest.”
The policy was initiated to limit the administration’s extremely broad power over expression which they already have because USU is state-owned, Simper said.
This is a “righteous policy,” he said.
“We’re trying to find the most limited way possible to limit,” Simper said. “I feel really comfortable with it.”
The policy was prompted by the student protests over the removal of trees on campus during the summer.
The fact that it was a politically-based protest that triggered this policy “makes me extremely uncomfortable,” said Penny Byrne, a professor in the journalism and communication department.
The protest itself was of little concern to the university, but Simper said some people outside the university voiced concern about what the university was going to do about the situation.
“We need a policy so people can protest and not be hassled,” Simper said.
It was modeled after similar policies at liberal colleges such as University of California-Berkeley, North Carolina State and North Carolina in Charlotte, Simper said.
“Let them chain themselves to trees,” he said. “They’re not hurting anybody.”
The purpose of the policy is to provide guidelines to protesters about the time, manner and place it is appropriate to protest. There is nothing in the policy on limiting protest content, Simper said.
In the ASUSU meeting Tuesday, the policy was addressed, but there weren’t many complaints or concerns from members of the council, Palmer said.
“I don’t think it really ruffled any feathers. I think it’s been blown out of proportion. I don’t think this is used to prevent free speech on campus but provides guidelines for use,” Palmer said.
In a brief on the policy, Byrne questioned if this policy is content-based or content-neutral.
“Because of the potential for the regulation to be enforced as a content-based regulation we strongly oppose it,” according to Byrne’s brief.
There are several restrictions listed: Limitations on amplifications, the protestors can’t be a public nuisance, fighting words are restricted, they can’t impede traffic and non-student protesters need to reserve protest areas in advance.
“It doesn’t give the administration any new power above what’s applied to private properties,” Simper said. “These are not laws, they’re guidelines. No one will be arrested or removed based on this policy.”
One of the primary problems of the policy is that it doesn’t clearly specify who will have the power to enforce these guidelines, Byrne said.
“I fear a discretionary power being vested in some not-clearly-named individual,” Byrne said.
Another issue Byrne doesn’t agree with is the “involuntary audience” statement, which states: “Regard for the privacy of others shall be observed, and reasonable precautions shall be taken against practices which would make persons on campus involuntary audiences, impede traffic, threaten public safety or create a public nuisance.”
ASUSU was also concerned with the “involuntary” part because it is such an ambiguous word, Palmer said.
Byrne said, people don’t really have an expectation of privacy on the Quad.
The university doesn’t need a policy about protesting, Byrne said. They already have the power to control things that get out of hand. They don’t need a policy to suppress a public nuisance, she said.
Making people an “involuntary audience” literally means providing them no means of escape from listening to someone’s ideas, Simper said.
“A good example is people flying on airlines compelled to listen to other peoples’ viewpoints,” Simper said. “With free speech, there are responsibilities.”
The proposal was taken to the Faculty Senate, the Executive Council, the Dean’s Council and ASUSU, Simper said. The president asked it be taken to everyone, even beyond those necessary to pass the proposal.
“If there is a groundswell of opinions saying this is a totalitarian approach, we’d pull back in a second. We don’t need it,” Simper said.
The debate will continue on the issue.
“This is a good debate. We want to make sure everyone’s concerns are resolved,” Simper said.
“It’s important to have this kind of conversation,” Pease said.
The journalism and communication department was the first to address the issues openly.
“It’s really not me being threatened. It’s you guys, the students, whose ability to say what’s in your conscience is being limited,” Pease said.