Though the comment period is now over regarding changes to
UCSD’s free speech policy, the future of student freedom on campus remains
nebulous. Input on the new guidelines was overwhelmingly negative — over half
of respondents were against any form of regulation. The American Civil
Liberties Union’s San Diego chapter has also jumped in the fray, concerned
about the proposal’s legality —
particularly the section dictating that students who assemble would need to
obtain permits in advance, which would illustrate prior restraint on free
speech. Now the university is forming a revision committee charged with
addressing the comments and revising the proposal to accommodate students’
right to free speech while protecting their study environment.

There is no doubt that the current proposal dangerously
ignores student freedom. The changes transform a fair and effective policy,
which has functioned for decades, into a tyrannical set of restrictions
prohibiting even the most innocent of gatherings. By severely limiting the
times and places people can congregate — even demanding that a group of 10 or
more acquire a reservation to meet — the changes would be catastrophic to
UCSD’s already-crippled campus livelihood. Meanwhile, the document’s cloudy
language regarding enforcement and reservation rejection leaves the door open
for administrative abuse.

The question now is what can be done to update the policy,
while protecting and promoting free speech. The committee, which will have 16
members selected by the A.S. Council, Graduate Student Association, Academic
Senate, Vice Chancellor of Business Affairs Steven W. Relyea and former Vice
Chancellor of Student Affairs Joseph W. Watson, needs to listen carefully to
the dissent, and work diligently to consider the views of the over 90
respondents completely against the policy.

The administration has been characteristically secretive
about its specific motives for the changes, denying that religious activists or
last year’s Dimensions of Culture debate influenced the proposal. This,
however, leads students to be rightfully wary of the extreme measures. The
committee should participate in an open dialogue with university officials to
better understand their concerns, and then incorporate that input with student
comments to create a draft that accommodates UCSD’s research and study emphasis
without impeding on students’ First Amendment rights.

The fact that the administration would present such an
inherently oppressive draft, regardless of its motivation, speaks volumes about
its disrespect for the student voice. The committee needs to carefully
counterbalance this with meticulous consideration of every possible implication
that the final changes present. The group has the hugely important duty of
guarding freedom in an instance that will impact students for decades to come.