Free speech should be a topic of heavy discussion on the
A.S. Council floor next year, as it has received very little attention thus
far. Revisions to campus policy on free speech and advocacy, as proposed by the
administration and e-mailed to students last June during finals week, divide
the campus into free speech zones, require reservations for gatherings of 10 or
more people and impose regulations on the political activity of faculty
members.
In response, a 16-member committee, composed of
undergraduates, faculty and administrators, was formed to evaluate and rewrite
the policies stipulated in the revisions in the interest of securing unabridged
free speech.
Current A.S. Vice President of External Affairs Dorothy
Young has voiced support for the committee’s proposal, recommending that the
council endorse it. Meanwhile, other councilmembers sit on the University
Centers Advisory Board, which recently created its own restrictive policy — it
sweepingly prohibits gatherings that produce “excessive noise” — governing free
speech in
Clearly, the A.S. Council is divided; differences of opinion
exist on any topic, but a threat to free speech must be handled with cohesive
student unity.
The incoming council must bring to the floor an
all-encompassing debate concerning what free speech rights students have. It
must send a strong message to students alerting them, on a large scale, of its
stance on the implications of any policy revisions. The administration revealed
the changes last June, leaving all new freshmen and transfer students in the
dark, but the current council has done nothing to inform these students of the
recent alterations to their rights.
When the elections pass and the council transitions to its
new form, student leaders need to discuss free speech openly with any student
or staff member willing to participate, and reach a consensus.
The council is the only group with enough representative
breadth across the student population to make a significant difference in how
the situation will play out. If the council consolidates a stance on free
speech, and brings this stance to the mass attention of the student body, the
debate becomes less between advisory boards and revision committees, and more
between concerned students and an administration keen to strip away
constitutional rights.
And most importantly, with a united student voice, the
debate’s end result is far more likely to be in the favor of students’ civil
rights than what the administration deems allowable.
