As UCSD’s own speech-policy-committee tortoise rounds the final corner in its two-year policy-revision quest, this board is left wondering: Just what is the moral of this story?’ ‘
The committee’s current draft ‘mdash; all but finalized and forwarded to the university powers that be, save for a final emergency meeting next week ‘mdash; largely protects students’ constitutional freedoms.
But it’s muddied with arbitrary limitations and ingrained with inconsistencies that the committee should have been more proactive in overcoming.
Although nowhere near as draconian as the controversial 2007-proposed policy, the current draft’s amplified sound zones relegate electrically amplified sound in many campus hubs, usually to a random two-hour window. The reasoning behind these limits?
It depends who you ask. According to committee members, the amplified-sound windows are an unsolvable mystery; because the areas are governed independently by their respective directors, those officials are allowed to determine the window.
According to student representatives Erin Brodwin and James Baldwin, Associate Vice Chancellor of Student Life Gary R. Ratcliff acted as a liaison to these various campus departments and led the committee to believe that these times were etched in stone.
But the directors ‘mdash; mainly college provosts and deans ‘mdash; are equally unsure of how their apparently arbitrary windows were chosen. Their reasons varied from accommodating campus lunchtime and not disrupting administrative meetings to following the way things have always been.
Except that the recent draft’s amplified sound zones have nothing to do with how things have always been ‘mdash; each varies from the policy currently on the books. And that’s hardly the point anyway.
The committee recognizes how random the windows are, and has gone so far as to include a recommendation for standardized times along with their policy draft. But their entire draft is a recommendation, one that will be reviewed by campus higher-ups, then students, staff and faculty and revised again before it’s adopted. And the purpose of this committee was to propose a substantial policy revision.
So why were committee members so unwilling to override a handful of area directors? Or even speak with them to get to the bottom of these windows and lobby for the standardized time ‘mdash; or no limit at all ‘mdash; that they apparently support?
It’s admittedly hard to get a hold of those people, but it’s also the largest unresolved element of a policy the committee’s been working on for two years.
What’s more concerning is that the motivation for these amplified sound zones seems to be saving university administrators from disruption. But Chancellor Marye Anne Fox’s desire for a quiet meeting shouldn’t trump students’ freedom of speech in a neighboring public space.
Rather than instinctively wanting to avoid noise, administrators should embrace campus protest and lively discussion ‘shy;’mdash; listening to students is worth a brief meeting interruption. There’s such a meek campus history of people trying to use amplified sound, carving such dramatic regulations in stone is an overreaction.
Ultimately this is just one misstep in an overall less-restrictive policy. But if students can take anything from this lengthy tale, it’s that they should keep a watchful eye when this policy finally crosses the public-input finish line.