Fighting for Speech on Both Fronts: Two New Policies at UCSD

It has been two years since the university was forced by a coalition of students, civil-rights groups, staff and faculty to retract its constitutionally troubled speech policy. Condemned by groups and institutions ranging from the American Civil Liberties Union and labor unions to the Academic Senate, it was a draconian policy that forbade all protest without prior approval from administrators, banned political speech by university employees while on campus and assigned university minders to student demonstrations. Since that time, the university reconvened the PPM 510 speech and advocacy committee, with the addition of three student representatives from the Graduate Student Association and the A.S. Council. The students were assured that the administration had no idea who was responsible for the previous policy, and besides, those nobodies who never existed surely wouldn't do it again. The students brought forth their own counterproposal. The proposal was sweeping, but also quite simple: It demanded an open campus in which speech rights would be enjoyed by students, staff, faculty and community members, provided they did not create a sustained disruption. Unlike the previous policy draft, the students did not see free speech 'mdash; and even the occasional disruptive speech act 'mdash; to b e at odds with the primary educational and social role of a university. As was suggested by a memo from the Academic Senate, protests for civil rights and against the Vietnam War during a previous generation were seen at the time as disruptive but ultimately created a more open, vibrant university. According to Thomas Jefferson, a little disruption every now and then can be healthy for a democracy. After over a year of criticizing the student draft, the administration finally offered its counterproposal. Despite the fanfare, what the administration proposed is ultimately a dressed-up version of what has been practiced at UCSD for decades: Price Center, Library Walk, the Geisel Library tree and the Student Center grassy hill are generally available for student demonstration with amplified sound, while the rest of the university has limited access. Highlights from the new affiliates policy include: The campus is open for gathering and demonstration without amplified sound for university affiliates, as well as individuals and groups sponsored by affiliates. With handheld amplified sound (e.g. bullhorn), affiliates 'mdash; as well as groups and individuals sponsored by affiliates 'mdash; may engage in speech activity without reservation at the part of Library Walk adjacent to Price Center, the Geisel tree, the Student Center hill and Price Center Plaza. Selected areas on campus from 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m., give or take, are available for speech activity with handheld amplified sound including Revelle Plaza, Warren Quad, Sun God Lawn, Muir Quad, Sol'iacute;s Quad, ERC Green and the Sixth College Residency Court. Reservations for events and speech activity with amplified sound will continue unchanged. Posting remains limited to bulletin boards, kiosks and selected areas in Price Center. The university will minimize limitations on free speech when enforcing the policy. Examples include being asked to turn down the volume rather than being shut down, or being asked to allow traffic through a corridor rather than being asked to vacate. Administrators must also warn and negotiate with demonstrators before taking enforcement action unless there is a clear and present danger of physical harm. Student representatives were successful in ensuring that the administration will enforce the policy with a light touch. We were also successful in ensuring that restrictions to speech outside the student centers and Library Walk be limited to sound volume. In other words, under the new policy, students and employees will be able to assemble, gather and speak anywhere on campus. While the proposed policy doesn't open up the campus as students imagined, it also doesn't enforce free-speech zones. As one of the students who advocated an open university, I am disappointed by the new policy. Nonetheless, I reluctantly endorse it. The university should recognize that students and employees won an important victory 'mdash; they defeated an unjust and harsh policy and made important improvements over the current policy. Perhaps most importantly, they won the explicit right to student notification and representation should any changes be proposed to the new policy. We did not get everything we wanted, and indeed, the student draft was largely defeated in the committee. But we were able to defend and even expand upon the basic right of students and employees to organize, speak and protest without undue interference by university authorities. I also say this because students have a much larger free-speech fight looming. While the students were hard at work trying to fight for a new policy at UCSD, the UC Board of Regents passed a nonaffiliates policy last year 'mdash; perhaps the biggest change in speech policy to affect a public university in decades. The policy bans all free-speech activity on campus by the public 'mdash; including alumni, parents and former staff 'mdash; unless granted explicit permission by the university or invited by an affiliated member of campus. Rather than imagine a university that is a vibrant and necessary center for democratic and civic engagement, the regents imagine a sealed-off office park in which students and researchers will not have to be troubled by a public 'mdash; a public that is increasingly phased out of a university dedicated more and more to corporate research. With this privatized public, the university creates a troubling precedent in which only those who pay have access to public institutions. This not only deprives the public of a valuable resource, it deprives students of the crucial capacity to hear, engage with and debate voices from the community around them. Nearly all social movements involving students that were worth their salt 'mdash; from labor to civil rights to global solidarity 'mdash; depended on these nonaffiliates to reach out to the broader world. And as access is increasingly denied to low-income students due to fee hikes and proposed cuts to the Cal Grant program, those who can pay become a smaller and smaller number of people. While we have won a local victory in defeating the draconian policy of two years ago, I'm afraid we may be losing a larger fight for free speech in the entire UC system. Readers can contact Benjamin Balthaser at bbalthaser1@yahoo.com.

The UCSD Guardian

The UCSD Guardian

The UCSD Guardian

Fighting for Speech on Both Fronts: Two New Policies at UCSD

The UCSD Guardian