Letter to the Editor: Free speech
Issue date: 4/28/09 Section: Opinion
Free speech has been a contentious issue on NEIU's campus this past semester. The contention was prompted by President Hahs' Policy Concerning Demonstrations on Campus, Distribution and Display of Visual Communications and Solicitation of Signatures on Campus (DDS). The reason for DDS was to clarify the current policy regarding the practice of free speech on campus. Instances like the arrests of Ken Barrios and Matt Larson for attempting to protest the CIA, and the silent protest against Dick Durbin prompted President Hahs to hone in on exactly what the limitations of free speech would look like at NEIU.
Unfortunately, DDS erred towards the side of suppressing freedom of thought and expression in its attempts to clarify our current policies. Here are two prominent examples of how it did this. First, DDS attempted to define a demonstration as "one or more persons engaged in a public manifestation of a particular point of view" (DDS policy Section B). Second, it sought to limit free speech to the times of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday (Section D). This does not nearly cover the problematic elements contained in DDS.
Clearly, the extent to which it restricted the time and manner of our First Amendment rights was unconstitutional, and it was not long before it received a host of bad media attention and disapproval from students, faculty and staff. Moreover, only one major governance body endorsed the policy. That is an important point. Contrary to President Hahs' understanding (as reported in an early article of the Independent), the SGA did not endorse the DDS policy. For these reasons DDS has been tabled.
I do not like to begin with a discussion of DDS before delving into the current state of free speech on campus; however, this discussion is important for two reasons. First, it contextualizes the creation of the Coalition United for Free Speech (CUFFS). But, more importantly, it shows possible path of our First Amendment rights on campus.
Unfortunately, DDS erred towards the side of suppressing freedom of thought and expression in its attempts to clarify our current policies. Here are two prominent examples of how it did this. First, DDS attempted to define a demonstration as "one or more persons engaged in a public manifestation of a particular point of view" (DDS policy Section B). Second, it sought to limit free speech to the times of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday (Section D). This does not nearly cover the problematic elements contained in DDS.
Clearly, the extent to which it restricted the time and manner of our First Amendment rights was unconstitutional, and it was not long before it received a host of bad media attention and disapproval from students, faculty and staff. Moreover, only one major governance body endorsed the policy. That is an important point. Contrary to President Hahs' understanding (as reported in an early article of the Independent), the SGA did not endorse the DDS policy. For these reasons DDS has been tabled.
I do not like to begin with a discussion of DDS before delving into the current state of free speech on campus; however, this discussion is important for two reasons. First, it contextualizes the creation of the Coalition United for Free Speech (CUFFS). But, more importantly, it shows possible path of our First Amendment rights on campus.
Be the first to comment on this story