Trinity Should Never Regulate The Delivery of Free Speech

Recently the removal of several signs that were posted by Political Science 330, "Government and Politics in Contemporary China," highlights many potential holes in Trinity's student academic freedom policy. Namely, the problem is that Trinity does not currently have any policy protecting students' right to free speech outside of the classroom. In addition, the Dean of Students Office is now formulating a new policy with regards to the posting and maintaining ofsigns on the Trinity campus. The lack of any protection for students' rights outside of the classroom and the formation of any sort of sign posting policy could lead to serious infringements upon and even the destruction of our right to free speech.

The danger of forming such a narrow policy that governs the posting of signs around campus is that it could easily be used as a form of censorship. Currently, the policy is still in development so it has the chance to be beneficial or dangerous. It is not policy itself that could breed censorship but the way that it may be used. Once you start to regulate the way that ideas are delivered it is very easy to manipulate the ideas themselves. At Harvard, the administration requires students to obtain permission before posting signs, or they will be taken down. This is the ultimate fear that I have, because it will give the administration the power to simply silence points of view with which it disagrees. A policy such as that one gives the administration too much power and certainly leads to the violations of students' rights.

Although it is still in its formative stage, Trinity's proposed policy already stands on dangerous ground. For example, according to Assistant Dean of Students Christopher Card, one aspect of the policy will be that on any sign that is posted the person or group that posted it must identify themselves. This will inevitability lead to the stifling of ideas by self-censorship. There are some issues on this campus that are so controversial that those who bring them to light may face reprisals, which may take the form of physical violence. The fear of identification will stop important issues from being discussed. This scenario, which amounts to de facto administration censorship, is just as bad as de jure administration censorship.

Even without a policy, the school has shown a willingness to take down controversial signs and other forms of protest. For example, last year a series of signs protesting plans to pave the Life Science Quad were removed without student consent. After being posted at night, they had vanished by 9:00 AM the next morning. This a clear case of the administration not wanting to face student dissent about one of its proposed policies. In addition, recently a barricade that was built around a few trees meant to protest the proposed chopping down of trees on the construction site of the new admissions building, was removed. If this school was willing to violate our rights without a policy, just image what they will do when a policy to legitimize such behavior is developed.

The proposed poster policy is just part of the larger lack of protection for student's academic rights.

Inside the classroom both the rights of the professor and the students are protected, but once a student walks outside of McCook or Seabury they are fair game for any policy which victimizes our rights. The most insidious of such policies are so called "speech codes." These rules prohibit students from using language or expressing themselves in a provocative or "offensive" manner. In other words, non-politically correct language is banned. Although at Trinity such codes do not exist in name students are banned from engaging in "any action or situation that produces mental Šdiscomfort, embarrassment, [or] harassment." The problem is that this broad definition allows any person to claim almost anything you say is offensive and therefore punishable. If someone is offended and you are reported, there is no academic freedom committee to protect your rights.

Academia is the last place where you would expect to people trying to regulate the delivery of ideas. This especially holds true at a liberal arts college where a free and open dialogue is essential for learning.

The way that such dialogue is delivered is just as important as the content, thus there should be no policy that regulates and could very easily be used to manipulate speech. If you allow some form of speech, you must allow it all. Although you may disagree with what you hear, even detest it, the person that says it still has the right to say it. That is essence of the protection of our freedom as students and citizens.

Without the capability to express ourselves freely, protected by a student academic freedom committee, and our ability to post signs freely, our rights will never be safe.