EDITORIAL: Barriers to free speech have a chilling effect on student advocacy
Advocacy relies on the freedom of speech.
In the United States, under the First Amendment, we enjoy liberties when it comes to expressing our ideas. We can publish newspapers, hold demonstrations and protest our government.
The Westboro Baptist Church has a constitutional right to protest at funerals. The Ku Klux Klan can register for a slot in a city parade. Flag burning might be offensive to some, but we have the right to do so if we choose.
Our right to voice and express our ideas is guaranteed – regardless of their popularity. However, at Central Michigan University, that promise of freedom only holds true if it’s exercised within the university’s restrictive boundaries.
Earlier this week, representatives from the registered student organization Students for Concealed Carry posted flyers advocating participation in a protest against CMU’s on-campus concealed carry policy.
The posters were displayed in the Charles V. Park Library, the Health Professions Building and in Moore Hall, among others.
However, many flyers have since been removed.
In a denied announcement request filed by SCC Vice President Anthony Cilluffo, university officials cite guideline violations leading to the request’s dismissal.
CMU officials at the Park Library and the College of Health Professions cite only materials representing library functions can be placed in the library and only materials submitted by faculty advisors can be displayed in the CHP Building.
Faculty advisors should not be responsible for representing the voice of student advocacy. The library, one of the more high-traffic areas of campus, should be more conducive to free speech.
Although the CMU chapter of Students for Concealed Carry failed to follow university procedures for flyer placement, the restrictive nature and variance in college-by-college procedure is an impediment to constitutional rights.
Michael Reuter, director of technology operations at the College of Education and Human Services, took his dismissal one step further. Reuter cited improper placement of materials within the building, but also made one substantial misstep – he critiqued the appropriateness of the content.
Listing a “lack of professionalism” and the potential “incendiary” meaning attached to the flyers, he addressed what he called a lack of maturity in the presentation.
Disregard for the First Amendment at our university cannot be ignored.
Advocating demonstrations and promoting social change is, by nature, incendiary. Although Reuter said the posters have been replaced in designated areas, the restrictions and content-based hesitation is a cause for concern.
Students – especially those who feel passionately about an issue – have a right to make their voices heard. By limiting printed materials based on content and placing limitations on our freedom of speech, the voice of the student body is muffled.
While not all speech can be popular, each deserves a place in the marketplace of ideas. Universities, as a catalyst for shaping minds, should offer the most opportunities for communication and loosen the barriers that prevent it.
