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.
As stated, CUFFS began with the intention of rejecting DDS. In our investigations of free speech, however, we found the current conditions to be problematic for a number of reasons. I will begin with policy on free speech. There is only one indoor area on the main campus in which students are guaranteed First Amendment rights. Areas that restrict and contain free speech are commonly referred to as free speech zones. Accordingly, NEIU only has one indoor free speech zone–the Village Square. The implications of such a policy are better understood by comparing the area of the Village Square to the area of a majority of commonly traveled indoor locations. It amounts to less than one percent of indoor area accessible to students, faculty and staff.
This is not the entirety of the problem, either. Student groups have had consistent problems practicing their First Amendment rights in both indoor and outdoor locations on the main campus. Here are a few incidents:
– Members of Students Against War have been asked to leave the cafeteria for flyering and promoting events.
– In Fall 2008, student organizers were asked to take down banners hanging outside. These banners were in no way offensive. They merely had the names of various campus organizations written on them. Ralph Zia, of Facilities Management, heckled the student organizers and was unwilling to have an open discussion explaining the reasons why he wanted the banners taken down. Furthermore, the outdoors is a guaranteed free speech zone. This should not have been an issue in the first place.
– This past semester (Spring 2009) CUFFS members were asked to leave the cafeteria for soliciting petitions–ironically–for the free speech campaign.
In short, CUFFS has found the current policy and practices of university personnel to be unconstitutional and run contrary to the university’s shared values. For example, values such as diversity and community cannot be taken seriously when students are harassed for trying to build a diverse community on campus. Accordingly, we reject the current policy and practices in regards to free speech.
This brings me to my final point. CUFFS has a relatively simple solution to this problem: the creation of a policy that errs on the side of free speech, and, therefore, a policy that more effectively brings to fruition our university’s shared values. The creation of such a policy is more than reasonable, and is necessary if the university wishes to demonstrate seriously that our shared values are more than just words on a Web site.
Chris Poulos
Sociology major and member of CUFFS (www.neiufreespeech.org)