Search News


Browse Archives

News

Speech Restrictions Draw Fire

December 23, 2008

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

A proposed policy at Northeastern Illinois University would require protesters to submit copies of fliers and signs to administrators two weeks before bringing them on the campus, sparking criticism from free speech advocates.

The policy, introduced more than a year after two students were arrested while protesting CIA recruiters on campus, is intended to clarify university rules -- not to stifle speech, according to Sharon Hahs, president of the university. The university wants to keep a record of materials distributed on campus, but does not intend to prevent lawful demonstrations, she said.

“It would not be used to decide whether you may or may not hand it out,” she said. “You just must submit a copy of it.”

Asked about the rationale for prior review of materials, Hahs said Northeastern Illinois administrators are addressing potential security concerns. Particularly in the wake of recent shootings on college campuses, administrators are “expected to know” about activities on university grounds, she said.

“One of the pieces of information that might be helpful some day, some time, is what groups are on your campus and what materials are they handing out,” Hahs said.

The policy has garnered the endorsement of the Student Government Association and a group representing state employees on campus, but the Faculty Senate has yet to give its approval. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) called the policy “blatantly unconstitutional,” and a blogger on free speech issues suggested “the entire policy needs to be tossed.”

“That’s really over the top, the idea that you have to turn in your visual communications a week in advance,” said John Wilson, a blogger at collegefreedom.org and author of Patriotic Correctness: Academic Freedom and Its Enemies. “I’ve never seen anything quite that restrictive at a public university before.”

The new policy includes “newspapers” under the definition of “visual communications,” but Hahs assured that the campus's student newspaper would not be required to submit its publication to administrators in advance. Only “a random newspaper that has nothing to do with the university” would be subject to prior review, she said.

Other restrictions in the policy forbid demonstrations in particular buildings and limit protests to particular hours. Both restrictions, however, can be lifted in certain cases, according to the policy.

Employers Heckled at Fair

The Northeastern Illinois policy was created by a special university panel that included faculty and staff members and students. The group was working on the policy as early as 2006, before Matthew Larson and Kenneth Barrios, two members of an anti-war student group, were arrested while protesting the CIA. The students were charged with battery.

“Defenders of student actions at these events argue that the students were asserting their right to free speech,” Hahs wrote in a 2007 newsletter. “This argument assumes that freedom of speech is subject to no restrictions. This is simply not the case, nor should it be.”

Hahs theorizes that the university’s career fair, which has “acquired a reputation as a contentious and inhospitable environment,” has been sparsely attended because employers and military recruiters expect to be heckled by protesters. Hahs said that she would be open to protesters demonstrating outside the event, but that the university needs a policy that will prevent protesters from disrupting the event itself.

It’s not just employers who have faced protests on the campus. Students have also been on the receiving end. A group known as Heterosexuals Organizing for a Moral Environment, or HOME, has distributed “bizarre, homemade hate literature” on campus for years, according to Erica Meiners, a faculty adviser to the campus Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Queer group.

Students affiliated with the gay student group approached administrators with concerns about HOME, and Hahs said the task force may have considered the concerns when crafting the new policy. But Meiners said the group never intended for a crackdown on speech.

“The curtailing of free speech was not what the LGBTQ students wanted when they asked the administration to ‘do something,’ “ Meiners wrote in an e-mail. “LGBTQ students wanted a more robust, visible commitment to educating the campus about LGBTQ lives and communities. Some of the things they asked the administration for included training for staff and faculty around LGBTQ issues and an LGBTQ resource center, support for a LGBTQ studies program, and more.”

Professor Claims Retaliation Over Speech

Recent free speech issues at Northeastern Illinois have also prompted a lawsuit from a faculty member, who alleged that she was retaliated against for supporting the students who challenged the CIA recruiters, among other issues. Loretta Capeheart, an associate professor in the department of justice studies, claimed she was denied a position as department chair -- even after colleagues elected her to the post -- because of her outspoken views.

Capeheart’s initial suit against the university was dismissed, but she has filed an amended complaint against Hahs and several other administrators. Capeheart could not be reached for comment Monday, but her lawyer said he views the proposed speech policy as part of a larger pattern of challenges to the First Amendment.

“I found it very surprising, the issuance of this proposed code for speech,” said Tom Rosenwein, Capeheart’s lawyer. “It seems like a tremendous overreaction and is basically very hard to understand in the context of an academic institution, where presumably the free expression and clash of ideas is not only encouraged but is cherished.”

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Speech Restrictions Draw Fire

  • Posted by kgotthardt on December 23, 2008 at 9:35am EST
  • So long as materials really are just put on file in case of violence, there's nothing wrong with the policy. Unfortunately, there is the potential for abuse, however.

  • A Disturbing Defense of Repression at NEIU
  • Posted by John K. Wilson at collegefreedom.org on December 23, 2008 at 10:05am EST
  • President Hahs’ defense of her campus policy is really quite disturbing: “Only ‘a random newspaper that has nothing to do with the university’ would be subject to prior review, she said.” It is stunning that a university president thinks she has the power to subject a “random newspaper” to prior review, and effectively ban it from campus until one or two weeks after it is submitted to officials. (And despite what Hahs claims, the policy can in fact apply to any student newspaper, official or unofficial.) If NEIU wants to keep a record of what’s being handed out on campus, they can go get a copy from the people handing it out. Why would they need it a week or two in advance if it’s not going to affect any of their decisions and they’re not going to do anything with it? To justify this kind of repression by citing campus shootings is just disgusting. Banning newspapers and restricting protests doesn’t make anybody any safer. No, free speech is not absolute. But that doesn’t mean the administration at a public university should be given near-absolute power to ban or delay expression of free speech.

  • Facism marches on
  • Posted by Michael W. Simpson on December 23, 2008 at 12:20pm EST
  • Universities have become less than a beacon of free thought and expression. Both the liberals and conservatives are taking liberty away in order to have control.

  • Confusing
  • Posted by Frank on December 23, 2008 at 1:15pm EST
  • Hmm .. one group being rude and hateful to employers during a job fair .. leading to arrests .. attempts at prior restraint by government supervisors .. faculty who has fought with government supervisors complaining she was not named a supervisor ..

    What is the purpose of NEIU? Is "Disruptive Confrontation" some kind of new college major? How much should taxpayers budget for "disruptive confrontation?"

    Dang ..

  • My freedom of expression will not be restricted!!!
  • Posted by Wynne , As an NEIU student I just want to say... at Chi-Town student activist on December 23, 2008 at 3:25pm EST
  • I am a student and community activist who is currently a senior at NEIU. I have to say that the reason that I love NEIU is not just because it is a working class, multi-ethnic, urban school, but that it has always been such a liberal, open minded place to be. Throughout my time attending the university, I have always felt safe, and even encouraged to express myself freely, wether it be in the classroom or a part of a student organization. This policy that Dr. Hahs is trying to pass is so restrictive and violating to myself and also the university community, and I would even say the surrounding non-profit organizations that we have an ongoing positive relationship with. IT MUST NOT BE PASSED!Please help us in mobilizing against it. Feel free to e-mail me with any suggestions as to how we can do so, or any help that you can offer at wynneturkington@yahoo.com, and you can also visit our website at myspace.com/chitownstudentactivism, and read our blogs.THANK YOU INSIDE HIGHER ED FOR WRITING THIS ARTICLE!!!

  • Maintaining Order on Campus
  • Posted by CalProf on December 23, 2008 at 3:50pm EST
  • The administration may be concerned that literature would provoke violence, urge violence, or slander members of the campus community. What if the leaflets advocate taking over a controversial classroom, or going after a professor, student, or administrator? After campus tragedies, the most common complaint is "Why wasn't there more communication about this impending problem?"

    Reviewing protest literature in advance may be a passive way of trying to prevent disruption on campus, but the administration is giving itself legal protection through this rule in case there are lawsuits or grievances. They may be less responsible for violence advocated by protest media that had not been submitted for advance review.

  • Posted by E. Moran on December 23, 2008 at 6:45pm EST
  • Hi Wynne.

    First, I know you are young but it’s never too early to watch your blood pressure. Now, if I were an administrator at your campus charged with security I might want a heads-up if a group on campus called “New Ideas” (who wished to talk about free speech, say) was going to pass out white supremacist literature. Need to prepare. Not that people on your enlightened campus would ever riot, certainly not, but just in case. They don’t want to stop you. They just want to keep the fire-lanes clear for emergency vehicles.

    You are a breathless “community activist” (doesn’t matter what the issue, you will always be active, I guess), happy to have something to get exercised about. That smell is the stink of the mob, the collective, the oppressed, your inheritance. Get used to it.

    “NEIU “is a working class, multi-ethnic, urban school, [and] that it has always been such a liberal, open minded place to be.” You feel safe there. Very noble. Sounds like hell on earth to me. I would be ashamed of myself if I felt safe on your campus.

  • overreaction and mis-information
  • Posted by Paul , Senator on December 23, 2008 at 8:45pm EST
  • It is imperative that those of you taking issue with this policy first read it! It would also help if those of you writing and commenting on it would at least do some credible research on the issue. I was in the room during the last CIA informational session held on our campus and no one to my knowledge has spoken to the people who attended to get information. The only voice being heard is the 2 men who forced their way into the room, and violently resisted arrest. NEIU for many years was an important recruiting resource for national security agencies and the US government. This is no longer the case, so who is more free? How is it that freedom of speech has become a weapon against the free exchange of information? There is an old maxim that states we become what we most fear. Are we going. I'd like to thank the bozo's mentioned in this article for limiting my access to information which is available at many more expensive universities in the US. Maybe they'll all go there next.

  • Policy Insantity
  • Posted by Mountaineer on December 23, 2008 at 8:45pm EST
  • This policy is absolutely insane! Submit protest literature two weeks in advance? I don't have my class notes ready two weeks in advance. What if the demonstration isn't planned until the night before? Or not planned at all. Anyone defending this policy has no respect whatsoever for the First Amendment.

  • A solution
  • Posted by Ernest on December 24, 2008 at 8:50am EST
  • Require the arrested and "community activists" to (1) listen to an endless loop of speeches by Al Gore, John Kerry, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity for 80 hours, (2) serve on the campus parking ticket and I.T. committees, (3) write 50-page monographs about (1) and (2), then (4) listen to 80 hours of critiques by the campus English department and campus VPs with nothing useful to do.

    Now, that would be a learning experience.

  • Posted by DG on December 24, 2008 at 1:50pm EST
  • Amusing that the liberal open-minded multi-ethnic folks will be rescued here (as usual) by the libertarian-right forces of FIRE. I think folks like our esteemed community activist must ask themselves why otherwise upstanding people of the left insist of surprising free speech the moment they get into a position of substantial authority - e.g. most student life and campus administrators.

    Well, I for one am very happy FIRE is out there keeping our institutions of higher education honest.

  • CLARIFICATION
  • Posted by Chris Poulos on December 24, 2008 at 1:50pm EST
  • I have a lot to say about this article.

    First and foremost, I am a student and political organizer at NEIU.

    From the standpoint of participating in the CIA demo, I really need to clarify some facts, which pertain to this current policy. There was A LOT of misinformation about the CIA protest. Matt and Ken were arrested for two reasons (I have the police report): 1) Battery-simple and 2) Interference W/ Public.

    Battery-simple did not hold up. First, the women claiming injury had no medical documentation, which she could have got immediately after the incident. Furthermore, the fact that the charge was dropped rather quickly illustrated its questionable validity. It also pushes to the forefront the other charge: interference with the public, which was made possible by our campus' Free Speech Zones.

    Hence, Matt and Ken were arrested because they were not on a free speech zone. That is an ESSENTIAL distinction to make.

    From this point, we can label the argument clearly and relate its connection to Hahs' current unconstitutional actions.

    When the university upheld its unconstitutional free speech zone policy then, Hahs would have liked to believe local, university policy superseded constitutional law. And she can believe that. People can also believe that gravity doesn't exist or that humans can breath water. People can believe a lot of crazy things. However, the fact of the matter is that our constitutional rights of freedom of speech and assembly override any attempt that Hahs or any other college admins makes to limit free speech or freedom of assembly on Campus.

    Old habits die hard. Except now Hahs is attempting to EXPAND the current unconstitutional free speech zones to include petitioning, time restraints etc., because she WANTS to accomplish some of her agendas: stifling students ability demonstrate on campus, which has been successful in resisting the CIA and military recruiters and keeping them off our campus (if you would like more info on those and other political event contact me). Again, the fact of the matter is that regardless of Hahs' wants--I refer to them as delusions of grandeur--she CAN NOT limit free speech. She can request we inform the school about petitioning, flyering, spontaneous protest, etc., but she can not make us.

    That is what the students organizing around this policy are saying.

    I will say one final thing. Since Hahs is being persistent with her unconstitutional actions. Student are proposing that the university write into a policy an explicit guarantee that the campus will uphold our FIRST AMENDMENT rights ANYWHERE and ANYTIME on campus for students, faculty, AND taxpayers in general. Anything less will (and have) create(d) a chilling effect on NEIU's campus.

    The current conditions are egregious--please, contact faculty about their "rights" of political expression.

    To borrow from the recent sit-ins in New School: We believe NEIU should be a safe-haven for academic freedom and scholarship.

    Chris Poulos
    cdpoulos@gmail.com

    Contact me with questions and if you are interested in being involved with this campaign.

  • More to come
  • Posted by Chris Poulos on December 24, 2008 at 7:25pm EST
  • I am extremely rushed today, I hope everything I said was clear. I will analyze the article more at a later date, and I will let everyone know when a blog is made to discuss this policy in more detail.

    If you would like the policy you can find it here: http://collegefreedom.blogspot.com/

    Or e-mail me!

  • Info-holes
  • Posted by L.L. on December 24, 2008 at 7:25pm EST
  • " .. Battery-simple did not hold up .. "

    And the other charge?

    " .. To borrow from the recent sit-ins in New School: We believe NEIU should be a safe-haven for academic freedom .."

    New School is private; not a taxpayer issue.

    To borrow from S. Fish -- safe-haven anything you want, go howl at the moon. On your dime. Not the public's -- unless you're a bank, GM, UAW member, state governor, Congressperson, et. al.

  • free speech crackdown at neiu
  • Posted by anne mothkovich on December 24, 2008 at 7:25pm EST
  • As one of the students who worked so hard at NEIU to fight against hate speech against the GLBT community I am saddened to hear that our actions against homophobia are being used to endorse this ridiculous policy. Although I am not currently attending NEIU I have heard rumors that an ROTC military center is on the administration's agenda? This proposed policy is not about student safety in the "wake of school shootings" this is about curtailing students' ability to voice our dissent against this and other policies which we believe are counterproductive to creating a progressive learning environment.

  • Posted by Matthew on December 24, 2008 at 7:25pm EST
  • This policy is ridiculous. Support free-speech, no more repression of campus politics!

  • University: an institution of learning of the highest level...
  • Posted by ACM at Cook County GED Testing Program on December 24, 2008 at 7:25pm EST
  • I think it's so wrong for a university that violates a constitution right to free speech. If NEIU is worry about school shootings then put metal detectors or better security. The administration at NEIU is confusing and mixing up 2 things passing out flyers and protesting with campus security they are totally different subjects. If NEIU wants to stop people, specially their students and faculty to think for themselves and question things then they need to stop being a University. NEIU faculty and students are not sheeps; they will speak out because that's who we are. NEIU mission states: "Northeastern Illinois University (NEIU) is dedicated to both excellence and access. The most important facets of the university's mission are to offer high quality undergraduate and graduate programs to a broad spectrum of students and to foster student growth and development... Unique to Northeastern's mission are the two distinctive features of diversity and community partnerships."

  • NEIU as a safe haven for freedom of political expression
  • Posted by Chris Poulos on December 24, 2008 at 8:30pm EST
  • I would like to clarify. I used a quote from the New School: University in Exile's website to express solidarity with their struggle, which they were recently were successful with--everyone should check out: http://www.newschoolinexile.com. I never made any claims of NEIU being similar to New School. However, we could make plenty of analyses concerning the privatization of public spaces--that is not far out at all.

  • "Safe-haven" bail-out?
  • Posted by L.L. on December 26, 2008 at 11:00am EST
  • " .. However, we could make plenty of analyses concerning the privatization of public spaces — that is not far out at all."

    Per previous about use of public taxpayer funds --

    The Associated Press has received great praise for demanding to know what specifically happened with $350,000,000,000.00 in public funds used in the financial bail-out.

    As long as NEIU takes $0.01 of public taxpayer funds -- it is accountable to the public for the outcomes of those public funds.

    If NEIU uses public funds for events that become shouting-match debacles -- wouldn't that public money be better spent, caring for the poor and sick?

    BTW: contrary to claims by the far-left -- anyone who wants "free speech" is free to go down to a public park and "free speech" until the sun goes nova. And -- ever heard of YouTube?

    But there's nothing in the Constitution that says the public has to pay for Class-A buildings to "safe-haven" free speech.

    The AP has recently increased its coverage of higher-ed, with a dedicated unit. Good.

  • Like Chinese Olympics?
  • Posted by CC Prof , Dr. on December 26, 2008 at 11:05am EST
  • Nikolas Kristoff has a video and column on his attempts to register to stage a protest in one of the designated areas of the 2008
    Olympics. He waited for hours and hours, and was told that he'd have to give the names and info for each person that would be at the protest. I don't know, but it seems likely that he'd need to provide all the literature, too. He never got a permit.
    Like Communist China, Northeastern is making the exercise of free speech and the right to assemble a big hassle--and as in China, I imagine that if they make their process enough of a hassle, they will have no protests--just like in China.
    If the submission of all literature a week before a protest won't lead to any censorship, as the Northeastern official claims, then why couldn't a group submit copies after a protest? And, what role does their Board of Trustees have in all this?

  • Posted by Anka on December 26, 2008 at 12:40pm EST
  • L.L.

    The vast majority of the public are of the view that public universities should err on the side of the free expression of ideas. What authoritarians such as yourself call "howling at the moon" is in fact one of the most basic building blocks of a democratic society. It is notable as well that you use notions of fiscal soundness as a cover for your anti-democratic politics.

  • Student Activists
  • Posted by E. Moran , Lit Prof on December 26, 2008 at 3:50pm EST
  • C. Poulos

    “To borrow from the recent sit-ins in New School: We believe NEIU should be a safe-haven for academic freedom and scholarship.”

    Your version of ‘free speech” is the freedom to shout down, to disrupt, and to run off anyone you disagree with. This way you get to choose for all of us what we can listen to and discuss. A “safe-haven” is anyplace you have made free of ideas that frighten you.

    An activist, to you, is a mob leader. You will mill about, shout and picket, and always eventually threaten other people’s rights. You yourselves may in fact be the greatest threat to freedom of expression and rule of law.

    Why would you think anyone would look to students for leadership? You are by definition partially educated, un-formed, immature, full of half-baked enthusiasms, party lines and prejudices. You have swallowed whole ideologies with no sign of doubt, no visible intellectual struggle. You have small experience of the world. You never operate alone; you run in packs. Your physical courage is untested. You lust after ‘safe-haven’ and you are scared shitless by ideas.

    Why would anyone follow you?

  • Posted by Anka on December 26, 2008 at 7:45pm EST
  • E Moran,

    Your declaring a student seeking free speech to be a dogmatist is a facile rhetorical trope seeking to squelch the speech of your critics, thus leaving your own dogma unchallenged. You are projecting your own intellectual and physical cowardice onto C. Poulos. You fear free speech because it is you who would be exposed as a person whose ideas are without merit.

  • Free speech - only for you?
  • Posted by L.L. on December 26, 2008 at 7:45pm EST
  • "The vast majority of the public are of the view that public universities should err on the side of the free expression of ideas .."

    Like this?

    http://tinyurl.com/73bsuh

    http://tinyurl.com/7w6qst

    Where's the data that backs up your statement?

    I don't think there isn't any. I think you just made it up, to support your anti-free speech, "me-first" politics.

    Data reveals that the majority of the public do not attend college. I think they expect education to be about education. Not, as S. Fish noted famously, about "saving the world .. which should be saved on your time and your dime."

    For the 1,000th time -- want free speech? Go to a local public park -- plenty of freedom, contrary to Cuba, Iran, China, et. al.

    But no one has the right to run rough-shod over others' rights -- they haven't been appointed as God's replacement.

    And most of the public doesn't want to pay for some self-appointed Messiah's free ride -- they are already paying for bankers, GM, UAW members, Congresspersons, lobbyists, et. al.

  • Public Universities are Public
  • Posted by Chris Poulos on December 27, 2008 at 1:10pm EST
  • L.L.

    You’ve mentioned a couple times that people should go to their local public parks to practice first amendment rights. This is problematic for a few reasons. First, implicitly it denies public universities of their public status. Not only is that backwards, but it is also flat out incorrect. If you continue to deny public universities of their public status do so on a prescriptive basis. Second, it consents to the limiting of free speech rights because of your own discomfort with the practice of free speech at universities. Finally, following the second point, it falsely separates education from political expression. The public university has historically been a site where the two go hand in hand, which makes a lot of sense when you consider that the university exposes people to a wealth of ideas and challenges them to critically thing about their lives and society. The similarity between all these points is the confusion between your discomfort with the practice of first amendment rights and the fact of the matter that public universities are—and should remain—a space where constitutional rights are upheld. In order to guarantee this people need to speak up; hence, the struggle at NEIU.

    Rather than mocking Anka for stating an accepted fact that the vast majority of the public are of the view that public universities should err on the side of the free expression of ideas; you should assess your own argument. Simultaneously you are criticizing other countries for not having freedom of political expression, while claiming that certain people in the US should not be allowed their first amendment rights and capriciously prescribing that certain public spaces should be denied constitutional rights. Not many would get behind that. It is a contradictory stance, and I can guarantee you that people are more comfortable with upholding free expression of ideas than denying themselves of it.

    The immediate support NEIU has received from Chicago and the Chicago-land area is proof of that, and we have barely begun to get the wheels turning on this free speech campaign.

    Again, it is the stance of students at NEIU that President Hahs’ new policy prohibiting first amendment rights is unconstitutional, and that the university should guarantee all students, faculty, and taxpayers full constitutional rights anywhere and anytime on our campus—and satellite campuses.

    If anyone would like more information, please contact me at: cdpoulos@gmail.com

  • FIRE leans to the First Amendment
  • Posted by Eternal Adjunct on December 27, 2008 at 1:15pm EST
  • FIRE has been called a "right-wing" type organization, an accusation probably based on its cases. Many cases are in defense of people with conservative views...because their free speech is being denied by a largely liberal academe. If FIRE had existed in the 1950s, it would be labeled "liberal" because it would have spent plenty of time defending the speech rights of students with liberal views.

    Also, FIRE was co-founded by a Harvard Law graduate, professor, and attorney whose 40-year career has focused on First Amendment law...not exactly the resume of a rabid conservative.

  • Education $ for education - only
  • Posted by L.L. on December 27, 2008 at 10:20pm EST
  • " .. The immediate support NEIU has received from Chicago and the Chicago-land area is proof .."

    .. That the current Ill. governor is under federal criminal indictment, one of a series of indicted Illinois governors. That's how relevant that "support" statement is.

    "How things used to be .." Whatever happened to "change?" Already under the bus?

    Oh. "Change" is OK for certain self-described "disadvantaged" groups -- none for others. Of course -- how logical. Not.

    IMO, neither side in the NEIU kerkuffle is going to get the "Good Government" award. Better their tax monies go to charity medical care than more useless psuedo-displays of "change."

    Education dollars for education and students. Not for anything else.

  • Prior restraint not an option
  • Posted by Tina on December 30, 2008 at 6:25am EST
  • Just a word of advice for administrators: Northeastern has tried repeatedly to restrict the distribution of information and opinion on campus. You tried when teachers and students there were ardent supporters of Puerto Rican nationalism. 'Terrorism', you worried out loud. You lost. You tried to prevent organizing against the Gulf War in 1990. You lost. You will lose again.
    Prior restraint in the term for preemption of speech in case it might be dangerous. It's illegal. It's unconstitutional. And you will lose again.

  • NEIU not the only one
  • Posted by Dana Cloud , Associate Professor at University of Texas on January 7, 2009 at 6:56pm EST
  • As a scholar of social movement history and as an activist, I am appalled at the proposed NEIU policy. This story is unfortunately not unique to NEIU. At the University of Texas, all demonstrations require approval in advance and are limited to one of three "free speech areas" on campus. One can use amplified sound only from 11-1. Activist groups can have tables with literature, but it is against policy to distribute literature from "off-campus organizations," or to host "off-campus speakers" without approval in advance--and lots of special rules apply. Demonstrations are supervised by a representative from the Dean of Students Office. Visual displays require prior approval. Flyers posted for events sponsored by unofficial groups or off-campus groups are immediately taken down. There is a person in my building who actually is paid to remove illegal postings from bulletin boards. Of course, credit card companies and military recruiters have open access to the campus and its students.

    The most open public spaces on campus are not for use by students, faculty, or staff, who face penalties for using the South Mall of the UT tower. We are restricted to the small WEst Mall which, after 1970, was redesigned to include huge concrete planters with trees in them, so that masses of people cannot actually gather in the space.

    Why are these policies a problem? First, they are unconstitutional flat and simple. Second, they work against productive alliances between campus constituencies and the surrounding community. Third, social movements do not proceed in a orderly way or by getting approval from the powers that be. If we operated this way, we'd still be British.

    We need to re-learn the history of the 1960s free speech movement at Berkeley and on campuses around this country. What it took to open up spaces for speech was protest of restrictive policies. Cheers to Loretta Capehart for suing the University. Perhaps a precedent set there will help us change things here.