Search News


Browse Archives

News

Holding Fire

May 29, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Was it her message or the rules that got Christine Brashier summoned to the dean's office? Brashier says she's being blocked from organizing a student group that favors "gun rights" while the college says she just isn't following the rules.

Late last month, Brashier, a student at the Community College of Allegheny County, in Pennsylvania, created a three-page flier highlighting information about Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, a national gun-rights group with more than 38,000 members in chapters at college campuses across the country. The literature indicated that Brashier intended to form a chapter of the organization at Allegheny, and it included space for interested students to provide their contact information.

According to Brashier, she was called into the dean’s office on April 24 to discuss the brochures. Brashier said she was told that pamphlet distribution constituted solicitation, which is prohibited on the Allegheny campus.

“I retorted that it was not solicitation due to the fact that I am not attempting to ‘sell’ anything, and you answered that it was solicitation because I was trying to sell people on the idea of this organization,” Brashier wrote in her letter to the two deans of student development. “I answered that getting people to register to vote, or sign a petition would not be solicitation and you told me that this would also not be allowed on campus but only out on the street in front of the campus.”

Brashier said the deans also asked whether she owned a gun – to which Brashier replied that she does, but would not bring it on campus until the law barring weapons on campus is changed, as she believes it should be. The deans, Brashier said, stressed how it could be a “disaster” for the college to allow students to have guns on campus, and asked if she had considered alternative means of self defense. Brashier also reported that Dean Yvonne Burns told her the issue of guns on campus might be something Brashier wants to discuss, but it is not something the college wants to discuss. Finally, Brashier reported that Burns instructed her to cease all activities related to bringing Students for Concealed Carry on Campus to Allegheny.

Brashier contacted the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), and officials there, in turn, wrote a letter to Alex Johnson, president of the Community College of Allegheny County. FIRE’s letter expressed concern with the First Amendment implications of the college’s solicitation policy and suggested Brashier was singled out for holding a viewpoint that was unpopular with campus officials.

FIRE’s letter advised that the college cannot legally condition approval of student publications on the content or viewpoint of the materials being distributed – something both FIRE and Brashier believe college officials did.

College officials all directed calls to David Hoovler, director of public relations, who said the college would not at this point discuss the legal issues at stake in the case, as the college is awaiting review of the case by their legal counsel. Hoovler did say, however, that the college’s concerns over Brashier’s pamphlets stemmed not from the gun-rights message but from the improper use of the college’s name. The publication was “misleading,” Hoovler said, in the way it presented a connection between Students for Concealed Carry on Campus and the college.

The front page of the pamphlet included the name of the group, Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, and also listed the college’s name directly below it. FIRE was quick to point out, though, that the brochure also included the caveat that the group was “not affiliated with the NRA, a political party, or any other organization.”

Hoovler also referred to a statement released by the college in response to FIRE’s letter, which states that Brashier “is welcome to follow the appropriate CCAC procedures to seek recognition of the proposed group as a student organization. CCAC does not have any intention to limit the student’s involvement in the group or her ability to discuss her own political viewpoint.”

Again, Hoovler declined to comment on the conversation that Brashier reported took place in Dean Burns’ office, when, Brashier claims, the dean discouraged her pro-guns on campus stance.

According to Fran Cairns in the student life office at Allegheny, students seeking to form a group on campus must complete an application, show interest from at least 10 students and secure a faculty advisor. The application then goes on to the student government for approval, which Cairns said is rarely denied.

Asked how students generally go about recruiting potential group members, Cairns said they usually employ word-of-mouth advertising, or submit a flier for the college to approve and display. Students “may have tried” to hand out their own fliers on campus, she said, but that is not standard practice.

Robert Shibley, vice president of FIRE, said he is still awaiting reply from Johnson regarding his organization’s letter, but said the statement released by the college – which states that Brashier has not been punished – “misses the point.” For Shibley, the crux of the problem is with the college’s solicitation policy and Burns’ viewpoint-biased enforcement of it. The text of the college’s policy is as follows: "Solicitation: The distribution or display of, and the personal contact with individuals or groups related to non-sponsored college material or events, without prior written approval of the college are prohibited."

“It’s really vague, and I have a hard time believing that they actually even mean that,” Shibley said. “Whether or not [Brashier’s] actions violate that, well maybe they do because it’s so broad, but it’s certainly unconstitutional to tell her she can’t share her viewpoint. That’s an ancient right of a free society. You’re making Thomas Paine illegal at that point.”

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Holding Fire

  • "No Solicitation" Policy is the problem
  • Posted by T on May 29, 2009 at 8:45am EDT
  • Yes, the problem is definitely with the broadly defined and intentionally vague "no solicitation" policy. Such policies are in place at college campuses to prevent for-profit entities such as restaurants, retail, etc., from distributing promotional materials such as event flyers or coupons. As an alternative, my college hosts semi-annual "preferred partner" events, and invite nearby businesses to participate in a trade show style event. In no way is the policy intended to discourage free speech rights, which is covered under an entirely different policy for the distribution of literature and petitions. That policy requires groups, whether college based or outside groups, to meet with the dean of students for the sole purpose of going over the requirements of the policy that are designed to minimize interference and disruption. The material is reviewed but only to insure that it isn't a commercial enterprise, or the material violates other clearly stated college policies. We have had a concealed carry student group active on our campus for the past two years. They have followed the policy and have been allowed to distribute their materials on campus per the distribution policy to the satisfaction of all parties.

  • Beaurocratic 'Think'
  • Posted by DFS on May 29, 2009 at 1:15pm EDT
  • No Tolerance = No Thought = No Freedom.

  • Somewhere in the middle
  • Posted by Professor G , Assistant Professor on May 29, 2009 at 6:00pm EDT
  • From this article, it sounds like there is problematic behavior on both sides.  It's standard procedure for *any* student group at a college or university to apply for a charter or other recognition that allows it to function as an official organization on school grounds.  As our society grows increasingly more litigious, campus codes of conduct continue to grow in length and fine print.  The student should have done her research and followed procedures for approval.  [I wonder how much of this is manufactured tempest by someone who wants a soapbox for pro-gun views?]  

    Having said that, I can sympathize with both the student and the administrators here.  I'm uncomfortable with a dean allegedly expressing his/her own political views -- it shouldn't matter what the dean thinks about gun laws, gun control, etc.  But part of being a dean is trying to figure out what will best serve *everyone* on a campus -- to decide what policies will keep the most people the safest.  And you can bet that if there were a campus shooting that involved a student from this group, the dean who approved it would be held accountable.  From an administrator's perspective, this looks like a lose-lose deal.

  • that pesky First Amendment
  • Posted by Clayton E. Cramer , none at none on May 31, 2009 at 10:15am EDT
  • If Professor G thinks that political activity is a problem, even on a college campus, he might want to spend a little time taking a refresher course on the Constitution.

  • Professor G.
  • Posted by Max on May 31, 2009 at 6:45pm EDT
  • Professor G,

    With all due respect you and your coleagues are part of the problem. I am willing to wager that the school would not attempt to stop speech that others would consider hostile or dangerous as long as it fit the liberal/leftwing template. Do you think the school would have a problem with groups promoting deviant sexual behavior, abortion, anti-capitalist, anti-military, anti-Christian, anti-white male, overthrow of the government or forced redistribution of wealth? I don't. That sort of behavior is the norm for students and faculty at most institutions of higher learning. I have paid tuition for my children at similar schools and I know that independent thought, thought that does not conform to socialist groupthink, is discouarged by threats of legal action and, quite often, violence.

     

  • Fascism
  • Posted by DFS on June 3, 2009 at 3:00pm EDT
  • We're on our way! Let's just bitch about how soon we're going to get there, instead of WHY.

  • As the student involved...
  • Posted by Christine Brashier , Campus Leader at SCCC at CCAC on June 13, 2009 at 6:45am EDT
  • I feel it's important to say that, first of all, I did everything that I could and did my best to follow policy as it was told to me. The Solicitation Policy was actually found by the FIRE (who are representing me) in the college's facilities management policiess - not something that gets printed in the student manual. I intentionally asked the office of student life if I could pass out flyers and was told that their only rule was to submit a copy for posters to be put on the public boards, that seemed fine. I went about it in the good old fashioned American handbill to a person you've started talking to about the topic kind of way. Not because I'm some crazy "gun-nut" but because I thought college was an important opportunity to discuss and debate important topics, this was a topic important to me personally as well as to the community and current events. It was obvious during the conversation, which was simply not about "implied endorsement" by the community college on my flyer, that I was being singled out because of my message and not because of any rules. The implied endorsement is honestly embarrassingly preposterous given that it was an application to help start an officially recognized student club, and specified that it was not endorsed by ANYONE. I fail to believe, and if you google it you can look at the pamphlet too, that any reasonable person could have believed that a paper about trying to get the attention of an administration that was poignantly ignoring this club was an endorsement of the club by CCAC. No public institution has the right to insist on prior authorization of a non-commercial hand-bill. They take my tax money and my tuition they can follow the public law and allow me my free speech. If I had approached it from the opposite point of view and wanted to hold the SAME EXACT debates, they wouldn't have thought twice. This is an administration covering up for the actions of a single woman who spoke and acted beyond the scope of her job or the law, this could have been rectified a month before the press became involved, and a year before attorneys became involved, but the college is being stubborn and demanding that I give up my rights. They are hoping I will just disappear. I will stand up for my rights, like any decent American would.