After having reviewed the draft of the potential new campus free speech policy— finally released by the Sonoma State administration after months of secrecy— the Sonoma State STAR cannot help but wonder on what grounds the SSU administration thinks it is qualified to, or capable of, improving upon the First Amendment.
The First Amendment is short and sweet— a mere 45 well-chosen words— but the SSU administration has decided to expound for six pages about appropriate venues and time frames for speech.
If the Founding Fathers had intended for free speech and assembly protections to be limited that which "shall not cause noise louder than normal conversation," they probably would have mentioned it in the First Amendment. If they had intended to only protect free speech activities that did not "obstruct the flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic," they would have noted this in the First Amendment. If they had intended for the distribution of pamphlets to be limited to the hours of 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. on Monday through Friday, they probably would have included that in the First Amendment. But the First Amendment contains no such restrictive exceptions. As this campus is not private property, shouldn't the First Amendment be sufficient campus free speech policy?
As written, the "Campus Expression: Time, Place and Manner" policy would inhibit the exchange of ideas that is intended to take place on a college campus. Students should be wary of initiatives to limit their most essential freedoms in the name of maintaining order. For example, the March 4 Walk-out for Higher Education (which violated many clauses of the proposed "Campus Expression: Time, Place and Manner" policy was disruptive to university function for a day, but the university as a whole is undisputedly richer for a civilly active and empowered student body.
Of course, exercised free speech on this campus has not always been pretty. Take, for example, the incredibly graphic, pro-life posters displayed in the quads last semester. The posters were provocative, even offensive, but censoring the posters would also have meant censoring the group of students who rallied to speak out in defense of the right to choose.
Voltaire famously said, "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." For the most part, SSU is a small, political sampling, a sort of smaller space where contemporary, bigger-picture controversies play out— the debate over Wal-Mart's expansion, the sustainability of leaf blowers, the appropriate response to state budget cuts. In fact, it's amazing the number of things a group that is relatively so demographically uniform can find to debate. But then, this is academia, and debate is part of learning. Discussion is how one learns to see all sides of the argument, and the one all those opposing viewpoints share is the wish to have their perspective heard.
Which means that if the administration chooses to the "Campus Expression: Time, Place and Manner" policy, it will have succeeded in uniting almost every campus political and social group against itself. The current administration is not in a position that would make the reckless burning of bridges wise.
Got an opinion on drafted new free speech policy? Join the discussion at www.sonomastatestar.com or by sending a letter to star@sonoma.edu
is a member of the 
2 comments