2008 Woodie Awards
Letters to the editor
Issue date: 1/15/08 Section: Editorials
University must outline speech policy and rights
As a Miami University alumni and First Amendment law practitioner, the most troubling aspect of the recent "noose art" controversy is the utter lack of clarity and guidance the administration seems to offer students who wish to exercise their First Amendment protected right to free expression. This lack of a coherent policy has resulted in widespread confusion and uncertainty about both the exercise and scope of student rights. Were students clearly informed about the rights and responsibilities associated with expressing themselves on campus? What are the differences in expressive rights between student artwork and class-associated artwork? Under what policy-the School of Fine Arts' approval process, grounds keeping regulations, the Student Code of Conduct, etc.-is student expression governed? How does the university differentiate student speech from university-sponsored speech?
The lack of a clear answer to these questions demonstrates that Miami has not lived up to its legal responsibility to provide a clear, constitutional and unambiguous speech policy. Students, faculty and parents should remedy this failure and hold the university accountable by demanding that the administration, as a part of the investigation headed by the Office of Equity and Equal Opportunity, provide Miami students with an expression policy that: unambiguously explains the rights and responsibilities of students, faculty and administrators; clearly explains the time, place and manner requirements for displaying student art; explicitly bans the censorship of art, speech or speech-related conduct on the basis of its content; allows the display of artwork in areas of the university traditionally used as forums for expression; in no way limits expression to small "free speech zones" located indoors or in remote parts of the campus; expressly protects students from criminal and administrative punishment for engaging in constitutionally protected speech and does not require the artist to have to explain his or her work, or place it in "context."
As a Miami University alumni and First Amendment law practitioner, the most troubling aspect of the recent "noose art" controversy is the utter lack of clarity and guidance the administration seems to offer students who wish to exercise their First Amendment protected right to free expression. This lack of a coherent policy has resulted in widespread confusion and uncertainty about both the exercise and scope of student rights. Were students clearly informed about the rights and responsibilities associated with expressing themselves on campus? What are the differences in expressive rights between student artwork and class-associated artwork? Under what policy-the School of Fine Arts' approval process, grounds keeping regulations, the Student Code of Conduct, etc.-is student expression governed? How does the university differentiate student speech from university-sponsored speech?
The lack of a clear answer to these questions demonstrates that Miami has not lived up to its legal responsibility to provide a clear, constitutional and unambiguous speech policy. Students, faculty and parents should remedy this failure and hold the university accountable by demanding that the administration, as a part of the investigation headed by the Office of Equity and Equal Opportunity, provide Miami students with an expression policy that: unambiguously explains the rights and responsibilities of students, faculty and administrators; clearly explains the time, place and manner requirements for displaying student art; explicitly bans the censorship of art, speech or speech-related conduct on the basis of its content; allows the display of artwork in areas of the university traditionally used as forums for expression; in no way limits expression to small "free speech zones" located indoors or in remote parts of the campus; expressly protects students from criminal and administrative punishment for engaging in constitutionally protected speech and does not require the artist to have to explain his or her work, or place it in "context."
Be the first to comment on this story