NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/alt/comp/acadfre/talk/4051

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-28 | 20.8 KB

Xref: sparky alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:4051 alt.censorship:10143 comp.org.eff.talk:9345
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,comp.org.eff.talk
Path: sparky!uunet!ukma!cs.widener.edu!eff!kadie
From: [e-mail] (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Cornell changes computer speech policy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail] (NNTP News Poster)
Nntp-Posting-Host: eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 19:08:19 GMT
Lines: 391

[For comparison, I'm enclosing Cornell's general speech policy.
Its article One says:

        "Because it is a special kind of community, whose purpose is the
         discovery of truth through the practice of free inquiry, the
         University has an essential dependence on a commitment to the values
         of unintimidated speech.  To curb speech on the grounds that an
         invited speaker is noxious, that a cause is evil, or that such ideas
         will offend some listeners, is therefore inconsistent with a
         university's purpose.  One may argue against inviting a speaker on the
         grounds that the speaker   has nothing of importance to say.  But once
         members of the University community extend an invitation, others may
         not disrupt the speech on the grounds that they find it stupid,
         immoral, or dangerous."

- Carl]
===================================================================
Campus Code: Title 5 - Responsible Speech and Expression

                 TITLE FIVE: RESPONSIBLE SPEECH AND EXPRESSION
                     Enacted by the Board of Trustees 1987
                          Recommended by the President
                       Adopted by the University Assembly

   Purpose                                                                3
   Article I.     Public Speaking Events on Campus....................... 4
                  A.  Arrangements........................................4
                  B.  Disruption of Invited Speakers......................7
   Article II.    Symbolic Expression....................................12
                  A.  Protected Expressive Conduct in General............12
                  B.  Symbolic Structures................................13
                  C.  Protest and Dissent Not Involving Structures.......17
                  D.  Protests, Demonstrations, and Sit-Ins in and
                          Around University Buildings....................19
                  E.  Disruption of Recruiters...........................22
   Article III.   Standing Committee on Free Expression................. 23

TITLE FIVE: RESPONSIBLE SPEECH AND EXPRESSION

  Article IV.    Crisis Consultation Group..............................26
   Article V.    Defense... ............................................27
   Article VI.   Miscellaneous..........................................28
   Notes................................................................29

                                    PURPOSE

The principle of freedom with responsibility is central to Cornell University.

Freedom to teach and to learn, to express oneself and to be heard, and freedom
to assemble and lawfully protest peacefully are essential to academic freedom
and the continuing function of the University as an educational institution.
Responsible enjoyment and exercise of these rights means respect for the rights
of all.  Infringement upon the rights of others or interference with the
peaceful and lawful use and enjoyment of University premises, facilities and
programs violates this principle. These time, place and manner restrictions
delineate lawful speech from prohibited forms of expression.

I. PUBLIC SPEAKING EVENTS ON CAMPUS

   A.  Arrangements

      1. Any recognized campus organization is free to invite a speaker to
         address its own membership in a private, closed meeting under ground
         rules set by the inviting organization.

Article I - Public Speaking Events on Campus

         Commentary.  A closed meeting can serve many legitimate purposes,
         including creation of a more informal atmosphere, maximizing the
         opportunity of organization members to ask questions, allowing the
         speaker to talk "off the record," and ensuring a particular kind of
         discussion because of advance preparation of the organization's
         membership.  If a speaker is likely to attract widespread interest
         among nonmembers, however, the group would often be wise to open the
         meeting to nonmembers, including those with views contrary to those of
         the speaker.  Nevertheless, the University will not insist that the
         group do so.

      2. If the group chooses to open the event to the campus public, it should
         seek to arrange adequate space to accommodate the reasonably expected
         audience.

Article I - Public Speaking Events on Campus

         Commentary.  In such a public event the inviting group may also decide
         whether there is to be a question and answer period, and if so, its
         length and general format.  The speaker or moderator should also be
         allowed reasonable discretion in requiring questioners to be concise,
         not to abuse the speaker, and not to monopolize the proceedings or
         otherwise interfere with their purpose.  If a question and answer
         period is held, however, neither the speaker nor the moderator should
         be allowed in recognizing speakers to discriminate on such grounds as
         race, gender, religion, national origin, sexual orientation or
         affectational preference, political persuasion or other
         suspect or invidious categories.  By the same token, at a public
         event, the sponsoring organization should not be allowed to bar
         attendance or give preferred seating on the basis of these same or
         similar suspect or invidious categories.

Article I - Public Speaking Events on Campus

   B.   Disruption of Invited Speakers

      1. Freedom of speech, within commonly accepted limits of civility and
         safety, is a paramount value in a university community.

         Commentary. In a university community, as in society as a whole,
         freedom of speech cannot be absolute.  Speech that is libelous, or
         that incites a crowd to riot, deserves no protection.  Perhaps no one,
         in real life, has ever falsely shouted "Fire!" in a crowded theatre;
         but surely no one has a right to do so.  Within such commonly-accepted
         limits, freedom of speech should be the paramount value in a
         university community.

Article I - Public Speaking Events on Campus

         Because it is a special kind of community, whose purpose is the
         discovery of truth through the practice of free inquiry, the
         University has an essential dependence on a commitment to the values
         of unintimidated speech.  To curb speech on the grounds that an
         invited speaker is noxious, that a cause is evil, or that such ideas
         will offend some listeners, is therefore inconsistent with a
         university's purpose.  One may argue against inviting a speaker on the
         grounds that the speaker   has nothing of importance to say.  But once
         members of the University community extend an invitation, others may
         not disrupt the speech on the grounds that they find it stupid,
         immoral, or dangerous.

Article I - Public Speaking Events on Campus

         Those who dislike what an invited speaker is saying also have rights.
         They include distributing leaflets outside the meeting room, picketing
         peacefully, boycotting the speech, walking out, asking pointed
         questions, and, within limits set by the moderator, expressing
         displeasure with evasive answers.  Those who oppose a speaker may thus
         make their views known, so long as they do not thereby interfere with
         the speaker's ability to be heard or the right of others to listen.

         The American conception of academic freedom includes the principle
         that professors may participate in political demonstrations and speak
         out on controversial issues without jeopardizing their employment.  In
         a campus setting, however, academic freedom carries with it certain
         responsibilities.

Article I - Public Speaking Events on Campus

         Scholars should not only respect the professional demands of their
         discipline and the pedagogical requirements of the teacher-student
         relationship, but they should not encourage efforts to abridge the
         free expression of controversial viewpoints.  As citizens, professors
         may or may not be especially solicitous about freedom of speech; as
         scholars, they are morally bound to defend it.  Professors traduce
         their calling any deliberate action demonstrating contempt for freedom
         of speech.

         Civility is a fragile virtue, but one upon which a university
         ultimately depends.  Name-calling and the shouting of obscenities,
         even when they are not carried so far as to abridge freedom of speech,
         are nevertheless deplorable in a community devoted to rational
         persuasion and articulate controversy.

Article I - Public Speaking Events on Campus

      2. Civil disobedience is not a ground for exonerating one from penalties
         for violating the rules of conduct regarding free expression, nor
         should it be a circumstance mitigating the penalty.

         Commentary.  Although non-violent civil disobedience can be an
         honorable way of expressing moral outrage, in a university community
         where the free flow of ideas is paramount, it is contradictory and
         misguided to employ it to deny that very right of expression to
         another.

II.   SYMBOLIC EXPRESSION

   A. Protected Expressive Conduct in General

      1. The University administration will treat as within the basic
         protection of a right to free expression such lawful (See note 1)
         conduct as satisfies the following tests.The conduct should (i) be
         intended for expressive purposes, (ii) be reasonably understood as
         such by the campus community, and (iii) comply with such reasonable
         time, place and manner restrictions consistent with the other
         provisions of this Title, as may be authorized from time to time by
         the President.

Article II - Symbolic Expression

         Commentary.  Even in regard to conduct that is intentionally
         expressive and perceived as such, the University should impose
         reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on that conduct to
         preserve other important values and interests of the University
         community.

      2. All protection and regulation of symbolic expression should be content
         neutral.  A group's persuasion or point of view should have no bearing
         on the grant of permission or the conditions regulating that group's
         symbolic expression.

   B. Symbolic Structures

Article II - Symbolic Expression

      1. Symbolic structures will be allowed in accordance with an express
         permit issued by the Vice President for Academic Programs and Campus
         Affairs or other presidential designee.  Such structures must be
         temporary and must conform to the conditions contained in the permit.
         In regulating by permit the duration, size, location, and other
         features of symbolic structures, the administration will be guided by
         attention to the following, or similar, kinds of campus community
         interests that such structures could infringe upon:

         a. Protecting health and safety;

         b. Preventing damage or risk of damage to University property;

Article II - Symbolic Expression

         c. Preserving unimpeded mobility on pathways and streets, entrance to
            and departure from buildings, and unimpeded mobility within
            buildings;

         d. Providing for competing uses of campus grounds;

         e. Avoiding interference with other University activities;

         f. Reasonably limiting costs to the University of increased campus
            police protection, potential University liability,insurance
            coverage, and cleanup and repair after an event.

Article II - Symbolic Expression

      2. Limits on the duration, size and location of symbolic structures may
         also be based legitimately upon the desire to preserve campus
         aesthetic values.  In addition to limits on the duration, size, and
         specific location of symbolic structures, other restrictions may also
         be imposed.  For example, depending on experience and context, the
         President may impose any of the following restrictions: requiring
         portability so that structures do not remain overnight; prohibiting
         overnight sleeping in structures; and requiring continued daytime
         physical presence of persons responsible for the expressive activity.

      3. It will be a punishable violation of campus conduct rules for anyone
         to build a structure on the campus without a permit or in violation of
         the conditions of a permit, and to refuse to dismantle it, or
         discontinue the non-conforming feature, upon the direction of an
         authorized University official.

Article II - Symbolic Expression

   C. Protest and Dissent Not Involving Structures

      1. Picketing, marches, rallies, and demonstrations are traditional and
         legitimate forms of self-expression on campus.  The limiting principle
         for such activities is that demonstrators must not disrupt other
         University functions, including, without limitation, regular and
         special curricular activities, extracurricular activities, academic
         processions or events, and employment interviews.  The right to free
         expression here, as in other contexts, requires respect for the rights
         of others.

Article II - Symbolic Expression

         Commentary.  Because outdoor picketing, marches, rallies, and
         demonstrations generally pose no threat of long-lasting exclusive use
         of University grounds or property, there appears to be no need for a
         mandatory permit procedure for all such activities.  In some
         circumstances when a student organization sponsors a public event,
         whether for expression of views or other purposes,the activity may
         fall within the jurisdiction of the Organizations and Activities
         Review Committee (OARC) established by the Student Assembly.  OARC
         uses its approval procedure primarily to avoid scheduling conflicts
         and to arrange for appropriate facilitative services - for example, the
         assistance of campus security personnel.  Reassuringly, an OARC
         guideline states:  "No event may be refused scheduling because of its
         controversial nature." We view these procedures as reasonable even if
         the event has a primarily expressive purpose.

Article II - Symbolic Expression

   D. Protests, Demonstrations, and Sit-Ins in and Around University Buildings.

      1. Within the Scope of these understandings, the President may authorize
         regulations permitting the use of specific portions of University
         buildings for indoor demonstrations provided that such regulations
         shall not permit the occupation or disruption of offices, classrooms,
         libraries, laboratories, or living units and which shall ensure the
         continuing conduct of University business.  No such use shall be
         permitted beyond 5:00 p.m. or the close of normal business hours.

Article II - Symbolic Expression

         Commentary.  Owners of private property, and even the administrators of
         public property, are not required to permit the occupation of
         buildings by those who are not present to transact the business or
         pursue the other purposes which the offices in the building are
         intended to serve.  See the decision of the United States Court of
         Appeals in Sword v. Fox, 446 F.2d 1091 (1971).  The law of trespass
         and the right of free speech are not mutually exclusive and, indeed,
         have always coexisted in our legal system.
Article II - Symbolic Expression

         As pointed out elsewhere in this resolution, University rooms set
         aside for the purpose of gatherings involving speech and expression
         should not be licensed in a manner to deny access to groups sponsoring
         an unpopular point of view.  However, libraries, classrooms,
         laboratories, living units and faculty or administrative offices are
         dedicated to specific purposes which the University must be free to
         pursue without disruption.

      2. Deans, directors or other heads of each college, school or other
         academic unit described at Article I, section 7, of the University
         Bylaws may submit proposals to the President or designee for the
         promulgation of such regulations for the use of University buildings
         assigned to the use of such college, school, or division.  No such
         regulation shall take effect or continue in effect without the
         approval of the President.
Article II - Symbolic Expression

      3. The President or designee may promulgate regulations governing the use
         of Day Hall or any other University building not otherwise governed by
         such regulations.

         Commentary. As a practical matter, protests,demonstrations, or sit-ins
         inside virtually any University building would be disruptive.  The
         working space within Day Hall is very compact.  Almost any assemblage
         of demonstrators inside the building could be disruptive to Day Hall
         staff and to others, especially students, seeking access to a Day Hall
         office for normal business purposes.

   E. Disruption of Recruiters
Article II - Symbolic Expression

      1. As long as a recruiter is on campus in accordance with ordinary
         University processes, a demonstration or protest that intentionally
         disrupts recruitment activity should be and is a violation of campus
         rules of conduct and should not be tolerated.

         Commentary.  The right to express one's views should not extend so far
         as to infringe upon another community member's right to participate in
         a recruitment interview or information session with a recruiter who is
         on campus in accordance with ordinary University processes.
III.  STANDING COMMITTEE ON FREE EXPRESSION

   A. The President is authorized and encouraged to appoint a standing
      committee to study and report to the President on significant policy
      issues concerning the protection of freedom of expression on campus.

      Commentary.  The committee should study any issue presented to it by the
      President.  It should also receive petitions or inquiries from members of
      the campus community but should limit its attention to issues which
      involve important matters of a policy nature and significance.  Thus, the
      committee could study an individual's charge that University officials
      are not adequately enforcing the policy against disrupting public
      speakers or that they are imposing unreasonable constraints upon the
      right to protest or demonstrate peacefully and lawfully on campus.
Article III - Standing Committee on Free Expression

      The committee should not function as a adjudicatory body or receive any
      complaint or continue considering any issue growing out campus incident
      when a disciplinary proceeding growing out of that incident and involving
      the same or similar issues has been filed, until any such disciplinary
      proceeding has been completed.  Any report issued by the committee should
      go to the President and should be available thereafter to the campus
      community.  The report would be advisory only.
IV.   CRISIS CONSULTATION GROUP

      The President may consult with the Executive Committee of the University
      Assembly or appoint an ad hoc committee to advise the President
      concerning appropriate administrative policy in the face of protest and
      dissent.
V.    DEFENSE

      A Defendant may assert as a defense that he or she has complied with the
      time, place and manner restrictions set forth herein or promulgated
      pursuant to the provisions of Section D of Article II.
VI.   MISCELLANEOUS

      The commentary sections shall be interpreted as substantive to the extent
      necessary to implement the regulations.
                                     NOTES

1 That is, not a violation of state or federal law.





--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =[e-mail], [e-mail] =