The Jan. 27 issue of The Flat Hat reported that as of Dec. 1, 2008, the College of William and Mary has been officially designated a “red light school” by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. William Creeley, director of legal and public advocacy for the organization, defines a red light school as a university with at least one policy that explicitly restricts freedom of speech. The College’s offense? Requiring that posters and signs meet “acceptable community standards.” Creeley condemns this clause as promoting self-censorship. According to FIRE, students subsequently choose not to speak, thus creating a “chilling effect” that restricts First Amendment rights.
Call me hopelessly elitist, but I feel certain that students of the College can adequately define acceptable community standards. By no means do I support censorship, but I do value an open and inclusive academic environment. Do students at the College have the right to be bigoted, racist, homophobic or just plain obnoxious? Of course, but I don’t want to read about it on the way to class. In addition, the Student Handbook clearly outlines the right to distribute materials outside of College facilities, if being polite proves too difficult.
Besides simply coming across as petty, FIRE’s rating loses credibility when compared to the plight of universities overall. Two-thirds of the schools’ reviews were designated red-light schools, and 98 percent were deemed red- or yellow-light institutions. In response to this information, College President Taylor Reveley finally revealed a long-dormant sense of humor, deeming the College “in good company” with its co-offenders — at the top of the list are Princeton University, Cornell University, Brown University, Harvard University and the University of Virginia.
In fact, FIRE seems more like a vehicle for unnecessarily dragging out social biases and prejudices than a constructive organization. Several of its past cases are questionable at best. For example, in 2000 FIRE rose to the defense of Tufts University’s Christian Fellowship, which refused to promote a homosexual individual to a leadership role, as the organization believed her sexual orientation violated the teachings of the Bible. To be honest, that just pissed me off. In my opinion, while the organization would be within its rights to espouse Bible teachings against homosexuality, open discrimination, in violation of university policy, would be rightly subject to judicial action.
In another, more recent instance, FIRE defended the Yale University chapter of Zeta Psi fraternity after it published a photo with brothers holding a sign that read “We love Yale sluts” in front of the university’s Women’s Center; the Women’s Center threatened to press charges against the group. FIRE responded with an ignorant editorial, complaining that “elementary schools might legitimately punish their young charges when they ‘use bad words’ on school grounds, but liberal universities should not.” Apparently sexual harassment and downright stupidity should feel right at home in one of the world’s most prestigious schools.
Of course, students at the College can identify incidents of the past few years in which the First Amendment probably was violated or at least severely warped. However, we’ve learned that bitching about the Sex Workers’ Art Show or Gene Nichol did not change any decision and that the College, as a public school desperately in need of funding, cannot operate as an isolated entity.
I think Reveley would be right to disregard FIRE’s designation and to continue evaluating the College’s free speech policies without the unwelcome input of a self-righteous organization. Yes, there may be room for improvement, but I don’t think it lies in one sentence (I checked) about posters. Drop that one in the recycling and move on.
Alexa McClanahan is a sophomore at the College.
