As students at Franklin & Marshall College, we have certain “inalienable rights” given to us through the college’s promise of adhering to the same definition of freedom of speech as the U.S. constitution.
You might wonder what exactly that entails. According to F&M’s statement on freedom of expression,
“…it is not the proper role of the College to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find…even deeply offensive…the College may seek to restrict expression that violates state or federal law or…that constitutes slander, threats, or harassment; or that is directly incompatible with the functioning of the College .”
The most important section of this policy reads:
“The College aspires to the following… Challenging behavior and speech whose demonstrable intent is to demean, harass, or limit the sense of security and belonging of any member of the College community as they participate in the pursuit of knowledge.”
Keeping this in mind, one can note that the use of “challenging” would protect speech that can be interpreted as offensive on an individual basis, suggesting the college only allows counter protest (or partaking in something of a similar nature) but not censoring. The use of the word “challenging” actually promotes more speech that facilitates an environment where people “express their views freely, and can freely take issue with views with which they disagree.”
The college has gone back on this promise. This past weekend, a Protest Tree Policy draft was released to the general public. Upon reading it, it seems that the drafters have no clue of their own policy on free speech. “Postings must adhere to F&M’s Statement of Freedom of Expression and not violate local, state or federal laws.” The second half is standard procedure, the first is vague and leads people to question what that means. How can one “adhere” to the F&M Statement of Freedom of Expression where it is said to challenge “demeaning” speech, not actually prohibit it?
Beyond the folly nature of the language used in this drafted policy, it also states a daily monitoring of the protest tree, of which the Dean of Students has the authority to remove a posting that is “not in compliance with the posting policy and guidelines.” Students have not been indicated to have a public record of who took down their flyer, but the Protest Tree Review Committee will have their own personal record of removed postings as well as complaints.
It is crucial to add that this is not the first time the use of the protest tree has been infringed upon by the committee. As students, where do we draw the line? What is and is not okay for our campus officials to do? Why are the people in charge of the Protest Tree wildly unaware of campus policy and language? What can you do?
Contact Ramona Banos vbanos@fandm.edu if you are passionate about you and your peers’ freedom of speech.
First-year Ramona Banos is a Staff Writer. Her email is vbanos@fandm.edu.