Expression on Campus: An Argument Against AD51
Society advances when individuals speak out against injustices, controversial subjects, and disagreeable acts. Progress in equality, rights, and freedoms have come through the boom in communication and expression. Associate Professor of Political Science Robert O’Connor, stated that “the goal of any protest is to create change and awareness” and that “issues are now more complicated [than ever]” (Weininger 2000). Individual’s rights to express themselves is fundamental to civil discourse and debate. Campus speech has come to the forefront of public debate due to controversial disinvitations of speakers on campuses. Recently, President Barron disinvited Richard Spencer, a self-described white-nationalist, denouncing his message and citing security concerns. After reading his letter, I began researching Penn State’s history with protest and expression. In my research, I found that in 1999, Penn State introduced legislation called AD 51 “Use of Outdoor Areas for Expressive Activities.” This policy was created to provision campus grounds to those who use the areas to engage in expressive activities. Penn State has made changes as necessary (and through suit) to clarify, extend, and restrict aspects of AD 51. My aim with this counterargument is to educate and argue against aspects of AD 51 that have limited free speech rights at Penn State. I firmly believe that Penn State should not enforce AD 51 as long as it only applies to students, faculty, and staff at Penn State. AD 51 restricts the rights to speech, expression, and demonstration for those groups involved with the University.
Arguably the most well-known campus activist is Gary Cattel, or the Willard Preacher. I spoke to Mr. Cattel, learning more about his relationship with the university and spoke about AD 51. Cattel has established his tenure at the bottom of the stairs of Willard facing Pattee Mall. Cattel stands and preaches, engaging in controversial rants about promiscuity and the sins of students. After AD 51, Cattel was moved from the stairs at Willard, as it wasn’t defined as an area for expressive activity. Speaking with the Collegian, Cattel stated that “They want to move [him]…from a place where people congregate to where they don’t,” and that “If unpopular speech is not protected, there is no freedom of speech” (Rodriguez 1999). Months later, Cattel’s right to speak beneath the stairs of Willard was reinstated through amendments made to AD 51 (AD51 1999). Mr. Cattel had worked with Penn State about AD 51 before its introduction, and cited his concerns about ‘free speech zones’ in AD 51. It is important that we defend his right to speak, if only to defend our collective freedoms to expression.
Penn States AD 51 defines the ‘Requirements of Use’ establishes ten directives to govern the use of select campus spaces. Requirements such as preventing any impedance of pedestrian or vehicular traffic, safety hazards, or property damage, etc., are equitable and reasonable given the mission of the University. But these regulations only apply to students, staff, and faculty, leaving outside groups in an enforcement grey area. Penn State avoids public outcry by leaving outside groups alone to avoid being seen as an institution that limits free speech. It is, however, publicly acceptable for universities to regulate student and faculty speech. This is why we often see outside groups with massive posters, free standing signs not allowed by AD 51.
Another significant issue in AD 51 is the restriction of locations for expressive activity. Currently, there are 12 specific locations deemed “suitable for expressive activity” by the University. As of August 8, 2008, popular areas for expressive activity on campus include, “Old Main front patio, Allen Street Gate Plaza, Willard Building patio area, Palmer Art Museum Plaza, Pattee Library Mall entrance plaza, HUB-Robeson – Lawn” (AD 51 2008). Josh Clary, a Junior majoring in Journalism, was quoted as saying “if the University can tell a person where they can speak, what stops them from telling anybody they can’t speak about anything?” (Rodriguez 1999). In 2006, Penn State student A.J. Fluehr, represented by the Alliance Defense Fund, introduced a lawsuit against AD 51 changing it in a fundamental way. The lawsuit alleged that AD 51 “violated students’ constitutional rights” (Pfister 2006). Penn State and Fluehr settled, solidifying revisions to AD 51. The settlement included the removal of the line, “Other areas on University property are reserved solely for their intended purposes” (AD51 2006). This small change effectively made the entire campus a free speech zone. The university should clearly state this change instead of making it a technicality. Roberts v Haragan, stated that, “to the extent [that a] campus has park areas, sidewalks, streets, or other similar common areas, these areas are public forums, at least for the University’s students, irrespective of whether the University has so designated them or not” (Roberts v Haragan 2004). The reservation of locations before engaging in expressive activities is an unnecessary act. Penn State must make it clearer that all areas are free speech zones, not just the ones defined in AD 51.
Requiring the reservation of locations inhibits groups from the presentation of their message. Locations are available for reservation from 8am-5pm, but demonstrations outside of those hours have be requested and “decided on a case by case basis” (AD51). This grants the University the power to decide on what should or shouldn’t be presented outside of the limited hours. Under AD 51, organizations cannot reserve locations for expressive activity for days at a time. This limits many student organizations in their ability to present their message. Outside groups are not obligated to complete reservations and can occupy spaces for days at a time. Damon Sims stated that Penn State students should expect to ‘jump through a few hoops’ to engage in expressive activities on campus. The University requires that groups request reservations at least 48 hours in advance. This requires groups to answer questions about the purpose, time and size of the activity. These inquiries act as a suppressant, forcing individuals and groups to explain their right to free expression. According to Associate Professor Rosa Eberly, “student groups are denied use of space even after going through the hassle of getting permits” (Giallorenzo 2012). Additionally, this forces groups to ‘hold in’ their speech until their reservation is granted. The Vice President of Student Affairs, Damon Sims, stated “I don’t know of a whole lot of good speech is spontaneous” (Giallorenzo 2012). Recently, crowds came out to airports and lawyers offered free legal services for refugees across the country. Grassroots movements took hold overnight to support those affected by January’s travel ban. The fact that the Vice President of Student Affairs would discount the validity of any speech due to its timing is unconscionable.
I’d like to further stress one point, which permeates all my grievances with AD 51. The inequity in enforcement between outside groups vs university groups is severely detrimental. Penn State has left these outside groups in an administrative grey zone. Outside groups often flout the rules set forth by AD 51, by making large banners, setting up tables and stands in front of buildings like the HUB. These groups avoid the process student groups go through to present their message. According to the Vice President of Student Affairs, students, because they’re enrolled in the University, are given certain privileges and understand that they must follow the regulations set forth by AD 51 while engaging in expressive activities (Giallorenzo, 2012).
In April 26, 1999, the University established “The Use of Outdoors Areas for Expressive Activity” also known as AD 51. Though flawed, I believe that the policy was not created with malice towards the rights of students, staff, and faculty. The policy was created in order to protect regular University activity and operations. Moving forward, Penn State can follow one of two paths in its regulation of expression on campus. The University can either expand the administrative controls put in place by AD 51, risk mass litigation and public outcry in the name of maintaining order, or it can ease the policy dictates that have so damaged expression from the University community. I believe that the policy has not caused irreversible damage, and that AD 51 can be revised to reaffirm public trust in Penn State’s belief in the fundamental freedoms of speech, protest, expression, and petition.