MichiganReview THE
The Journal of Campus Affairs at the University of Michigan www.michiganreview.com
VOLUME XXVI
February 1, 2008
ISSUE 9
Free Speech Pressed
U-M Considers Restricting Student Media Michael O’Brien, Editor-in-Chief Adam Paul, Executive Editor
T
he College of Literature, Science, and the Art’s Facilities and Operations Department is considering adopting regulations that could seriously affect the ability of student publications to distribute their products on campus, according to various interviews and documents obtained by The Michigan Review. (A copy of the draft policy can be found by clicking here.) According to preliminary drafts of the proposed policies, distribution of publications would be limited to those governed by the Board of Student Publications (which includes The Michigan Daily and humor magazine The Gargoyle) and student organizations approved by the Michigan Student Assembly. The policy also forbids distribution of materials between April 14 and September 15. The Michigan Daily currently distributes a weekly summer issue on campus. Robert Johnston, the Director of Facilities and Operations for LSA, said that this policy has been under consideration for the last two years, and is intended to minimize the amount of clutter and litter associated with publications being scattered around LSA buildings. The policy additionally seeks to limit access to outside publications, specifically commercial publications distributed in University facilities. “We want to provide a place that publications can be distributed from, and still allow them to attain access,” said Johnston, adding that LSA is considering constructing what he called “nodes,” similar to the cubbies in the Michigan Union, for publications. According to the draft policy, to gain access to these nodes, publications would have to apply on a “first-come, first-serve” basis. To accommodate all publications, though, the policy says, “LSA reserves the right to limit the number of times per academic term and/or per year in which a recognized student organization will be granted permission to distribute publications in LSA facilities.”
“What we need to do is determine which publications are distributed in which buildings,” said Johnston, “because we can’t accommodate everyone everywhere.” The latest draft was presented to the Board of Student Publications Monday, raising the concern of some in attendance. Samuel Offen, the Student Publications General Manager, said he had concerns about the policy when it was first introduced. “I just don’t like that they can decide who gets to distribute and who doesn’t get to distribute,” said Offen. “Even though I understand their need regards safety or security or financial-having to pay for additional custodial work-anytime anyone determines who gets to distribute publications, I think that’s a concern.” Maya Kobersy, the Assistant General Counsel for the University, said the regulations are permissible as “time,
intent to change the policy,” said Kobersy, when asked if the University will back off of this policy which could be challenged on legal grounds. There could be other significant constitutional issues associated with the proposed guidelines, Adam Goldstein, an Attorney Advocate with the Student Media Law Center said. “On rational basis, the amount of approvals [for distribution] given is not at all related to how many issues are handed out,” said Goldstein. “It doesn’t even address the problem. It does not approach the level of First Amendment compliance required of any state in the country.” Though there are a few schemes where pre-approval can limit free speech, Goldstein said that this is not one of those cases for the University. The process regarding violations to this policy gives power to the LSA Facilities as well as the Michigan Student
“The University seeks here to institute a far more labyrinth process for distribution than FIRE normally sees, particularly at public universities... Restricting student speech by excessively tight control of distribution of printed material is a dangerous step for a public university to take.” -Will Creeley, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) place, and manner” restrictions under the First Amendment. Kobersy, who helped develop the distribution policy, said the University is “concern[ed] about the disruption to the educational nature and character” of its facilities posed by extraneous materials in LSA buildings. LSA buildings, she asserted, are not “public” venues under the Constitution, and the entire facility-- even the hallways and commons areas accessible after-hours-- are encompassed by that policy. She concluded that the regulations pass muster. “We are limiting things only in terms of there being so many racks,” said Kobersy. “That addresses the clutter issue.” “I don’t have any knowledge of an
Assembly (MSA) to assess violations. The policy states that organizations in violation “may be denied future opportunities to distribute or display publications in LSA facilities, or may be subject to other disciplinary action.” Central Student Judiciary Chief Justice Alex Edelson said that he has not been informed of the policy. “We have not been made aware but that’s not something that is offensive. It may be standard operating procedure,” said Edelson. Edelson said that CSJ has been given new powers by the administration during his tenure. “ CSJ has evolved a lot over the last few years. It has just developed its source of power. There are moredetails we are still trying to work out regarding where CSJ
fits into dispute resolution on campus,” said Edelson. Edelson said CSJ’s purpose is to review violations to the MSA Constitution and to the Student Code of Conduct. University officials can choose to enlarge CSJ’s power. While Edelson did not comment directly upon the proposed policy, he said that CSJ involvement in similar issues only arises when a compliant is brought before CSJ. “If you wanted to challenge the policy, that might require that you go to someone higher up in the administration,” said Edelson. While CSJ had not been informed about the development of the policy, Jennifer Garfinkle, the business manager for The Gargoyle Humor Magazine, said her organization had been made aware of the policy. Garfinkle said that Cynthia Alexander, an LSA Facilities Manager, informed her of the policy proposal when she requested information about placing new stands on campus. Garfinkle expressed concerns about the policy’s impact on publicity. “One of the main problems we have is recognition on campus, having a limited amount of time to have our publications in racks will severely limit the exposure that we do have on campus,” said Garfinkle. While Garfinkle said the policy would negatively impact The Gargoyle, she could not see how The Michigan Daily could follow the policy. “Basically, just from the two week limitation at the start and the end of the semester, The Daily prints on the first day of the semester and on the day the semester ends and so it does not make sense for them” said Garfinkle. Garfinkle, who was not aware of an updated proposal that enlarged the role of the Board of Student Publications, also criticized the role of MSA. “My only real concern with MSA is if they had to approve materials that get put into racks,” said Garfinkle. She also said that The Gargoyle has scheduled meetings through Offen to provide input on this policy. According to incoming Michigan Daily Editor in Chief Andrew Grossman, the Michigan Daily also has plans to meet with university administrators. “We’re going to sit
www.michiganreview.com
2 >>
P. 2
THE MICHIGAN REVIEW www.michiganreview.com
Editorial Board:
Michael O’Brien Editor-in-Chief Adam Paul Executive Editor Brian Biglin Managing Editor Rebecca Christy Senior Editor Lindsey Dodge Jonny Slemrod Assistant Editors Business Staff: Karen Boore Publisher Danny Harris Anna Malecke Associate Publishers Nick Cheolas Editor Emeritus Staff Writers: Steven Bengal, Cherri Buijk, Jane Coaston, Marie Cour, Alexa Dent, Blake Emerson, Samm Etters, Austyn Foster, Erika Gonzalez, Josh Handell, Kris Hermanson, Alyse Hudson, Christine Hwang, Erika Lee, Eun Lee, Julianne Nowicki, Adam Pascarella, Danielle Putnam, Shanda Shooter, Andrea Sofian, Nathan Stano, Christina Zajicek, Zack Zucker
Letters and Viewpoints: The Michigan Review accepts and encourages letters to the editor and viewpoints. Letters to the editor should be under 300 words. Viewpoints can be arranged by contacting the editorial board. We reserve the right to edit for clarity and length. Send all correspondence to mrev@umich.edu.
About Us: The Michigan Review provides a broad range of in-depth coverage of campus affairs and serves as the literary voice of conservatism and libertarianism at the University of Michigan. The Review is published bi-weekly September thru April.
Donate/Subscribe: The Michigan Review accepts no financial support from the University. Therefore, your support is critical and greatly appreciated. Donations above $40 are eligible for a 1-year (12 issues) subscription. Donations can be made on our website at www.michiganreview.com, or mailed to:
911 N. University, Suite One Ann Arbor, MI 48109 The Michigan Review is the independent, student-run journal of conservative and libertarian opinion at the University of Michigan. We neither solicit nor accept monetary donations from the University. Contributions to The Michigan Review are tax-deductible under section 501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Service Code. The Michigan Review is not affiliated with any political party or any university political group. Unsigned editorials represent the opinion of the editorial board. Ergo, they are unequivocally correct and just. Signed articles, letters, and cartoons represent the opinions of the author, and not necessarily those of The Review. The Serpent’s Tooth shall represent the opinion of individual, anonymous contributors to The Review, and should not necessarily be taken as representative of The Review’s editorial stance. The opinions expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of the advertisers or the University of Michigan. Copyright © 2007, The Michigan Review, Inc. All rights reserved. The Michigan Review is a member of the Collegiate Network.
editorial.
2.01.08
the michigan review
T
The Michigan Review
The Review welcomes letters to the editor. Send letters to:
he Michigan Review is the independent, student-run journal of conservative and libertarian opinion at the University of Michigan. Unsigned editorials represent the opinion of the Editorial Board. Ergo, they are unequivThe Review reserves the right to edit ocally correct and just. Signed articles, letters, and cartoons represent the opin- letters to the editor for length and clarity. ions of the author, and not necessarily those of the Review.
mrev@umich.edu
Proposed New Distro System an Assault on Constitution T
he revelation today that the University has been drafting a policy that could potentially curtail the free speech rights of student publications is truly shocking, both to members of the student press, and to the student body as a whole. LSA’s Facilities and Operations department has developed a policy nothing short of a full-frontal assault on the First Amendment rights of student publications at the University of Michigan. As an editorial page, we do not often find ourselves in agreement with the Michigan Daily, Michigan Independent, or, for that matter, many other published opinions on this campus. However, given the severity of the situation, we feel as though we can vouchsafe that the diverse variety of student publications on campus find these new policies repugnant. The University’s position on this issue is not only a matter of bad policy. As an institution, it relies on horribly flawed reasons to buck up its policy. The University posits the need to constrain the litter caused by discarded and scattered student publications. We don’t quarrel with the University that there is a significant problem in the distributive process. The University can build its proposed cubbies or “nodes” for publications. This might even help. However, the danger comes when the University tosses to the side the stats quo—where student organizations can own and operate their own stands, distributing issues when they please. In its stead would be a system that imposes dangerous restrictions on students’ free speech rights. Far from promoting a “marketplace of ideas,” that moniker of free speech philosophy, it would put in place a “cap and trade” system of sorts in its stead, to borrow from economics. By limiting the frequency with which student publications can publish, and by forcing them to simultaneously compete for a finite number of spaces on any University-built newsstand, the marketplace all of a sudden becomes too much of a zero-sum game. There should be no limits as to how many different published ideas can be spread around campus, especially for the sake of cleanliness. The policies would create a chilling effect for existing speech as well as new student speech that seeks to enter the arena of ideas. The barrier to entry for new publications raises serious concerns. That the University is to put this policy in place is revelatory. Furthermore, the methods taken to achieve the University’s stated goals—reducing litter, clutter, and the distribution of commercial materials—are barely
“Speech,” From Page 1 down with someone from LSA and talk about the policy, but I think it’s wrong to restrict publications,” Grossman said. He continued that the Michigan Daily has always been an advocate of First Amendment rights. “The First Amendment supports our right to distribute our publication, and we fully support the right of another publication to distribute theirs,” said Grossman. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) issued a statement Thursday blasting the proposal. “Restricting student speech by excessively tight control on distribution of printed material is a dangerous step for a public university to take,” said Will Creeley. Creeley, an Associate Director for Legal and Public Advocacy at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, held that while the policy under consider-
related to these goals. Limiting the number of times a publication may distribute its issues during a semester does not have any direct effect on litter or clutter; the proposed policy would incentivize each publication to produce greater volumes when they are allowed to distribute. The University has managed to draft a policy that will not achieve its goals and even includes provisions that have no relation to those goals. The policy proposes to prohibit distribution of publications until September 15th. Unless, administrators assume that incoming freshman indulge in a short-lived desire to scatter paper, disrupting publications for the first several weeks, during an essential recruiting window for all student groups, makes no sense. This choice suggests that the draft was created looking to improve the lives of administrators and maintenance staffers, not students. It appears that the university will start treating newspapers—valuable products that students put hours of effort into creating—like the leaflets and posters that get taped to windows and walls around campus only to be ripped off by a member of staff. We’re not sure how these can be looked at in the same way, and how the “messes” that are created are the fault of the student organizations that print the newspapers. We are, quite frankly, not sure where the demand for this unilateral, unorthodox move by the Facilities and Operations department has come from. As far as we know, the students and professors on which this university is built for and around, have not voiced any concerns about the level of litter in their facilities. As far as we are concerned, the university is making messes in the form of obtrusive construction around campus, lest we forget about the dumpster that sat outside the north entrance of Mason all during the summer and fall. The Review sincerely hopes that students recognize that this proposal impacts not just those who live in campus’ newsrooms but will detrimentally impact the entire student body. Student publications remain vital to students’ understanding of the campus they occupy. Any attempt to diminish the independence of student publications should be seen with the finest scrutiny. The current proposition, with its granting of powers to access violations to MSA and its limitations on the number of publications, should be looked through with even more scrutiny than most. In college, students expect a free flow of ideas. The administration must not get in the way of a good thing, and permit student publications the free and unfettered access to campus that everyone expects. MR
ation by the University may pass constitutional muster, it seems “strikingly harsh.” In e-mail correspondence, Creeley took issue with the need for publications to apply, the regulation of display stands, the limitations on the number of distributions per term, and the possibility of internal judicial sanction. Creeley said that, while attempts by universities to regulate the distribution of student-produced print materials are not new, U-Ms proposal goes to greater lengths than most. “Indeed, the University seeks here to institute a far more labyrinth process for distribution than FIRE normally sees, particularly at public universities,” said Creely. Goldstein echoed Creely’s sentiment. “This is either insincere or a monumentally ineffective way to do this,” said Goldstein. “Generally speaking, employees of the state are more sophisticated than this.” MR