Free Speech Zones at Clemson?

Until recently, if anyone had suggested that Clemson University was suppressing free speech by confining demonstrations, protests, or outdoor rallies to a couple of small, low-traffic areas where as few students as possible would have to witness them, my response would have been,"You have to be kidding."

It turns out that Clemson has been requiring student organizations to limit their demonstrations to a couple of fairly out-of-the-way"free speech zones." I don't know how long the administration has been at it, but the"free speech zones" have been mentioned in Freshman orientation for at least a couple of years.

The policy was kept remarkably quiet till last Friday, when the Clemson Tiger published a long front-page article on the administration's response to a protest by the Clemson Conservatives on October 30.

The Clemson Gay-Straight Alliance was scheduled to meet in Daniel Hall on the Clemson campus on October 30. The purpose of the meeting was to hold a rally against Amendment 1 to the South Carolina constitution, which if enacted would ban same-sex marriage in South Carolina, ban same-sex" civil unions" in South Carolina, and deny legal recognition to same-sex marriages or civil unions that had taken place in other states.

The Clemson Conservatives, who were in favor of Amendement 1, wished to protest against this particular (indoor) rally. They got permission to hold a rally of their own--in a"free speech zone" nowhere near Daniel Hall. They also got permission to put a literature table up near Daniel Hall (but under the university policy for literature tables, their representatives were not allowed to come out from the behind the table). Several of them decided to move their protest to the area in front of Daniel Hall, where they stood with signs and did some arguing with passers-by. (The Tiger Town Observer, an alternative campus newspaper run by the Clemson Conservatives, says that the demonstration was"peaceful." The only photo I have seen shows three members of the group holding posters and two others standing in front of the building without posters. Two members of the Gay-Straight Alliance told me that in their opinion some of the Clemson Conservatives were too close to the front door of Daniel Hall, but neither claimed that they attempted to block the entrance. The President of the Faculty Senate walked right through the protest on the way to her car, and was not hindered in any way.)

The demonstration was videotaped by a Campus Police officer. The Clemson Conservatives were subsequently given a written censure and told that a repeat offense would result in loss of their status as a student organization. Andrew Davis, the chairman of the group, was told that his academic career would be"in jeopardy" if he was involved in another violation of university policy.

The Clemson Conservatives have gotten the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education involved. In the face of an official letter for FIRE, and publicity in the local media, the administration declared Friday afternoon that the relevant university policies were under review.

Questions and concerns have been raised regarding the Clemson University Sales and Solicitation policy. Therefore, the University has begun the process of reviewing and considering revisions to this policy as well as other related policies. During this period of review, Clemson University affiliated individuals or groups may assemble, protest or demonstrate on campus as long as they do not disrupt the normal or previously scheduled activities of the University or University affiliated entities, violate the free speech, assembly or movement of other individuals or organizations, damage property, or create an unsafe situation for any individual, group or organization.

What is most striking about this case isn't the imposition of"free speech zones" --a number of other institutions have become notorious for that, and Clemson was probably late in climbing on the bandwagon--but the manner in which they were imposed. Obviously, the faculty weren't consulted. I doubt that anyone on the Clemson faculty, except a few professors who serve as advisers to political organizations, knew that such policies existed until the article in the Tiger appeared. I still have no idea when the policies were promulgated. Clemson acquired its"free speech zones" by stealth.

Chances are that its manner of getting rid of them will be more public.

Robert Campbell