On Oct. 7, The State Press published a statement calling Undergrad-uate Student Government's denunciation of the Residential Life sign policy "one of the gutsiest moves in years." They weren't kidding. Targeting the policy of a specific ASU department is not an action we take lightly. Even more important, however, is the nature of the issue we're dealing with.
Surely everyone remembers that thing called the First Amendment. Back in seventh grade social studies classes we learned it protected our right to free speech. Well, now that we're all grown up it seems this fundamental rule of American democracy isn't as cut and dry as we all thought it was.
Here's a fun question that we've been chewing on in the senate: is the sign policy really a violation of the First Amendment or just an unfair policy? Let us know if you think you have the right answer because we've been arguing over this puzzler for weeks.
On one hand, residents signed a contract at the beginning of the year agreeing to abide by Residential Life's policies. They were not forced to do this, of course, but there is still the question whether this was a reasonable request on ASU's part -- giving up the right of expression. The Supreme Court didn't stomach that in Tinker v. Des Moines.
Regardless of First Amendment implications, there is little doubt in our minds that the policy itself is inadequate, leaky and irresponsible. If ASU is concerned about liability, perhaps they should follow NAU's lead and have students sign a contract stating that they are personally responsible for what they put in windows. If ASU is worried about racial slurs, bring in the Campus Environment Team and attack the issue at its source. Eliminating signs is an over simplistic blanket policy and a quick fix.
But who cares what USG thinks? We don't have the power to veto Michael Crow's decisions or impeach a troublesome bureaucrat. Then again, neither can the powerful interest groups at work in Washington D.C. One could even say that we have a leg up on those D.C. "big kids" because we don't have to play partisan politics. We are here to serve you. After all, it was the gutsy stand of ASU students Laura Thorson and Hayley Ivins that caused us to leap into action in the first place.
Over a month ago three USG senators began seeking an audience with a representative from Residential Life to talk about the problem. Believe it or not, they still haven't granted us that meeting, but the department now seems to be budging a bit on the policy. Would it surprise you to learn that many resident assistants are now being instructed to ignore flags and campaign signs in windows? (Shhh, you're not supposed to know that!)
Perhaps we're too idealistic to think that Residential Life will keep its next regular appointment to speak with USG representatives. (That date is currently Oct. 16, by the way, though it tends to change quite frequently).
Still, the last thing we want to do is make people think we're out to get the administration.
ASU is full of good people who want to do what is best for the students, and we recognize this. Still, it is time to make this issue a priority. It is sadly ironic that ASU will host a presidential debate tomorrow while simultaneously censoring its students. There is no question that something has to change.
Over the past month this issue has grown from a small group of strong-willed students in the Hayden East Resident Hall to a full-fledged movement. All people on campus, whether they are aware of it or not, have an important role to play. Professors, administrators, undergraduates and graduates alike must recognize that free speech is not about hearing things you already agree with. Free speech is an understanding that we all have a right to state our opinions, regardless of opposing views.
USG is doing its part. Now we are asking for your support. Please e-mail Residential Life and exercise your right. Go to http://www.asu.edu/reslife/
Jonathan Confer is a Senator of the USG for the Barrett Honors College. Reach him at jonathan.confer@asu.edu.
