RU Speechless?

Freedom of speech and press are fundamental rights guaranteed under the Virginia Constitution, the First Amendment of the US Bill of Rights and Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

But freedom of speech is often not recognized in the one place where it ought to be respected the most:  A college campus in the USA.

Today many universities simply refuse to recognize First Amendment rights until they are forced to do so by a court. At Radford University, where this blog formed the  report of a class requested by then-provost Sam Minner, avenues for student expression are strictly limited in ways that are clearly unconstitutional.

Ongoing issues at Radford University:

• Bulletin boards: Until 2014, flyers and announcements had to be formally approved and stamped by a university office to be distributed or posted on bulletin boards. When that policy was changed in 2014, the RU administration began taking down bulletin boards around the campus. Well over one hundred bulletin boards were replaced with tele-screens that are strictly controlled. Posting on walls or other surfaces is prohibited according to the student handbook, and student-initiated protests or informative posters are quickly taken down.
• Leafleting – that is, passing out flyers in public spaces – is theoretically OK, but student center employees often tell students it is prohibited.
• Greek signs:  Students must obtain  prior approval for signs and flags on their own homes off-campus.  Fraternity or sorority signs are prohibited except with university permission under a city ordinance which was written at the request of university officials in 2007. According to the ACLU, the ordinance “could be used as a primer on how to violate constitutional rights.” Not only does it infringe on free speech, it discriminates against a particular group of individuals and it “gives city and the college officials total authority to arbitrarily decide” who can put up signs.  For more information see a detailed discussion on this site. 
• Speech zones:  Students were once forced to confine their protests and other speech activities to tiny areas of a campus where students are supposed to sit passively at tables. “Leafleting” and initiating direct communication with passing students was prohibited. This policy changed in 2014 following the enactment of HB2567, Higher Education Institutions, Free Exercise of Religion on Campus, which designated all areas on a campus  as a limited purpose public forum. RU  changed the policy once again in 2019 to exclude speakers who had not been invited by student groups.
• Individual communications:  Forms of direct individual communication such as cafeteria “table tents”  and chalk messages on sidewalks are forbidden without written prior permission and an examination of the content of the message by state government officials.  Unapproved chalk messages are swiftly covered over and then power-washed on an emergency basis.
• Internet and Web: Virtually all campus communications through electronic media originate with the university administration.  Faculty-to-student communication through group emails, for example,  in order to advertise new classes,  is not allowed.  Student-to-student communication on university issues is also not allowed. The official university web system is so tightly controlled that  that it is impossible to share professional issues, meeting information  or job opportunities with students.
• Student media: Although not usually censored directly, student media has been under heavy pressure.  Theft of student newspapers in Oct. 2019 is one  example. University officials released domain name registrations in May of 2021, and web access to online student media is badly damaged.

It’s very difficult to break a spiral of silence from inside a spiral of silence. University administrators and city officials have categorically refused student press  interviews, invitations to classrooms and participation in panel discussions.  Some have pretended to be angry at the mere mention of constitutional issues; others have rejected these questions as having “been settled” or being “not an issue.” This speaks to the arrogance that is deliberately fueling the spiral of silence.

All attempts to reform the speech zones  by the Student Government Association, the Council of Deans, the Faculty Senate, and constitutional scholars on the faculty (along with the entire School of Communication)  were resisted by the university administration until 2014, when the state law was changed. Similar refusals to discuss issues, and to  depict faculty who raise constitutional issues as “troublemakers,” have continued to the present.

Essentially, the RU administration has attempted to define a university in ways that are contrary to centuries of tradition and American constitutional law.

In private, we have heard concerns about “order” and “law enforcement.” RU administrators admit that there are no current problems with law enforcement, but rather, that they might be potential problems, and strict regulations are needed in case they need to “head off” a problem.

The kind of problem that might need to be “headed off” is typically presented as a Ku Klux Klan march.  Ironically, the 1987 Ku Klux Klan march in Radford has been used  by international free speech experts as an example of the American approach to hate speech, which is to meet bad speech with good speech, and to support John Stuart Mills’ fourth proposition about freedom of expression — that even ideas that are completely wrong should be allowed,  if only to enhance the contrast with truth.

In conclusion, it is embarrassing that a public university in the United States can still pretend that the First Amendment stops at the city line.

— Professor Bill Kovarik, PhD; updated Jan. 2020 and Aug. 2021.