It is important to
understand that
universities may in fact feel
that other issues than freedom of
expression must determine whether
or not they provide the venue
for people to express themselves
politically or artistically.
Rightly or wrongly, there is
also the question of
"appropriateness" of message
or the style and language by which
it is expressed. Courts have
held that certain restrictions on
expression can be made, based
on "time, place, manner"
consideration: thus radio programs
with "dirty words" can be
relegated to late-night hours,
and adult book stores can be
restricted to non-residential
areas. On campuses,
prominent displays of four-letter
words, racially inflammatory
statements, or attempts to pray
for people to convert to a faith
may interfere with what is considered
an atmosphere of study and
respectful discourse. Especially
if other venues than college
campuses are available to people
who want to use these forms of
persuasion, a university may
deny use of its facilities. This is
one reason, and an understandable
if controversial one, why
school officials require that
permission be formally applied for.
Sadly, as the examples below
show, sometimes campus space for
artists and speakers is denied
for other reasons than that of
creating a suitable atmosphere
for study. The real reason is that
the community, the alumni, or
parents, may be offended by the
artwork or the speaker. Restrictions
on "time, place, and manner"
are not supposed to be used
to restrict "content," that is, to
interfere with one's ability
to express ideas.
See the incidents regarding graffiti
and other postings at U of
Oklahoma and Bates College,
the campus radio broadcasts of Heavy
Metal music at Siena College,
the forced resignation of disk
jockeys at the U. of South Carolina,
and exotic dancers at San
Diego State U., below [provide
anchors]