Overview: Two students files suit against the Tarrant County College District after being disallowed from holding a protest on campus that involved wearing empty holsters and handing out informational leaflets in class. ------------>
1. Given the unique environment of the university campus, is it reasonable to define some forums as traditionally public, and others as non-public given that symbolic and other speech that may pose a substantial risk to the created environment and thus the institutional interest in that learning does not occur only in classrooms?
2. Do you believe that the administrators at TCC had reasonable cause to believe that safety, security or possibility of disruption could result form the protests and thus were justified in not allowing the protest? To what extent should university officials be relied upon for expertise in making these judgments given the individual cultures and practices of their institutions?
3. Given the current climate of campus safety with regard to symbolic speech, do you believe that the court’s decision about what defines a substantial risk (empty holsters vs. confederate flags) is reasonable? Should actual evidence and incidents be required to define a substantial risk?
4. The Pavela Report sheds light on the notion that the scope of freedom of expression on a public institution’s campus depends on the nature of the defined “forum.” With many campuses beginning to build facilities with multiple purposes, discuss the implications and potential for actionable claims regarding freedom of expression in areas where a university has broadened, either by practice, or policy, its use beyond the definition of a classroom.
1. I do believe that a distinction between public and non-public forums makes sense because there are substantially different expectations for those spaces and parties have very distinctive interests regarding those spaces. Within the classroom, the university, faculty and students have an expectation that the environment is conducive to the learning process. Many things are done to protect that teaching/learning space and it serves a very dedicated purpose. And students in general have a property interest in what happens in that space - they pay for classes and to be taught certain subjects for a specific amount of time (credit hours). Making that space free from distractions is reasonable and prudent. Public forums on public university campuses create a different set of expectations. It is almost anticipated that messages and agendas will be delivered in those spaces. Protests have been a staple of American colleges and universities and reasonably prudent people should expect to see them on campus.
2. I do believe that the University had a vested interest in keeping the passive protest out of the classroom, and that the Court has placed on undue hardship on college officials. I also cannot imagine that the Court would have ruled this case the same way if the students had wanted to wear a KKK hood to class, instead of the empty holsters. I believe that the classroom should be acknowledged as sacred learning space and universities should be given the latitude to restrict any expression that could possibly be disruptive to that process. As an advocate of the First Amendment, that is hard for me to say, but there are so many other public spaces for expression to be freely exercised, that it seems a minimal retriction to keep it out of classrooms.
2. I have to agree with Jen - the university administration certainly has a vested interest in the experience that students have on college campuses. It is my hope that when decisions are being made at all university campuses, they are making them with the students' welfare in mind before anything else. With that being said, I do believe that it is justified for administration to make a call on whether something would be detrimental to the campus community or not. While I understand the importance of free speech and making sure that administration does not impose on the individual freedom of people, the administration has a duty to care for students. If the empty holsters were causing a disturbance and fear among students, then the administration should have a right to say no to this behavior happening on the campus. Additionally, because the holsters are something that is removable, it is something that faculty members have a right to ask the students to not have/put away under academic freedom.
Response to #3: I understand the court’s stance in that “officials must base their decision ‘on fact, not intuition…or mere expectation.” However, I do not think that actual evidence and incidents should be required to define a substantial risk. I believe that factual evidence requires proof of something that has already happened. Is it not the goal of higher education professionals to prevent threatening or dangerous situations from happening if it is foreseeable that something could possibly go wrong or harm could be done? It is my understanding that an institution can, in some circumstances, assume a duty to protect its students (whether they want to or not). With this is mind, I would think that reasonable administrators (by use of common sense) would have reservations with students walking around campus with empty holsters. I’m sure there would be an action plan based on “mere expectation or intuition” to address the worse scenario that could happen- for a student to actually possess a gun in the holster (and use it!). It is understood that the purpose of the empty holster protest is demonstrate non-possession, but an unstable student could easily take advantage of this type of situation.
1. As an addition to Jennifer E.'s comment about the classrooms, I would add that the students in the classroom would be a "captive audience", which is another reason it is considered non-public. Those students have to be there at a certain time for a certain class and are protected from non-course related materials and demonstrations.
Pavela V15#9
ReplyDeleteOverview: Two students files suit against the Tarrant County College District after being disallowed from holding a protest on campus that involved wearing empty holsters and handing out informational leaflets in class.
------------>
1. Given the unique environment of the university campus, is it reasonable to define some forums as traditionally public, and others as non-public given that symbolic and other speech that may pose a substantial risk to the created environment and thus the institutional interest in that learning does not occur only in classrooms?
2. Do you believe that the administrators at TCC had reasonable cause to believe that safety, security or possibility of disruption could result form the protests and thus were justified in not allowing the protest? To what extent should university officials be relied upon for expertise in making these judgments given the individual cultures and practices of their institutions?
3. Given the current climate of campus safety with regard to symbolic speech, do you believe that the court’s decision about what defines a substantial risk (empty holsters vs. confederate flags) is reasonable? Should actual evidence and incidents be required to define a substantial risk?
4. The Pavela Report sheds light on the notion that the scope of freedom of expression on a public institution’s campus depends on the nature of the defined “forum.” With many campuses beginning to build facilities with multiple purposes, discuss the implications and potential for actionable claims regarding freedom of expression in areas where a university has broadened, either by practice, or policy, its use beyond the definition of a classroom.
1. I do believe that a distinction between public and non-public forums makes sense because there are substantially different expectations for those spaces and parties have very distinctive interests regarding those spaces. Within the classroom, the university, faculty and students have an expectation that the environment is conducive to the learning process. Many things are done to protect that teaching/learning space and it serves a very dedicated purpose. And students in general have a property interest in what happens in that space - they pay for classes and to be taught certain subjects for a specific amount of time (credit hours). Making that space free from distractions is reasonable and prudent. Public forums on public university campuses create a different set of expectations. It is almost anticipated that messages and agendas will be delivered in those spaces. Protests have been a staple of American colleges and universities and reasonably prudent people should expect to see them on campus.
ReplyDelete2. I do believe that the University had a vested interest in keeping the passive protest out of the classroom, and that the Court has placed on undue hardship on college officials. I also cannot imagine that the Court would have ruled this case the same way if the students had wanted to wear a KKK hood to class, instead of the empty holsters. I believe that the classroom should be acknowledged as sacred learning space and universities should be given the latitude to restrict any expression that could possibly be disruptive to that process. As an advocate of the First Amendment, that is hard for me to say, but there are so many other public spaces for expression to be freely exercised, that it seems a minimal retriction to keep it out of classrooms.
ReplyDelete2. I have to agree with Jen - the university administration certainly has a vested interest in the experience that students have on college campuses. It is my hope that when decisions are being made at all university campuses, they are making them with the students' welfare in mind before anything else. With that being said, I do believe that it is justified for administration to make a call on whether something would be detrimental to the campus community or not. While I understand the importance of free speech and making sure that administration does not impose on the individual freedom of people, the administration has a duty to care for students. If the empty holsters were causing a disturbance and fear among students, then the administration should have a right to say no to this behavior happening on the campus. Additionally, because the holsters are something that is removable, it is something that faculty members have a right to ask the students to not have/put away under academic freedom.
ReplyDeleteResponse to #3: I understand the court’s stance in that “officials must base their decision ‘on fact, not intuition…or mere expectation.” However, I do not think that actual evidence and incidents should be required to define a substantial risk. I believe that factual evidence requires proof of something that has already happened. Is it not the goal of higher education professionals to prevent threatening or dangerous situations from happening if it is foreseeable that something could possibly go wrong or harm could be done? It is my understanding that an institution can, in some circumstances, assume a duty to protect its students (whether they want to or not). With this is mind, I would think that reasonable administrators (by use of common sense) would have reservations with students walking around campus with empty holsters. I’m sure there would be an action plan based on “mere expectation or intuition” to address the worse scenario that could happen- for a student to actually possess a gun in the holster (and use it!). It is understood that the purpose of the empty holster protest is demonstrate non-possession, but an unstable student could easily take advantage of this type of situation.
ReplyDelete1. As an addition to Jennifer E.'s comment about the classrooms, I would add that the students in the classroom would be a "captive audience", which is another reason it is considered non-public. Those students have to be there at a certain time for a certain class and are protected from non-course related materials and demonstrations.
ReplyDelete