What's a University to Do when Its Students Reveal to the World That They Are Immature?

The choice of Halloween costumes amongst college students has, within my memory, often been guided by the shock value. In the past, when a costume went too far, the offended people were limited to the those in attendance at the party where it was worn. The intertoobz has changed that. Now local outrage has become global.

Penn State students first learned about the power of the intertoobz back in 2003.

Pictures posted on the personal Web site of College Republicans chair Brian Battaglia spurred a strong response from student groups and university officials yesterday, with some calling for his resignation.

The photographs, taken at a private Halloween party at Battaglia's apartment, show multiple students in what Battaglia called "controversial or politically charged costumes," which included portrayals of Undergraduate Student Government (USG) Vice President Takkeem Morgan, an "oversodomized frat pledge," "sorostitutes," a "liberal hippie" and a member of the Ku Klux Klan.

A picture of a white man with a black-painted face and a bicycle chain hanging over his shoulder was accompanied by a caption that stated, "Apparently Takkeem was released long enough to come to our party. We thank the local police department."

The caption referred to a July incident in which Morgan admitted to taking a bicycle that did not belong to him. Morgan pleaded guilty to a summary offense of criminal mischief on Nov. 20.

The man in the photograph was former Town Sen. Jason Covener, who said he is a part-time student.

Some of the pictures from that party are posted at YAF Watch.

Of course, Penn State isn't the only school to learn about what the intertoobz can do, nor is it only students that end up in hot water over posted halloween pics. Last year, Penn was in the spotlight. (More Pics here.)

A student says it was just a joke, but his Halloween costume has resulted in serious criticism for University President Amy Gutmann.

Engineering senior Saad Saadi dressed as a suicide bomber for Gutmann's annual Halloween party Tuesday night, and photos were taken of him with Gutmann and other school officials.

Now, the pictures are popping up on the Web and alumni and others around the country are contacting the University to voice their distaste.

Well, it takes some time to climb the learning curve and Penn State students are still not at the top of the slope. We've just learned that once again in the intertoobz and halloween costumes just don't mix.

Update here - not all "victims" are Penn Staters.

Remember last year at the Blue and White game when we spelled out VT in honor of the shooting victims at Virginia Tech? Or all the Virginia Tech t-shirts everyone was wearing? Or the Penn State shirts in maroon and orange? Or the $110,000 Family Clothesline donated from the sale of those shirts? Well it all was just ruined, cause some people dressed like a "Virginia Tech Shooting Victims" on Halloween. People, if it's on Facebook, someone will find it.

We first came across an article on WSLS' website, the NBC station in Roanoke Virginia, which says that they found pictures of two Penn State students who dressed up like Virginia Tech shooting victims for Halloween and posted the pictures on Facebook. It's surprising The Collegian staff missed this when they wrote the piece on the "gay KKK member," "Aunt Jemima" and "pregnant black girls" that people dressed up like this Halloween (wtf is wrong with us here?)

None of these costume wearers have broken the law and all of them are protected from official sanctions by the First Amendment. How then should a university respond when their students show to the world that they are not quite yet mature? And what should a university not do in response to the world being shocked by that immaturity? Today Old Main gives us the answer to both of these questions. Here , via the CDT, is what a university should do.

“We’re appalled that these individuals would display this level of insensitivity and lack of common decency by dressing up in this manner,” Penn State wrote in a public statement sent to Virginia Tech. “The fact that one of the individuals is actually from Virginia makes it even more difficult to understand.”

[...]

Powers said the students would face no discipline from the university. Punishment would violate their free-speech rights, she said.

That's the way to go. A make a strong statement of disapproval and then go on to explain the concept of First Amendment protection. That should be the extent of the response. Of course, Old Main didn't stop there.

But at least one of the students met with the university Office of Judicial Affairs, Powers said. “That was more for a teachable moment than anything. ... We’re hoping that the teachable moment made an impression.”

"Teachable moment" is a euphemism for intimidation. Intimidation can be just as effective in abridging a student's right to free speech as an actual punishment. In fact, it can be even more effective if the student is left with the impression that Old Main is out to get them.

Yes, I find the costumes in bad taste, but I find the thuggish response of Old Main to those costumes to be a much bigger problem.


Technorati Tags: Penn State, Virginia Tech, Halloween, First Amendment

Powered by ScribeFire.

The Price of Self Expression in Georgia

The following is from AP via CBS.

A woman who was ticketed for having an obscene anti-President George W. Bush bumper sticker filed a lawsuit in federal court Monday against a county in the state of Georgia and its officials.

Denise Grier, 47, of Athens, Georgia, got a $100 ticket in March after a police officer in DeKalb County, which is in the suburbs of Atlanta, spotted the bumper sticker, which read "I'm Tired Of All The BUSH--."

Although a DeKalb judge threw out the ticket in April because the state's lewd bumper sticker law that formed the basis for the ticket was ruled unconstitutional in 1990, Grier is seeking damages for "emotional distress" against the county, according to the lawsuit.

How the hell does a cop not know that a law was declared unconstitutional sixteen years ago? Either he was too dumb to know that the law was no longer on the books or he chose to harass the woman with a bogus arrest. Either possibilities leads one to believe that he must be a Republican.

The Definition of Irony

Today the CDT has a story about Penn State eliminating its free legal service for students. I left the following comment on the CDT web site this morning.

Spanier is well known to engage in machinations in order to further his interests in the name of Penn State. Consider his use of the UniSCOPE learning community to end run a Faculty Senate committee which was blocking his efforts to weaken tenure and promotion guidelines. Or his orchestration of the replacement of the Dickinson Law School Board of Governors which had blocked his plan to move the law school from Carlisle to University Park. We can’t forget that he had two tenured professors who were outspoken critics of Penn State policies, Nona Gerard at Altoona and Mohammed Nouri at Wilkes-Barre, fired in advance of the Middles States Accreditation process. In that case, a crony who had carried water for him in the Faculty Senate was on the standing committee which recommended dismissal. Since it is a standing committee, Spanier knew prior to the charges being lodged who would be hearing the case. Then he pulled the plug on funding for the student run radio station about a week after they interviewed Gerard. Last year he pulled the plug on the USG after they became outspoken critics of high tuition. Student affairs channeled private funds to students to help in the process of dismantling the USG.

This brings me to my point. When Spanier or his minions give an innocuous explanation of one of their actions they do not deserve the benefit of the doubt. If I were a reporter I’d start to dig into who the attorney was advising. For example, he may have been giving advice to USG members concerning the administration. On the other hand, his dismissal may have been a preemptive move.

This afternoon there is no longer a functioning comment option on the CDT site and the comment, which was the only one that was there the last time I checked, has been deleted. I anxiously await tomorrow's CDT to see if the comment function is back in operation. However, in the spirit of the deleted comment allow me to say, it would appear that there is no free speech when Spanier is the object of criticism.

The Collegian on Free Speech Zones

As I wrote yesterday, the CDT report on the revision made to Penn State's "Free Speech Zone" policy (AD51) did a very poor job of explaining what change was made and what the practical consequences of the change will be. It turns out that on August 8th the Collegian reported the same story and it does explain quite succinctly how AD51 was altered this summer.

Penn State Policy AD-51, "Use of Outdoor Areas for Expressive Activities," has also been modified, French said.

It used to list a number of campus locations "designated as areas suitable for expressive activity," including the front of Old Main and the Allen Street Gates.

At the bottom of the list, the policy used to read "Other areas on University property are reserved solely for their intended purposes."

French said removing the sentence opened up the other public areas on campus to speech.

"Deleting that sentence, in our view, changed the meaning of the policy a great deal," he said. "Now it says you can use these specific areas, but you can also use everywhere else," he added.

The policy never said that groups must use the designated areas in order to engage in "expressive activities". It said,"Registered student organizations, or a group of ten or more University students, faculty or staff, may reserve any one of the identified locations..." However, the sentence which was removed was a restriction which said that other areas were off limits to groups of ten or larger. I am not a lawyer, but it does appear that the removal of that sentence from AD51 does indeed neuter the "Free Speech Zone" policy.

While the CDT's headline likely got it right, the reporter did a very poor job of explaining what the changes were. Further it would have been nice to have had the opinion of an independent lawyer concerning the meaning of the change. I would also like to have seen the reporter ask PSU flack Mahon, "What activity would be allowed today that would not have been allow before the University made the current changes to AD51?"

That said, this is very good news.

Free Speech Comes to Penn State

The headline in today's CDT reads:University ends policy of 'free-speech zones'. This would be great news if it were true. Here is how the paper describes the situation.

Penn State students and activists have called them, disparagingly, the "free-speech zones," the spots on campus that the administration designated for big political rallies and demonstrations.

The zones, established under policy AD 51, have been in place seven years.

But in a legal agreement reached this summer, Penn State has quietly eased up on the controversial rule.

Student organizations and other groups can still reserve the 12 designated areas, including the Old Main front patio, to guarantee space for their "expressive" events.

Those zones, however, are no longer the only places where Penn State will permit a rally or demonstration.

In effect, the whole campus is now a "free-speech zone." Demonstrators just need to comply with university rules and regulations -- and not interfere with university business, according to the revised policy.

This leaves one with the impression that any group can now exercise free speech anywhere on campus as long as they are well behaved. However, the policy only allows for groups smaller than ten to do so. Further, the revision to the policy (AD51) which loosened the restriction on small groups was made in the July of 1999 four months after the policy went in to effect.

Here is how the 1999 change was explained in the Intercom, the now defunct house organ of Penn State administration,

The modifications will allow for individuals or small groups to engage in free speech activities at any outdoor location on campus provided that noise levels do not conflict with programs or classes and provided that crowd size does not prevent normal movement in and out of buildings or otherwise cause a safety problem.

"There has been a great deal of attention paid to the new policy that was put forth by the Campus Environment Team last spring," said Jones, who chairs the group. "The team was rightfully responding to concerns about classroom disruptions and the safety of students exiting buildings that were blocked. But some have expressed concern that the policy might unnecessarily deter individuals from speaking out in areas that are not designated by the policy."

This is how the Collegian described the policy change seven summers ago.

In a rare move, the Penn State administration has decided to listen to cries of dissent against one of its policies and has made revisions to Policy AD51.

As people might recall, the policy had designated only certain areas on campus as "free-speech zones," excluding the steps of Willard Building, the spot from which Gary Cattell has preached for years.

Now, a clarified policy makes it clear that free speech activities are allowed at any outdoor location on campus.

Note that these stories from 1999 sound very similar to what was blared from the CDT this morning. It would appear that the CDT is seven years late to the story.

Not that there wasn't a change this summer to AD51; there was. Here is how it is described in the policy document itself.

June 28, 2006 - Editorial change made in "Locations For Expressive Activity," removing sentence that referred to other areas on University property.

According to the CDT, " The policy change came as part of a settlement that Penn State reached with student A.J. Fluehr, a lawyer said. Through the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal group in Arizona, Fluehr filed litigation in February that alleged several university policies violated his constitutional rights to free speech."

Exactly what was changed this summer and does it have any practical consequences? These questions remain unanswered.

It appears to me that someone spun the CDT. It could have been Old Main or it could have been Fluehr or his lawyer. Both sides come out looking good in the CDT story. Penn State loosens a controversial rule. That looks good. Fluehr wins his battle against the University. That looks good too. Who spun the CDT?