Discussion focuses on free speech

The panel discussion on free speech had just opened up to the audience, and the first question came from Karl Bell, interim assistant dean in the Office of the Dean for Student Development.

"Professor Schor, you started off talking about the curtailment of free speech and then you quickly curtailed our free speech. You said we're going to hear first from the panelists then we'll turn to you," he said. "I think it's interesting that we perpetuate the dominant culture by doing the kinds of things that we've done tonight."

Bell, commenting on the restrictions imposed by a moderated discussion, had just cut to the core of the discussion - how censorship reinforces the views of those in power. It was a central theme throughout yesterday's panel discussion, where students, faculty, and administrators debated the state of Boston College censorship at 7 p.m. in Merkert 127.

The talk began with a brief introduction by Juliet Schor, moderator of the event and chairwoman of the sociology department. She explained, citing specific examples, how expression on college campuses has eroded in the post-Sept. 11 political atmosphere.

She then turned to the panel, posing a question on the effects of censorship to a university's academic and social health, among others.

Jennie Purnell, a political science professor, laid out the importance of free speech. "Relatively marginalized people with relatively few resources essentially have the streets as a place to express their views, so if people are unable to protest they are unable to call into question the dominant culture and dominant political system," she said. "They are essentially left voiceless."

The importance of protest was also stressed by Marilynn Johnson, a history professor, who did so by criticizing a recent editorial from The Heights. The piece, she said, spoke out in favor of public forums and speakers as a better format to express ideas than demonstrations.

She disagreed, saying that lectures reach a much smaller audience and protests are visible events that can affect a much broader audience. "A protest is a chance for students to really be active political participants who are voting with their feet, as it were, in the public realm," said Johnson.

The issue of civility was another key part of the discussion. Reena Parikh, A&S '06, was the only student on the panel and felt that being civil was directly tied into the dominant culture. "The word 'civil' is interesting because it's often used by the dominant culture to categorize other forms of expression as somehow more barbaric or primitive," she said.

Others disregarded the exact definition, instead emphasizing that civility be maintained in a university setting. "It's too much to expect in an academic setting that we should all agree, but it is not too much to expect discipline and unvarying civility," said Rev. John Howard, S.J., a professor in the Honors Program, using an example from a disagreement at Harvard University.

Dean for Student Development Robert Sherwood agreed, saying that it is especially necessary to maintain a communal environment given the Jesuit nature of BC. In his department, he is always trying to "strive toward a more inclusive caring and respectful community."

Allowing students to express themselves is an important learning process, said Paula Mathieu, a professor of the first-year writing seminar for freshman. "I think a far bigger fear I have, rather than students infringing on other people's right or expressing themselves too much, is the opposite end, and that's a fear of apathy," she said. "That's a far greater threat to the intellectual life here at Boston College."

The conversation then turned to the protest policy, which Sherwood read to students. Groups must apply with Sherwood at least 48 hours in advance to receive a permit, according to the policy, and the actual demonstration cannot interfere with normal University operation. He said that he has never turned down a student group during his tenure.

Parikh countered, saying that last year's protest of ROTC recruitment tables was an example of speech suppression. Students were holding signs against the group in McElroy when officers approached and asked for a permit. They didn't have one, so they held a meeting with Sherwood and came back with the proper paperwork, only to find that the recruiters had finished.

The Career Fair protest, which was cancelled two weeks ago, was also a point of contention. Sherwood said that it was his intent to allow the demonstration inside Conte Forum until he was misled by the Global Justice Project. Sherwood said he was informed for the first time of an elaborate theatrical performance and decided to revoke the permit 30 minutes prior to the scheduled protest.

He was asked why he didn't allow the students to do any form of protest that day, such as allowing students to display their views outside of Conte. "At that time I had no confidence that they were being honest with us," Sherwood said.

Parikh remained critical of the protest policy, saying that placing the decision in one person's hand undermines groups looking to express opinion. "I feel like the fundamental issue at hand is that this policy needs to be changed, or at least looked at again. It's why so many of us are here tonight."

Some in the audience disagreed. "I think it's important for everyone at the meeting tonight to understand that BC is a private institution that reserves right to make rules that are pursuant to values of the school," said Chris Pizzo, executive staff for the Undergraduate Government of BC and A&S '06.

The lecture concluded with an unexpected comment from Charles Derber, a sociology professor. "The University is the one core institution dedicated centrally to the principal of free input," he said. "Take that away, and you have eviscerated the fundamental value and concern of a university. If you interviewed every faculty member, whatever their political spectrum, they would die for the principal of academic freedom and for freedom of expression."