Think that picture of a swimsuit-clad woman on your neighbor’s door is offensive? If you live in a University dorm, he has to take it down. Or so you might infer from the University’s Residence Hall policy, which according to Vice President for Student Affairs Juan Gonzalez, says, “The exterior doors of dorm rooms are considered communal space ? Material that is insulting or grossly offensive to other students that share or live in the same space is not permitted.” Most of this “insulting or grossly offensive” material remains untouched. Instead, the University is using the policy, which continues, “The distribution of literature or giving away of questionable items is not permitted in communal shared Residence Halls space,” as the rationale for unfairly prohibiting members of Hyas for Choice from placing condoms on their doors.
The University’s policy on condoms is clear: Georgetown-sponsored groups may not buy, sell or distribute them on campus. This makes sense, given that Georgetown is a Catholic university and that condoms are prohibited by Catholic doctrine. But groups such as Hyas for Choice are not University-sponsored; they receive no University endorsement or benefits. The University’s speech and expression policy, aimed at ensuring the “untrammeled expression of ideas and information,” allows all members of the Georgetown community to express their thoughts and ideas so long as it does not endanger the safety of the community or the functioning of the University.
Advocating safe sex by placing condoms on one’s owndoor is a form of expression and should be protected according to the free expression policy. It does not threaten anyone’s health or safety?in fact access to condoms promotes both by offering protection to those students who are already choosing to have sex. Condoms are no less offensive than the signs for political candidates and advertisements for alcohol that are found on many dorm room doors.
Arguing that the outside of a residence hall room door constitutes communal space is quibbling. The Student Handbook and the Occupancy Agreement that all students living on campus must sign don’t discuss where personal space ends and community space begins, nor should they have to. Doing so would only lead to further questions. What if the door is open?then it is technically within the occupant’s “personal space.” Shouldn’t condoms on open doors then be permitted? The point is that the existing policy is gratuitous and useless; such precise definitions are not necessary at a university truly committed to freedom of expression.
If members of the administration honestly want to continue prohibiting “questionable items” and “insulting or grossly offensive” material while hiding behind Georgetown’s Catholic identity, they should at least do so fairly and consistently: along with the condoms goes everything else from the doors, because it’s all questionable, insulting or offensive to someone. If they stick to just removing condoms, they’re being hypocritical. And that is not a quality embraced by the Georgetown Ethos Statement.
