Students passing through Red Square on Thursday, Nov. 21 undoubtedly noticed representatives from the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property waving a large red flag and handing out pamphlets. The following Tuesday, Interim Vice President for Student Affairs Todd Olson addressed the situation in a campus-wide e-mail, denouncing the outside organization’s distribution of “offensive and hateful material that attacked gays and lesbians.” University officials rightfully removed the representatives from campus for threatening the emotional well-being of some community members.
Though the representatives were not officially affiliated with Georgetown, the University should hold visitors to the same rules as students, faculty and staff. Despite the Constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech, the University has implemented a policy on free speech in order to insure that all feel comfortable on campus. As a private organization, the University reserves the right to censure speech that is “grossly obscene or grossly offensive on matters such as race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.”
In this particular case, University officials had to choose between allowing the expression of free speech or protecting the safety of a minority group. Both are valid aims, as the University should value both the right to freedom of expression as well as an inclusive campus environment. To some degree, speech that is offensive to some must be tolerated in order to allow others freedom of expression; similarly, at some point, free speech must be curtailed when it threatens the emotional or physical safety of other community members. This particular event forced University officials to decide where this line should be drawn.
In this type of situation, University officials should use the immediate threat of emotional or physical harm to decide policy. Georgetown’s code of student conduct, which currently reserves the University’s right to remove “obscene or grossly offensive” expression, should be altered to include only material that imposes the threat of physical or emotional violence.
The majority of the pamphlet contained only the group’s statement of doctrine-material that, while offensive to many, does not pose an immediate threat to physical safety. However, a very violent image of the Twin Towers on Sept. 11, in conjunction with labeling Lawrence v. Texas, a 2003 case in which the Supreme Court granted constitutional protection to sodomy, as “America’s moral 9/11” could have been perceived as emotionally violent to many members of the community. For this reason, Olson was right in removing the representatives from campus.
In the future, however, University officials should strike a balance between protecting free speech and the safety of the community. Olson rightfully emphasized in the e-mail that “gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender members of our community enjoy the right to study, work, and live in a campus environment of respect and protection.” What he did not say, however, was that all members of the community should enjoy the right to non-violent self-expression. While insuring all students protection from the threat of both physical and emotional violence, the University can best promote students’ learning by encouraging a dialogue through freedom of expression.
