A Georgetown University Police Department officer temporarily removed H*yas for Choice from a public sidewalk just outside the front gates on Monday while the student group silently protested the University’s decision to award an honorary degree to Archbishop of Washington, Cardinal Donald Wuerl. Citing the orders of a superior, the officer insisted that the group relocate their table, which had been set up in response to the Catholic Church’s—and by extension, Wuerl’s—stance on homosexuality in a location that the University approved last year for the purpose of protesting. Although H*yas for Choice was later allowed to return to the sidewalk, this latest incident shows a continued disregard for free speech by University administration.
Not recognized as a legitimate student organization by the University and historically at odds with Georgetown’s Catholic identity because of its support for contraception and abortion rights, H*yas for Choice has been subjected to this treatment before. Last May, the group’s protest of the Cardinal O’Connor Conference on Life in Healy Circle was disbanded and the University set their precedent for off-campus tabling.
On Monday, the University proved once again that it places little value on upholding student freedom of expression. It is no coincidence that GUPD allowed H*yas for Choice to return to their off-campus location after most of the foot traffic to the event in Gaston Hall, where Wuerl received his degree, had subsided. The group’s efforts to engage and spread their message was seriously undermined, illustrating the disparity that remains between University administration’s superficial support for free speech and how free speech is actually practiced on campus.
A defense of H*yas for Choice’s actions and values need not take issue with Georgetown’s Catholicism, the Catholic Church’s stance on homosexuality, or even the University’s decision to confer a degree on a public figure. That the University has unambiguously weighted these factors over students’ Constitutional right to free speech, however, particularly when that right is exercised outside the front gate—and therefore outside the University’s jurisdiction—is unacceptable.
Georgetown’s circumspection about protecting its public image as a Catholic institution is understandable. However, an institution of higher learning—especially one grounded in Jesuit values—must uphold intellectual and expressive freedom. The Memorandum of Understanding, a revision of Georgetown’s free speech policy made last May between GUSA and VP for Student Affairs Todd Olson, designates Red Square, the Leavey Center, Regents Lawn, and the Healey Family Student Center free speech zones. While an improvement on past policies, this nevertheless continues to allow the University to silence student groups it finds distasteful.
Rather than allowing challenging and necessary conversations to occur freely, the University selectively sequesters dialogue about controversial issues when those issues publicly conflict with Georgetown’s Catholic identity. Students should continue to pressure the University to remove barriers to free expression on campus. After all, speech matters most when the powers that be don’t want to hear what’s being said.
Constitutional right to free speech? That has no bearing here — Georgetown is a private institution. Those free speech rights the Editorial Board references refer to the government’s inability to infringe speech. While I agree with the need to challenge the church on LGBT issues, you can’t argue from the aforementioned position.