The bulletin boards and clips spread throughout residence halls are no longer open for the posting of flyers. Rather than being able to freely post announcements, students have to obtain special approval from Residence Life. This approval takes the form of a stamp that you may or may not have noticed on hanging flyers. As someone who has to deal with these policies on a daily basis, I find them disturbing.
In the past, bulletins have provided a space for students to freely express themselves by announcing events, spreading awareness on an issue, or any number of convievable items. Instead, residence life now has the authority to deny a student the ability to do any one of these things. When it comes to events, the power to deny advertising might well be the power to destroy. If an event can’t be advertised, it might as well not be happening.
This policy is especially distressing at a university that prides itself on “civil discourse” and is spending millions of dollars on the new Trone Center to show its commitment to student involvement. When a member of the administration was asked what the policy aimed to accomplish, he said it would help prevent off-campus entities from posting flyers. It is important to note that only university-affiliated organizations, which can be punished by the university, face any incentives to follow the rules.
This new policy is restrictive because it threatens free student discourse and makes it more difficult for campus organizations to host events that benefit the Furman community. In order to advertise in residence halls, groups have to hand the flyers over to Residence Life, who then gives them to the hall RA’s. The RA’s are not as invested in the events as the hosts, and may not post the advertisements in a timely fashion. This new policy creates an unjustified obstacle for students who work very hard to enrich the student body and contribute to a vibrant discussion of ideas.
These policies are most concerning because they reflect a larger trend at Furman. The CLP guidelines implemented this year require that faculty submit CLP requests instead of students. They also include a provision that increases faculty oversight of flyers. While I have full confidence in the current chairman of the CLP committee Dr. Brent Nelson, I am concerned that faculty could in the future use these policies to shape campus discourse so that it would reflect their interests instead of the interests of the students. This is problematic because faculty members have a track record of negative bias towards conservative ideas.
What makes the CLP program most valuable is that it gives students the opportunity to host events that are of special interest to them, fostering an open marketplace of ideas. I believe that this freedom must be preserved at all costs.
