Violating Our Own Free Speech

When the Columbia College Elections Board decided two weeks ago to sanction the George Krebs-led Experience Columbia ticket for Student Council, all sides addressed the relative fairness of the decision. Adil Ahmed, whose e-mail to campus leaders began the controversy, called his e-mail “harmless,” while Alidad Damooei called it a blatant violation of election rules. Yet no one seemed concerned with a greater issue at stake. By mandating when prospective campus leaders may begin expressing their ideas to the campus at large, the Elections Board has embroiled the University in yet another free speech controversy.

Ten months ago, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on a related matter in Flint v. Dennison. Aaron Flint of the University of Montana was denied a seat on the University Senate when he violated the university’s $100 spending limit on student campaigns. The university argued that because the main function of student government is educational, the court should defer to the university’s judgment on what regulations are reasonable. The court upheld the spending limit as legitimate because it determined that the campaign was only a limited public forum, and that the “content neutral” and “reasonable” restriction imposed in this case was not a violation of the First Amendment.

So higher education apparently gains another hard-fought victory in its effort to patronize students and constrict free speech for “educational purposes.” Not so fast. The Ninth Circuit rejected the university’s argument that the decision was purely an academic one and that the courts should therefore automatically defer to the university’s judgment. This means that restrictions on free speech in the limited public forum of university elections must pass muster with the courts.

The question is how this relates to Columbia. It has been reiterated in discussions about free speech on campus that Columbia is a private university and therefore does not have to uphold the same commitment to the First Amendment as public universities do. However, Columbia’s mission explicitly states its determination to protect the rights of its students. Any violation of these rights is a breach of faith between institution and student.

Make no mistake about it­—the implications of the Elections Board decision are chilling. The Elections Board has decided on a prefabricated timetable during which campaigning is acceptable. Ostensibly, the goal is to make sure that elections are “fair.” Apparently, the Elections Board feels that we, the students, are unfit to make sound determinations on our own. It believes we need a campaign season from spring break until the general election. Any attempt by prospective student leaders to—heaven forefend!—engage with critical issues before the pre-approved period will be met with swift punishment.

How absurd. The idea that student leaders’ discussion of important campus-related issues should be stymied because they are running for office is cause for outrage. Perhaps the Elections Board is concerned about politicking from the beginning of school, and therefore the Board wants to curtail jockeying for position and currying favor. Is the Elections Board intimating that Columbia students cannot see through hollow attempts to win support? Why does the Elections Board deem us unfit to hear unlimited speech and to make determinations accordingly?

Irrespective of Columbia’s legal protection, the Elections Board’s standard is more egregious than the University of Montana’s ruling. Perhaps the Ninth Circuit’s finding that the Montana standard was “reasonable” relates to the fact that money was involved. An argument can be made that spending caps ensure that all students have an equal ability to reach their peers, irrespective of their financial means. But the Elections Board rule has nothing to do with money, making its policy all the more appalling. How can the University defend a blanket suppression of campaign-related speech by “candidates or supporters” before spring break?

A quote from Elections Board chair Andrew Ness tells the whole story. In the Spectator article “CCSC Board Finds Ahmed Guilty of Election Violation” (March 10) on the Elections Board decision, Ness distinguished between permissible and impermissible behavior. Though prospective candidates may seek out campus leaders, “at no point should they be pushing their own candidacy, expressing their own ideas.” So, in order to preserve the “fairness” of our campaigns, candidates for office are barred from “expressing their own ideas” for improving this campus. Does this make sense to anyone?

The most embarrassing part is that we may only have ourselves to blame for this flagrant infringement of free speech. If the rule is contained in the CCSC bylaws, then let us change those bylaws. Certainly we must trust ourselves to select the better candidates and the better ideas without the Election Board’s “assistance.” If we make no effort to curb excessive campaign regulation, then we only have ourselves to blame. If, despite our efforts, the rule goes unchanged, we need to be activists once again, taking matters into our own hands.

In the aftermath of the decision, Krebs and Damooei acknowledged there had been some sort of agreement to discuss issues amongst themselves, though the details of that agreement are disputed and unclear. They had the right idea, but unfortunately they may not have gone far enough.

I have a suggestion. What if, in future CCSC elections, candidates agreed in advance to unfettered speech? As long as the speech is constructive and expressing a vision of how to improve this campus, all speech would be permitted without a blackout period. If no complaints are lodged, the Elections Board is thus rendered irrelevant.
Students taking issues into their own hands while circumventing the Elections Board and protesting administrative policy—now how’s that for an exercise of First Amendment rights?

The author is a Columbia College junior majoring in history.