Concerns over Ohio University’s interim “Freedom of Expression” policy drew a crowd to Walter Hall on Tuesday night for a conversation on the next steps to reform and improve the policy.
About 35 students, faculty members and administrators attended the forum, which was hosted by the Students for Law, Justice and Culture. Just before the forum began, the presidents of OU Student Senate and Graduate Student Senate issued a joint email statement inviting students to provide “constructive feedback” on the policies.
Executive members of each of the university’s five senates met with President Duane Nellis and other reviewers of the policy Friday to discuss concerns presented during recent meetings.
“We encourage the student Community to engage in this discourse with Civility as Citizens of OHIO community upholding the Character and Commitment we have to our peers and our community at large,” the statement said. “It is important to participate in free exchange of ideas and strive to respect all sides of this exchange of ideas.”
During the forum, Faculty Senate Chair Joe McLaughlin discussed the status of Baker Center as a public forum, as opposed to a privately-owned space where the university can place restrictions on freedom of expression.
“It seems to me that the university has made a decision that Baker Center is more like a shopping mall than it is a public square,” McLaughlin said. “And I find that problematic.”
As for future revisions to the policy, McLaughlin said he was “skeptical” that the university would choose to rework the policy from scratch. He did, however, say he would be surprised if the policy’s clause prohibiting “demonstrations, rallies, public speech-making” and other forms of expression inside university buildings “survived” the revision process.
A number of students suggested incorporating a mediation plan into the policy so demonstrators could communicate their demands to university administration. Iris Virjee, a junior studying urban planning and sustainability, agreed with the idea. She criticized the university’s handling of the policy and said it should be overturned.
“They’re targeting people who are going to be challenging their profit base, essentially,” Virjee said. “If it’s a protest that is going to damage the reputation of the school and their profit base … I don’t think that’s fair to prioritize the profit base over students’ freedom of expression.”
Although some people at the forum disagreed on topics such as police presence and mediation, many agreed the policy is ambiguous and required clarification. The policy, some argued, does not define “disruptive” activity or outline consequences for those who violate its guidelines.
“There’s not a demonstrable legal need for the university to be safe from protests,” Jack Bruno, a junior studying physics said. “There is a demonstrable need for students to have clear ideas of what protesting can be on this campus.”
Student Senate President Landen Lama suggested students take their concerns to members of student government.
“We do have audiences with people of significance,” Lama said. “I would say you try to reach out to your respective representatives … reaching out to those people who are here to serve on your behalf."
The Students for Law, Justice and Culture will release a summary of the meeting’s points and policy reform suggestions “as soon as possible.”
