A more stringent Athens noise ordinance that took effect last year has impinged upon the off-campus lives of many Ohio University students. The statistics are startling. While only a dozen noise violation citations were issued in 2003, last year saw 177 of them. The ordinance has multiple problems and the Student Senate is responding with a proposal to revise it. The effort is commendable and should be supported by all students.
The problem with the ordinance now in place is primarily one of vagueness. It is for this reason that Margaret Sallah, staff attorney for the Center for Student Advocacy, urged Student Senate to create a petition seeking the signatures of 10,000 students, according to the Athens News. One citation can land a student in court with more than $200 in fines and fees and possibly four hours of community service. The official language in the ordinance targets loud and unusual noise. It does include hours at which noise levels must be kept below maximum levels measured in decibels, but this is obviously difficult to enforce. Audibility from more than 50 feet away is also in violation, and this seems fair enough, but the process of conviction that follows is far too simple.
The proposed amendment would require a record of a phoned complaint, which currently is not needed. Those causing a disturbance then would be given an official warning rather than an automatic citation. Only after this would they face the full consequences now faced immediately following a complaint. This change is only fair. It strikes an excellent balance between concern for the well-being of the community and the rights of students often victimized by an ordinance laden with uncertain language.
If Student Senate is able to gather the signatures it seeks, city council finally will have to acknowledge this flawed noise ordinance. If this revision is adopted, those uncertain about how much noise is too much will be warned if they cross the line. In this way, only repeat offenders will face the full legal penalties of noise pollution. Chronic disturbers will be brought to justice and students making a one-time mistake they may not be aware of can avoid a costly penalty. All OU students concerned about the protection of their rights should sign the petition that could effect these much-needed changes.
HED: Freedom dismissed
The university is one of the most cherished institutions in this country, and is home to both great personal and academic freedoms. However, four Republican state senators now seek to place shackles on how it operates in Ohio. A newly proposed academic bill of rights for higher education could place rules on what professors can say in their classrooms. Partisan-motivated and practically unenforceable, this bill could erode academic freedom in state-supported universities.
State Sen. Larry Mumper, R-Marion, and his three supporters say they believe that most faculty in Ohio colleges are either Democrats or are left-leaning. Worse yet, many of these professors allegedly are not content unless they can spread their political beliefs to their students. Mumper's effort to protect the values of higher education is introduced in a bill. It includes, in brief, the prohibition of controversial topics unrelated to the subject of study, employment policies that regard competence and not beliefs and a grievance procedure for students and faculty who feel discriminated against. Ultimately, this bill is nothing more than a superfluous restriction on conversation in the classroom.
The bill threatens many aspects of higher education that make it so valuable. One of the characteristics of professors that set them apart from secondary school teachers is their ability to add new dimensions to teaching and to introduce empirical applications of their subject matter. The bill could eliminate this in some cases. It discourages the introduction to new points of view, a vital part of the college experience.
This bill of rights is so ridiculous that it probably will not pass. However, it must be opposed because of the ideas it represents. It facilitates a complex and potentially corruptive government regulation of higher education. The irony of this initiative is that it is supposedly based on the value of academic freedom, when in fact it fundamentally threatens the same ideal. It exaggerates the political fervor of professors and insults the intelligence of students, who are adults capable of accepting and rejecting ideas as they please. If freedom of speech is allowed to be limited in the university in this instance, any institution could be targeted next on an equally shaky premise. This proposal must be recognized as the bone-chilling condemnation of freedom that it is.
17 Archives
The Post Editorial
