|
Speak Out
Enabling or Oppressing Free Speech? How a school deals with student protests
Say there was a problem at your school and you wanted to stage a protest.
You’d gather up a group of like-minded classmates, meet in study hall or after school, and make plans for getting your message out there – deciding what to say, and how best to say it.
Now imagine there’s a kid in your group who keeps suggesting a safer approach, refraining from doing anything extreme. This kid wants your group to remain quiet and peaceful. Then imagine it turned out that the kid was working for the school administration, and was planted in your group to keep tabs on student protests.
How would you react?
Perhaps you’d scream “narc”; maybe the kid would get hassled. Most likely, you’d feel cheated, and wonder if your free speech rights were being violated or suppressed.
But were they?
This situation actually happened at the University of California, Davis, where a school policy on protests has drawn heat from the student body, as well as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
Following state budget cuts in 2009, University of California campuses across the state raised tuition by 32 percent. This sparked a series of protests that year, including one at UC Davis, where 53 students were arrested.
The administration says it started its Student Activism Team – the kids covertly planted in student groups – to keep other protests from getting out of control. When a police scene is created, officials told the Sacramento Bee, the message of the students is lost in the hubbub. As the Bee put it, the school’s goal with the team is “to make it safer – not harder – for students to exercise their First Amendment rights.”
“Our premise is that if we have a presence, there is less cause for police action,” Assistant Vice Chancellor Griselda Castro told the newspaper.
| In the 1969 case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, an Iowa school district removed students from class for wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. Lawyers for the school argued that officials were afraid the students’ silent protest might lead to a disruption. But the Supreme Court ruled that a school cannot take action to suppress symbolic speech unless it would substantially disrupt the school or violate the rights of other students. Fear of disruption is not enough to censor speech, the court said. |
One member of the Student Activism Team, Jeff Austin, told the Bee that the group does not interfere with or disrupt the activities of protest group, but instead tries to point them in a direction that keeps them safe – physically and legally. He gave an example of one group that wanted to make a statement by taking over a dormitory; the undercover team member suggested that this might get protesters in legal trouble, so the group staged its protest elsewhere.
“We’re not spying, we’re not taking names,” Austin told the Bee. “We’re just trying to make sure [the students] stay safe.”
But students don’t necessarily appreciate the school’s effort.
This week, students took to campus to protest the protest-watchers. On one level, they say, the teams are seen as a violation of students’ First Amendment freedoms. On another, they erode students’ trust.
Eric Lee, a student leading the movement, told the Bee, “When the administration tells us over and over that they are in support of us, and then they turn around and show us this mistrust by infiltrating our peaceful student organizations, it sends a very contradictory message.”
The Woodland Daily Democrat interviewed another UC Davis student, Sarah Augusto, who said, “I personally was really upset by the fact that a lot of the team members are in Financial Aid and Student Housing.” In other words, they’re people who work “in a place of trust” doing what protesters say is an untrustworthy act.
The Democrat also spoke with Dan Berman, a retired professor active with the local ACLU, which has called for the school to disband the Student Activism Team. He says the group creates “a chilling effect”; students might be less willing to speak their mind or get involved in social change if they feel they are being watched. This is doubly perplexing, Berman said, since college is supposed to be a place that encourages civic engagement, not discourages it.
“You don’t go to university to learn a trade,” Berman said. “You go to university to learn how to think, how to be a citizen.”
What do you think?
Do you think UC Davis’ Student Activism Team suppresses free speech? Or do you think the team is encouraging it by steering the students in safe directions? If the team weren’t there, would the students’ message be lost in any police action? Does the team discourage or encourage civic action? If you were involved in a protest group and found out you were being monitored, how would you react? Join the discussion!
|
Join the Discussion
|