Table of Contents
University of Denver Keeps Watchful Eye Over Free Speech Wall鈥擶ith a Camera
The University of Denver (DU) maintains a 鈥渇ree speech wall鈥 for students to use to express themselves in paint鈥攁 common feature on college campuses, often taken the form of a wall or a rock. But now, after someone to paint from a punk rock song (Minor Threat鈥檚 鈥溾) and altered a 鈥淏lack Lives Matter鈥 message, DU has placed restrictions on what the wall may be used for.
And they鈥檝e :
FIRE or organizations are encouraged to identify themselves in the message. We expect our community to stand behind their words and art; anonymity does not allow for dialogue and allows one to disrupt community standards without facing the impact and accountability of their work.
A camera has been put in place to monitor The Wall, and students in violation of the above guidelines will be subject to a student conduct evaluation facilitated by the University administration.
The Wall is a vehicle for expression, for inquiry and for inclusivity. These guidelines are not intended to restrict free expression; rather they are a means through which we can continue to thrive as an inclusive community with a shared value system and many varied viewpoints.
That DU casts its surveillance and condemnation of anonymous speech as if it is in service of open dialogue is an embarrassment. But it鈥檚 not surprising: Efforts to construct mechanisms to monitor and punish offensive speech will often be accompanied by purported paeans to the value of freedom of speech.
Free speech walls serve more than a promotional function (i.e., they exist for more than the purpose of organizations promoting an event). They鈥檙e an easy outlet for people to share messages quickly and, often, anonymously. FIREwho used the wall to speak their minds may not have access to resources that would allow them to quickly and cheaply share their message otherwise, save for social media. Those messages may offend others, and sometimes that鈥檚 the point.
By providing a canvas for students to share messages cheaply and anonymously, DU helps students share their thoughts. But it also did itself a favor, providing a space where students have a creative outlet, when they might otherwise create a canvas of their own on other walls鈥攚alls DU 诲辞别蝉苍鈥檛 want students to paint. In restricting what may be painted on this wall, DU will create a perverse incentive: if you want to paint a message that may offend others (or campus police who might not be impressed by, for example, a message condemning police brutality), find a wall without a camera pointed at it, so that you don鈥檛 get caught.
Last month, another university鈥檚 president鈥擬ark Schlissel of the University of Michigan 鈥warned that pursuing surveillance of its students in the service of deterring offensive speech would be akin to instituting a 鈥減olice state鈥:
I have absolutely no idea to how to prevent one person with hate in their heart from posting a poster in a building of a public university. Don鈥檛 know how to do that. I鈥檝e never heard a good idea about how to do it. We鈥檙e not going to turn the University of Michigan into a police state where there are people and cameras everywhere you look and you鈥檒l never have a private moment. Because that鈥檚 what it would take to prevent hateful posters by one sick and mean and terrible person to hurt all of us.
That observation is apt. Combatting offensive speech is not accomplished by erecting cameras and rules鈥攖ools which will always be used by those in power to discourage or punish those who are not. Instead, it鈥檚 accomplished through education, and through more speech. By closing students鈥 avenues to speech under the guise of protecting it, DU does itself and its students a disservice.
Recent Articles
FIRE鈥檚 award-winning Newsdesk covers the free speech news you need to stay informed.