"Brother Jim” Gilles is on a mission from God to save your soul. According to his Web site, he has been “your holiness home missionary to the universities America” since 1982. But if he wants to preach at campuses in Indiana, he will have to stay within university-designated areas. Brother Jim sued Vincennes University in 2004 when it required him to file a request before speaking on campus and restricted him to a sidewalk in front of the student union. He claimed that the space was infrequently visited by students and contained loud background noise from passing vehicles. He lost his case before the U.S. 7th District Court of Appeals, which covers Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin. Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear his appeal, effectively upholding the lower court’s decision.
We acknowledge that the plight of poor old Brother Jim might not be the best test case for such an important decision. We’re not particularly sympathetic to him personally, and if he came to IU, you probably wouldn’t find any of us setting up our lawn chairs to sit back and enjoy his sermons. But we do hope that future policies from both the legal system and the universities will make free speech on campuses more open, not more restrictive.
The right to free speech doesn’t guarantee “the right to be heard.” Universities shouldn’t have to provide forums or otherwise endorse speakers with whom they don’t wish to be associated. But they shouldn’t set up obstacles that discourage the free flow of ideas, either.
A university is perhaps the one place more than any other where opinions should be encouraged to compete in the open. Bad ideas are best defeated with better ones, not by shutting them up. In fact, if you are debating someone with particularly wacky ideas, sometimes the best thing you can do to win others to your cause is to let your opponent speak openly and honestly.
Of course, the university has to provide an environment that is safe, as well as conducive to learning. We’re not arguing that the “right to free speech” protects behavior such as interrupting class or other organized events; you’ve probably seen clips on YouTube of “Superman” running and yelling through crowded lecture halls.
But if an individual or group is outside and is not being obscene, violent or disruptive, why do they need university approval?
If someone wearing a politically-themed shirt – let’s say one with an anti-war message – is standing in an area not designated as a “free-speech zone,” does that constitute a violation? What if five or 10 people are standing together wearing the same shirt? Does it become an issue when they start handing out fliers? To safeguard against discrimination toward certain groups or ideas, it is best to let people speak their minds with minimal regulation.
We commend IU for its relatively painless procedures and for having high-traffic areas where staging outreach events is allowed. But we encourage IU and all universities to always promote an atmosphere where people can exchange diverse ideas easily and freely.
