Freedom of Speech or Controversial Language?

Winona State University, Minnesota:

Disagreement arose among students when a group at Winona State University posted flyers promoting concealed carry on campus.

The flyers read, “Signs can’t stop acts of violence. Armed citizens can,” and “This is a gun free zone. If you were planning on shooting a bunch of innocent people and then yourself, we’re sorry, but that is not allowed here.”

The signs were put up in the Student Union by junior Alexi Paizis in promotion of a newly forming campus group, currently involving half a dozen students who call themselves “Students for Concealed Carry on Campus.”

Paizis and his fellow members of SCCC noticed that their flyers were being torn down, often very shortly after they had been posted. They reposted them, but usually to no avail.

Joe Reed, the Student Union director, said that within two days of the flyers being posted, there were between 20 and 30 students coming into his office to complain that the flyers were offensive and inappropriate.

Reed said that the flyers should have been brought to his attention first before being posted. “With all the complaints, I had to do something,” Reed said.

Reed recommended the matter to the Student Senate.

In a Senate meeting last month, the group members were able to voice their concerns during the meeting’s open gallery.

Senate’s Student Activities chair AJ Schuler said that, although he understands what the group was trying to say, the message was untimely due to the Northern Illinois University shootings.

Reed added later that he wanted to find a “safer way” to communicate the SCCC group’s message.

So we’ve got some students claiming that signs claiming that “signs can’t stop acts of violence” and that shooting innocent people “is not allowed here” are “offensive,” and a student union director claiming that something “safer” than flyers are needed to communicate a message. Gotta say that I’m a bit confused by all that, to be honest.

The two flyers, one of which I’ve posted here, were not designed by the students in question but instead come from the Students for Concealed Carry on Campus web site. They are the first two in the .pdf currently available here.

I emailed the writer of the article in the Winonan student newpaper, and she put me in touch with Paizis.

I asked how the director of the student union could claim that the posters should have been brought to his attention first before being posted when the student union gave the okay to post them, and here’s what he said:

I did receive permission from the student union desk, but Joe Reed, the Student Union Director, was not present at that time, so the people at the desk gave the posters approval because the flyers fit certain criteria; anything about alcohol, or anything advertising bars, will not be allowed, for instance. Since my posters passed the criteria, and because Joe Reed wasn’t available at that time, the posters were approved by the students at the desk.

As far as getting posters approved, all one has to do is run them by the Student Union Desk and hand them the posters for approval. If they give the go-ahead, they will sign the posters with something to the affect of “Posting Approved”.

He noted that he wishes he had asked for the names of students complaining and that their specific complaints had been recorded so that the issues could be addressed directly.

I knew that people would not like the posters; I knew that there would only be a handful of supporters among thousands. So, when I checked back at the Student Union Desk to confirm the approved status of my posters and instead found they were being disallowed, and after I made inquiries into it, I had to assume, based on the anonymous nature of both the students and their complaints, that the posters were being torn down simply because they disagreed philosophically/politically. I personally know of several students who vehemently oppose our goals, and although I’m not sure they were the students who brought complaints, some students definitely will tear the posters down simply for being contrary to their own views. But, my hunches are just that: assumptions I’ve made without any evidence with which to prove my ideas.

In fact, one of the other SCCC members, Samuel Keane-Rudolph, wrote an op-ed in the Winonan about this particular concern, Free speech should override anonymous complaints, which includes

I would like to point out that both posters are factually correct. Shooting innocent people on campus is not allowed here. Signs do not stop violence, and it’s a documented record that armed citizens have.

So when I went into the meeting with the Student Senate subcommittee, I was expecting to hear a plan for protecting our signs from petty vandalism. Instead, I heard how we needed to adjust our signs so that they were ‘less offensive.’ Last I checked, vandalism was a crime and being ‘offensive’ was not.

Nor am I sure how our posters are offensive. We weren’t told at the Student Senate meeting how many people had found our posters offensive, or why. We were only told that “all we needed to know” was that “they were offensive.”

There’s adult reasoning for you. My guess is that tearing down some flyers about some sorts of student groups and complaining that they were “offensive” might not be handled quite the same way. Just a hunch on my part.

The student senators told me that they were representing the best interests of Winona students. Curious, because our accusers never made an appearance at the meeting, so for all I know, they don’t exist.

Oh, the exist, all right. But they’re smart enough to know that what they do is tough to defend. And they’re probably a bit cowardly so we’ll have to forgive them if they’d just rather pull down things they don’t like and complain instead of making their case.