You gotta fight for your right!

Among the most important protections of the First Amendment is the prohibition of the infringement upon freedom of speech. It is this doctrine that allows Americans to speak their minds freely and without reservation. The reaches of this important cornerstone of American constitutional law are such that even extreme hate speech is protected.

As a public institution, the University at Albany provides a venue for which anyone can invoke this right to speak freely. In years past our campus has become soapbox central by allowing Christian fundamentalists to campaign hate against gays and lesbians, shout that our President is the anti-Christ, and tell students that they will repent in hell for their sins. By such standards, one would believe that nearly anyone could say anything on campus.

That is, unless you live on Indian Quad.

When a student living on Indian Quad attempted to post a satirical representation of the definition of Chartwells food service on his door on the evening of September 22, his Resident Assistant forced him to remove the sign. He told the student that the sign was "inappropriate" and was "defacing school property" and thus "needed to be taken down." The student complied; thus playing a submissive role.

Although I am not a resident of Indian Quad, as a witness and a fierce advocate of the First Amendment I felt compelled to question the Resident Assistant's request, even if the resident didn't want to. How could the R.A. censor this student's opinion by forcing him to take down the sign? I waited for the Assistant to finish speaking with a separate resident and then questioned his knowledge of the First Amendment. The response? "The First Amendment doesn't apply here. The sign was defacing school property, and that violates the Community Rights and Responsibilities Agreement." When I reminded him that Chartwells wasn't even part of the University (it is a third party entity contracted solely for food service), and thus any satirical criticism of it was not defacing school property the Assistant seemed uninterested. "I decide what is appropriate and what can go up [on the doors]," the Res Life student replied. I then turned around and pointed to the suite door directly behind me.

A picture of a man's face with male genitalia drawn over it was prominently taped up for all to see.

"Is this appropriate to you?" I questioned. "If someone were to have a problem with it I would have to remove it," the Assistant replied. "What about the profanity written on people's doors, do you find that appropriate?" I countered. The Res Life Assistant gave the same response. "So essentially," I concluded, "you would rather have genitalia and profanity on doors and walls than criticism of Chartwells?" The Assistant's unequivocal response? "Yes."

The ludicrous nature of this exchange left me angered and determined. How could the Community Rights and Responsibility Agreement protect drawn penises and f-bombs but not a humorous take on Chartwells' food service?

After carefully reviewing the Agreement I found that no such provision exists. In fact, the document promotes nearly complete freedom of speech with the exception of "bigotry, harassment and behavior that intrudes upon the rights of others." The Agreement explicitly states that liberty is a "precious academic principle because the free expression of ideas is the central part of university life. To sustain the advancement and dissemination of knowledge and understanding, the University must allow the free expression of ideas." Section 535-4 of the Agreement goes further, "No student, faculty or other staff member shall be subject to any limitation or penalty solely for the expression of his views." In addition, the sign was put on the door using weak clear tape that left no mark when removed. Thus, there was no violation of Agreement regulation VI-10 regarding property damage. In following these provisions, the Chartwells commentary on the Indian Quad resident's door was most certainly protected by these University regulations. In fact, if looking for a person at fault, the Resident Assistant was in violation of Section 535-4 because of his attempt to limit a resident's expression.

This incident is a glaring example of why it is necessary to always question authority. The aforementioned Resident Assistant is representative of a sort of totalitarian thought police. When one attempts to abuse their authority to the point that it infringes on your Constitutional and University student rights don't take a subservient position. By invoking such rights and defending your ability to use them, it strengthens democracy, preventing such authorities from forcing our United States of America toward totalitarianism. As the Beastie Boys would say,