Posted on 01/30/2006 12:19:38 PM PST by seraphMTH
Under Review
By Kat Lewin Monday, January 30, 2006 last updated January 30, 2006 2:02 AM
East Campus became the site of civil disobedience on Jan. 21, when staff members of The Stanford Review distributed copies of their publication in violation of dorm distribution policies. Due to these actions, The Stanford Review now faces indictment by the University and a possible appearance before the Organizational Conduct Board. “From our calculations, we ended up distributing about a thousand issues door-to-door,” said sophomore Ryan Tracey, editor in chief of The Stanford Review. “We covered Stern, Branner, Manzanita and all of Wilbur besides Otero — they were having a ski trip, so no one would let us in. We would have distributed there too if we could.”
Resident fellows at the dorms that received copies of The Review said they were displeased with the breach of distribution policy.
Godfrey Mungal, resident fellow at Rinconada, said The Review “violated our policy and we were not happy. A common location for all distribution is best — actually not unlike a person’s real home, which is what the dorm is meant to be.”
According to Tracey, he and two other members on The Review’s staff — then-Editor in Chief Alex Medearis and Editor in Chief Emeritus Ben Guthrie — received an e-mail from Dean of Students Morris Graves informing them that the Office of Residental Education had filed a formal complaint against the publication on Jan. 24. The complaint charged The Review with violating both the distribution policy and the Fundamental Standard.
Laura Harrison, director of the Women’s Community Center, has been charged with investigating the case, Tracey said. She will interview all parties involved in the policy violation in order to compile an investigative report. Graves will use the report to determine whether the incident warrants review by the Organizational Conduct Board (OCB).
“There’s a chance he can throw away the report,” Tracey said. “But most likely, Graves is going to put together an OCB hearing. They’ll decide if we are guilty of the formal complaint, and if so, they will decide a punishment.”
According to the official OCB Web site, possible punishment includes educational sanctions, monetary fines and removal of University recognition.
In spite of the indictment, Guthrie said he defends The Review’s decision to distribute in violation of the current policy.
“It was an intentional act of civil disobedience in protest of a rule that we believe to be unjust,” he added. “Door-to-door distribution is essential for the publications community, essential for students interested in reading our publications and consistent with the values for which both Stanford and Residential Education stand.”
The incident was another episode in the ongoing battle between some student groups and the Office of Residential Education’s official “opt-in” policy for door-to-door distribution of student publications. According to ASSU Senate Chair Chris Nguyen, a junior, the student body voted in last spring’s election to replace the current policy with an “opt-out policy,” which would allow door-to-door distribution in dorms by default. However, Residential Education has not changed its stance.
“I view this as a freedom of press issue,” Nguyen said. “Banning door-to-door distribution on this campus is a way to make sure that papers don’t get viewed. It seems that by restricting door-to-door distribution we stifle free speech.”
To this end, Guthrie said he and Tracey recently co-founded the Stanford Review Distribution Commission, an ad hoc committee within the Review.
“As part of the commission we invited other Review members to brainstorm ideas about how to more effectively distribute our newspaper,” Tracey said. “We came up with ideas about news racks, distribution patterns, but we realized that none of this meant a lot. We decided at that meeting to go ahead and distribute door-to-door for our next issue.”
The Stanford Review Distribution Commission has also been working with The Stanford Progressive “to reach out to the other publications and make a joint statement to the administration,” Guthrie said.
Sophomore Lindsay Reinsmith, managing editor of The Progressive, agreed that she considers door-to-door distribution a hot-button issue.
“Door-to-door distribution is nice in that it allows students to access publications,” she said. “They have to make literally no effect to get publications produced on campus. However, it creates a mess of paper on campus, and students don’t necessarily want their own copies of publications. You have to find a balance here between allowing students to find ready access to material without overwhelming them.”
Some, however, said they felt that allowing door-to-door distribution would have a negative impact on student life.
“The major point of a university is to educate its students,” said Lantana Resident Fellow Brent Sockness. “There should be spaces left in the university — e.g. the classroom, residence halls, even the athletic fields — where students aren’t being marketed to all the time. If you allow door-to-door distribution to go widespread, it could be like not having a junk mail filter on your e-mail inbox. Think about it.”
----------------
The "Stanford Review" is currently in negotiations with an attorney to take this case pro bono and take it as far as it will go. Let's help them out in any way possible.
Link to Stanford Review Distribution Commission:
http://www.stanfordreview.org/Distribution/
I don't see how this is a First Amendment case. First of all, the government isn't prohibiting the speech. Second, even Stanford isn't prohibiting the speech. Stanford merely is enforcing an access policy to their dorms. That's reasonable, isn't it?
Not to rain on this parade, but we have a similar situation in our community, in which a small publisher that depends on advertising for his profit distributes his free newspaper to every lawn, regardless of the wishes of the homeowner. Two things are wrong with this picture:
1) the publisher's politics are consistently Bush-bashing, in spite of the fact that 48% of this county and 70% of the neighboring county voted for Bush; and
2) because the publication offends or disinterests so many, it ends up littering the lawns and becoming soggy in the curbs, in an otherwise very neat suburb.
It's exciting to think of distribution as a free speech issue, but on a practical level, the point is how to maximize "revenue" or readership of your publication. Becoming a nuisance or a cleaning expense to the universityis not good management. Isn't there a third way besides the familiar victimization and "rights" politics?
Only on a university capmii could a simple act of littering turn into a principled political debate involving attorneys.
But door-to-door distribution does make it harder for vandals to carry off your entire print run.
Can you imagine the mess on Sunday morning when the dorm supervisors had to clean up that blizzard of fliers, soaked into the beer on the hallway floors.
"A common location for all distribution is best"
Stanford merely is enforcing an access policy to their dorms. That's reasonable, isn't it?
Who knew?
Can anybody tell me what side the aclu is on this one so I know what to be against?
"I don't see how this is a First Amendment case."
I don't see it either.
The same reasoning as this article can be applied to spam. After all, who am I that I shouldn't allow someone to exercise free speech over the size and activity of my manhood?
Would I not have the right to keep that little freebie newspaper from getting stuffed in my door at home?
What if some street preacher wants to rent a million-watt PA system and drown out everything within its reach?
Laura Harrison, director of the Women’s Community Center, has been charged with investigating the case, >>>
DUM DA DUM DUM
DUM DA DUM DUM DAAAAAAAAHHHHHH......
My concern here is selective enforcement. When I attended college, yes, we were drenched with literature at our doors, and that was annoying. But could this news reflect SELECTIVELY barring a known CONSERVATIVE outlet from violating a distribution policy that non-conservative publications routinely violate too?
It would be a stronger case if they can show that leaving papers in a common space has led to removal of the conservative papers. As long as this is a content neutral policy to keep clutter from under student doors, I don't see this as any more than a Constitutional time, place and manner restriction.
Not when those dorms are generally open to access by all students.
Actually, they don't have open access. If you read the article, it mentions how they couldn't get into a dorm because no one would let them in.
Unless there is an issue of selective enforcement, I think the paper's wrong here. This is a policy voted on by the students and as such (should) reflect popular view
But they are restricting access to everyone soliciting or distributing materials. It is not speech specific.
"Laura Harrison, director of the Women’s Community Center, has been charged with investigating the case.."
Nothing political here..................
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.