Mark raises, I think, an important point about the legitimacy of different rules for different areas in a dormitory that I suggest can be recognized as valid even by those of us (and I include myself) who are something of free-speech absolutists in most other contexts.
Many years ago when I (successfully) as a brand-new law professor had the temerity (in the view of some) to campaign against a proposed speech code at my former institution, I nonetheless became convinced that the countervailing interests of students living in a dormitory to avoid being confronted with offensive imagery in their own homes deserved positive consideration. While a student should be left largely unregulated in choosing what images or expressive materials to post inside the student's own room, the privacy and emotional security interests of other students emerge when expression that may offend is imposed upon a captive audience in the very place where persons retreat for rest and renewal. When a person ventures forth into the world at large, he or she cannot be protected from exposure to sights, sounds, etc. that the particular person may find displeasing. And when that displeasure is grounded in disagreement with the idea expressed, calling upon the government to suppress it is most troubling. Thus, for example, the common areas of the university, as with the public sidewalks of a street, should be "free speech" zones. In these areas, arguments about offense, emotional distress, etc. cannot justify governmental intervention. But even the hardiest of souls needs a place of retreat, to be refreshed, to be "at home." And for many college students that place is the dormitory. In my view, a student going and from his or her room to the lavatory or to the elevator -- a journey that cannot be avoided -- should not have to suffer the emotional onslaught of offensive images. Just as I believe a community is justified in adopting different rules regarding street protests and marches for residential areas, I think a university justifiably can adopt a more protective approach to living quarters, requiring greater sensitivity to the concerns of neighbors, including adopting some restrictions for those elements of a dormitory that are immediately adjacent to the rooms in which students live. The difficulty is in defining what is and is not permitted, and applying that definition, in a manner that is as neutral as possible and leaves little discretion for overzealous administrators in enforcement.) Greg Sisk Gregory Sisk Professor of Law University of St. Thomas School of Law (Minneapolis) 1000 LaSalle Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55403-2005 651-962-4923 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: Mark Tushnet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 1:07 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Proposed dorm speech code at the University of Alabama It's worth noting that the policy remains in draft form. One might imagine different provisions for spaces interior to residents' rooms, and those exposed to the public such as the exteriors of doors. I think much would turn on precisely what the policy covers. But, I would think that there's no serious problem with pretty restrictive regulations of things like the walls in common hallways (unless they are conceptualized, somehow, as public fora -- which seems to me would be pretty hard to do given the current Court's unwillingness to expand the scope of the "traditional" public forum from streets and parks). To the extent that the walls of the common areas are used to post official announcements and announcements of public events, again one would need to know the precise contours of the policy to know whether such postings had converted the areas into limited public fora. In short, I find it hard to react to the story without more detail about what policies are actually in place.
