This is a pretty amazing ad from Pampers, now on the front page of Youtube.  The ad unabashedly uses prolife concepts to sell its diapers.  It must demoralize the supporters of abortion to see ads like this, because they probably understand that they are losing the war of ideas on life with regular Americans, even after subjecting us to 37 years of the pro-abortion regime of Roe v. Wade.

FIRE has been putting the heat on Sinclair Community College (Ohio) after it punished a student for distributing pro-life literature after class.  According to FIRE’s report, a paralegal student distributed literature linking abortion and breast cancer to her fellow students after her Probate Law I class in October 2010.  (October is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month.)  She gave some flyers to students directly and placed other flyers on the desks of students who had left their seats. 

A couple weeks later, Sinclair’s Paralegal Program Chair met with the student about the flyers.  (Here’s where the story follows the usual university plot line.)  The Program Chair told the student that another student complained that the flyers were…drum roll please:  “offensive.”  (Where have we heard that before?)  Then the Program Chair told the student she could not distribute any literature in class. 

And he’s right, at least according to Sinclair policy.  The Student Code of Conduct bans the distribution of literature anywhere on Sinclair’s campus, except for registered student organizations that ”register with the appropriate college official” (The policy doesn’t tell us who that is).   So FIRE wrote to Sinclair and informed it of the many ways it was violating this student’s constitutional rights.  How did Sinclair respond?  By following the plot line, of course. 

Sinclair claims it has another policy that allows for some literature distribution, but just not in classrooms, hallways, and a few other campus locations.  Even if a student distributes flyers after class, when no disruption of the academic environment is possible, Sinclair prohibits it.  What’s more, Sinclair has not repudiated its Student Code policy that bans literature distribution everywhere on campus.  Which is convenient, if you’re trying to avoid the public spotlight, but also retain a complete lock-down on a protected form of speech. 

So what is it, Sinclair?  Do you allow literature distribution?  Or don’t you?  From what I can tell, your policies of convenience allow you to make that decision based on who’s speaking.  I hope FIRE turns up the heat and you restore freedom of speech on campus.

Know your rights on campus. Go to www.speakupmovement.org/university

My colleague David French wrote recently about the rise of the pro-life movement on college campuses.  For those of you in that movement, take note of the following video taken on the campus of Florida State University.

The power of the pro-life message is clear, as illustrated through the young man’s testimony.  But abortion advocates will do anything to silence (or drown out) that message.  I commend the Florida State police officers for allowing the pro-life students the opportunity to speak freely and to change at least one man’s heart.

I’ve taken a particular interest in the pro-life activities of Canadian students in recent years because of the bravery and commitment these students display in the face of unbearable restrictions on their speech.  I’ve also warned that if we do not zealously protect our freedom of speech in America, then pro-life students here will begin to encounter the same restrictions as their friends north of the boarder.  But only recently have I realized how similar we’ve become.  Events this month at Carleton University in Ontario are strikingly similar not only to our video series about Hanna, but also to our case involving Rock for Life at University of Maryland, Baltimore County.

Carleton arrested five students on October 4th for displaying Genocide Awareness Project signs on campus.  GAP signs show the horrors of abortion by comparing it to genocide in other contexts.  The students were members of Carleton Lifeline, a student club at the university, and obtained permits for the event.  However, as the Brock Press reports, Carleton shut down the event and arrested the students for trespassing because the GAP signs might have offended some people:

Jason MacDonald, a spokesperson for the University, said other jurisdictions have deemed the content offensive because of its graphic nature.

“We need to balance the students’ right to express themselves on this particular issue and to do so freely with the fact that some people may not be comfortable seeing larger-than-life images of aborted fetuses as they walk through campus,” said MacDonald.

MacDonald said the University offered the students the opportunity to display their exhibit in an auditorium called Porter Hall, an area that Lobo calls isolated and “off the beaten path”.

The students refused to move the event, so police arrested them for trespassing.  You read that right, tuition-paying students arrested for trespassing on their own campus.  Here’s a video of the arrest at Carleton:

Compare the situation at Carleton to Hanna’s story that we posted a few days ago:

Additionally, the situation at Carleton is eerily similar to what our clients experienced in Rock for Life v. Hrabowski.  In that case, pro-life students at University of Maryland, Baltimore County applied for permits to bring the GAP display to campus and when the students began setting up the display, the University, like Carleton, moved them to a vacant field far away from student pedestrian traffic.  The students complied, and likely averted arrest, but sued the University for moving the event and for threatening them with punishment under the University’s harassment policies.

Each of these situations demonstrate that universities strive to avoid discussing the merits of reproductive policy.  Instead, they simply stigmatize students by labeling their speech “offensive” and then move them to a location where no one will hear.  I applaud the students for standing up for the unborn and free speech, and will continue to monitor the developments at Carleton.

UPDATE:  ADF allied attorney John Carpay writes in today’s Calgary Herald that a recent decision in Pridgen v. University of Calgary, may help the Carleton students.  The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench ruled that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects students’ rights to express their opinions on campus.  The column is worth a read. 

Join the Movement: Facebook.com/SpeakUpU

Casey Mattox’s excellent series on Widmar v. Vincent (stay tuned, there’s more to come) inspired me to write my own mini-series on student activity fees, a topic that will consume student groups from coast to coast this summer as they prepare for the fall semester.  I will examine the constitutional principles that guide these systems, objections to paying the fees, and methods for allocating fees that violate the First Amendment.  My hope is that student groups who are entering or will enter the fee allocation season this fall will be better equipped to ensure they have equal access to student fees.  Today, we start with an overview of the constitutional principles.

Most universities charge students a student activity fee.  Typically, the fee pays for non-instructional student services (e.g., student union facilities, recreational sports, bus services, etc.).  But a portion of the fee often funds student organization activities as well.  At most universities, these fees are mandatory, though at least one exception exists. A student committee or student-administrator hybrid committee usually distributes the fees.  In so doing, the committee must follow a few clearly established constitutional standards:  the committee cannot distribute the fees based on viewpoint and must use objective, specific criteria when deciding whether a student group is eligible for funding and how much each group receives.

These standards arose out of a series of Supreme Court cases.  Fifteen years ago, in Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, the Supreme Court held that when a public university creates a mandatory student activity fee and then allocates the fees to student organizations for their activities, it creates a public forum for students.  In such a forum, the university must distribute the fees without regard to viewpoint.  In Rosenberger, the university provided student fee funding to student organizations, but prohibited student groups from receiving student activity fees for religious activities.  Based on the viewpoint neutrality principle, the Supreme Court ruled that ban on religious activities constituted viewpoint discrimination and was unconstitutional.

While Rosenberger was a victory for equal access to student fees, not all students wanted to participate in the student fee system.  Here is why:  Student A is a deeply committed Christian and believes that life begins at conception.  She attends Public University and must pay a student fee of $200 per semester.  She determines that her university’s student fee committee allocates a portion of student fees to student organizations, and “Students for Choice” is one of those groups.  Student A does not want her money funding abortion advocacy.  She objects and refuses to pay the student fee.  Some universities will allow Student A to opt-out of paying student fees.  But Student A’s university will not.  Must she pay the fee?  Yes.

A few years after Rosenberger, students at the University of Wisconsin challenged the ability of their university to mandate that they pay a student activity fee in the first place.  The students filed suit (represented by ADF’s Jordan Lorence) and claimed that the university violated their right to free speech by compelling them to pay student fees that were allocated to student organizations that advocated messages they disagreed with.   In a landmark decision, Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth, the Supreme Court held that the mandatory student fee did not violate the First Amendment rights of the objecting students because the university allocated the fee on a viewpoint neutral basis.  What does this mean for Student A?  While she cannot refuse to pay the fee that funds, in part, “Students for Choice,” she can start Students for Life and request funding from the same pot of money to counter the abortion advocacy.  Thus, while students may not want to pay the fee in the first place, they may access it to support their student group’s expression.  And, if Student A’s school does not give funds to both Students for Choice and Students for Life, it violates viewpoint neutrality and the fee cannot be mandatory.  If it is mandatory, the university has violated the constitution.

Does your public university prohibit student groups from receiving funding for “religious activities,” “proselytizing,” or other religious expression?  If so, it is violating viewpoint neutrality and you can do something about it.

Next post:  Allocating fees based on clear standards.