Original Article: http://dartreview.com/archives/2003/10/23/fire_slams_dartmouth.php
Thursday, October 23, 2003
Editor's Note: The Following is the exact text, including formatting, of a letter from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education sent to Dartmouth College last spring. The delivery policy to which it refers officially went into effect this fall. The author, Thor L. Halvorssen, is the Chief Executive Officer of FIRE.
April 23, 2003
President James Wright
Dartmouth College
207 Parkhurst Hall
Hanover, NH 03755
Sent via U.S. Mail and Facsimile (603-646-2266)
Dear President Wright,
As you can see from the list of our Directors and Board of Advisors, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) unites leaders in the fields of civil rights and civil liberties, scholars, journalists, and public intellectuals across the political and ideological spectrum on behalf of liberty, legal equality, freedom of speech and expression, freedom of religion, academic freedom, and due process on America's college campuses. Our web page, www.thefire.org, will give you a greater sense of our identity and activities.
We are profoundly alarmed by what we have learned from students, news reports, and other sources about a policy restricting freedom of the press at Dartmouth College. Here is our understanding of the facts; please correct any errors in our understanding, if they exist. On March 13, 2002, The Daily Dartmouth ran an article entitled "New Locks May Hinder Deliveries." The article stated that Dartmouth College will start enforcing a general ban on solicitation in the residence halls. (This became possible, the article explained, because the administration had recently installed electronic locks on the main entrances to each of the dormitories, so a swipe card, such as a student ID, is now needed to enter any of the buildings.)According to Dean of Residential Life Martin Redman, however, the college would now also consider student distributors of student publications to be "solicitors." Consequently, Dartmouth has prohibited the door-to-door distribution of all student publications in its dormitories.
Newspapers, magazines, and journals, of course, are at the very heart of free expression and the free exchange of ideas. Indeed, the law sensibly draws a distinction between highly protected speech (such as political speech) and commercial speech, granting fewer protections to the latter but generous protections to the former. Dartmouth, though not bound by the U.S. Constitution (but, we hope, bound by the principle of freedom of expression), has confused this distinction. As a liberal arts institution, devoted by its Mission Statement to developing a "vital learning environment" and "to fostering a love of learning and discovery," Dartmouth should be at the vanguard in granting its students the greatest possible freedom of expression. The recent policy change contradicts this end. Indeed, by ignoring the distinction between political speech and commercial speech, your college governs the most essential expression by the least protective standard.
In effect, Dartmouth's ban on door-to-door distribution of student publications in the dormitories divides your campus into two areas: a "free speech zone," where rights of free expression are respected, and an expansive ?censorship zone,? where expression is strongly and unreasonably curtailed. By restricting written expression in those very areas where your students live, study, and socialize, you send the message that speech is to be feared, restrained, and monitored. This message is completely incompatible with a free society and stands in stark opposition to the ideals of higher education.
The irony, of course, is that the special role of the liberal arts college, in any democratic society, is to serve as the ultimate "free speech zone." An institution serious about the search for truth should be seeking at all times to expand open discourse, to develop intellectual inquiry, and to engage and challenge the way people think. A college that is intolerant of the often messy reality of a free society is incapable of teaching students to live in freedom. The world post-September 11 should have taught all of us about the fragility of liberty.
Dartmouth should not fear this free exchange of ideas. Rather, Dartmouth should embrace it as an indispensable element of the College's mission. Ultimately, Dartmouth cannot foster learning, discussion, and debate while banning these precious things from the very places where students live. It would be tragic if Dartmouth College, a great institution of liberal learning, were to equate student publications?which provide students with venues for discussing art, literature, politics, and, indeed, almost any topic imaginable—with junk mail and advertisements. Surely, Dartmouth recognizes the difference.
We are equally alarmed to learn that Dartmouth College appears to be applying this policy selectively and unfairly against The Dartmouth Review, a conservative student publication that frequently criticizes the administration. On February 13, 2003, Dean Redman sent an email to Office of Residential Life staff. The email said: "The only distribution of papers that is forbidden at this point in time is the Review. All other publications are fine until we figure out a different distribution system. The other magazines, journals, papers are funded by COSO and are not to be discarded [Emphasis added; ?COSO? refers to the Council on Student Organizations]."
That same day, Dean Redman sent another email to the editors of The Dartmouth Review, informing them that their publication was banned from campus dormitories. The email included the threat of potentially significant disciplinary consequences: "Please be advised any student found distributing the Review will be subject at a minimum to loss of door access to residence halls as per the door access policy."
This double standard, of course, strikes at the very heart of free speech and fairness at your institution, and we hope that your administration will put an end to it. However, we urge you not just to abandon the selective enforcement of this policy change—we urge you to abandon the policy change altogether.
We appeal to your personal sense of fairness and justice, as well as to your commitment to freedom, debate, and the exchange of ideas. FIRE will be watching this case very closely, and we would love to see it resolved without recourse to the court of public opinion. We have faith that reason and decency will prevail, and that you will remove this unnecessary restriction on your students.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
[Signed]
Thor L. Halvorssen
Chief Executive Officer
cc:
Jim Larimore, Dean of the College
Martin Redman, Dean of Residential Life
Holly Sateia, Dean of Student Life
Michael Gazzaniga, Dean of the Faculty
Members of the Board of Trustees
Encl.