Marc Choquette
Perspectives Editor
A recent letter caught my attention from a Pepperdine alumnus to the editor of a L.A.-focused blog, the LAist, expressing concern that Pepperdine was actively suppressing a student’s right to free speech on campus. Nicholas Berg (‘01) charges the administration with “blatant censorship and viewpoint discrimination,” and worries about the effects of a suppressive culture.
“If students are taught at such an early age to surrender First Amendment rights in high school and college settings, they will be ill-equipped to exercise and defend their Constitutional rights in the future,” Berg concludes.
While concern for his alma mater is admirable, it seems far-fetched and naïve to think the administration squashes every attempt of free speech since the average Pepperdine student does not test the boundaries in the first place. But he does bring up some interesting points to back up these claims, ones not often presented in the age-old student debate of administration policy.
Berg cites an October 2006 report by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a non-partisan group whose mission is to “defend and sustain individual rights at America’s increasingly repressive and partisan colleges and universities.” To increase awareness, FIRE rated a school’s amount of free speech violations by traffic light color code: Red for major violations, green for few, if any. Pepperdine was designated a “red” school, meaning, “One or more policies have clearly and substantially restricted freedom of speech.”
FIRE took exception to a handful of clauses in the University handbook, mainly suspicious of the vague language used, which enables broad applicability on the part of the school. They saw the ban on distribution of material considered obscene/contrary to moral standards and the school mission, along with the ban of alcohol containers and drug related paraphernalia, to be especially disturbing.
Also mentioned is California’s Leonard Law, passed in 1992, that applies the First Amendment to private institutions, preventing discipline against a student for speech that would otherwise be protected off school grounds. This counters a common misnomer I have heard among students that upon agreeing to attend Pepperdine, one signs away their constitutional rights, given Pepperdine’s private school status.
What Berg and FIRE are short on, however, are examples of such violations. FIRE examines only the handbook, and Berg cites the administration’s recent handling of the GLEE club on campus as suspect but admits little can be done to counter the final decision because a private institution discriminating against a certain viewpoint is not necessarily a violation of free speech.
But his strong rhetoric and accusations make the problem seem bigger than it actually is. Even if administrators gave more leeway to students and, say, enabled flyers to be distributed on campus without needing prior approval, students are not likely to change their daily routine. The First Amendment protected, yet empty Freedom Wall is an example of how we are not a student body overly concerned with such issues.
But maybe Pepperdine’s hard line on disciplinary action serves as a deterrent to students challenging the rules. Most students know it is very much in their best interests to avoid a meeting with the disciplinary board at all costs.
It is largely the high opinion of graduates that partially discredits Berg’s outrage. Despite the school’s mysterious nature, many in the Southland hold Pepperdine graduates in high regard.
Regardless of our administration’s penchant for secrecy, students’ ideas of “freedom” and “truth” are not skewed. While Berg may feel there is trouble in paradise, Pepperdine students are aware that they do not have the same liberties as UCLA students and tend to be comfortable with that fact.
04-05-2007