Bureaucratic Quashing of Free Speech 
The University can deter events through vague rules, despite pro-speech statements. 

Kudos to President Dudley for defending Matt Walsh’s campus speech, despite substantial faculty and student blowback against the event. Doing so pushed W&L to twentieth of 248 institutions reviewed in the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) rankings for best university free speech environment.

But the battle for a campus open to different ideas is not yet over. University administrators can still use opaque rules to stymie event planners and deter campus discourse.

A case in point is the upcoming talk sponsored by College Republicans, College Democrats, The Generals Redoubt, and The Steamboat Institute. The University — seemingly out of thin air — invoked a rule which effectively blocked the event from being held in Lee Chapel, National Historic Landmark.

The talk will feature Carol Swain and Marc Lamont Hill, the first a conservative, the second a liberal, both black, in a discussion about diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives — which the hard left is never open to questioning.

The Steamboat Institute, a conservative outfit which is facilitating the event as part of its Campus Liberty Tour, stipulated that any discussion must be live-streamed.

According to College Republicans, an initial inquiry into hosting the event in Lee Chapel — campus’s most iconic venue — was rebuffed by administrators who said that College Republicans and College Democrats are not permitted to live-stream events from the chapel. They are instead hosting the event in Stackhouse Theater. Although they can now have a live-stream, Stackhouse has a significantly lower seating capacity than Lee Chapel.

And some outside event backers, in addition to live-streaming rights, require a capacity threshold to sponsor events. For example, Young America’s Foundation (YAF), the external sponsor of Matt Walsh’s speech, required a venue capable of seating at least 500 people. The only campus event venue which readily fits the bill is Lee Chapel.

Had The Steamboat Institute made similar capacity stipulations, W&L students would be bereft of an interesting, needed exchange of views and ideas.

Restrictions on University facility use thus have the potential to block the high-profile exchange of ideas central to the fundamental mission of higher education — to expand minds and foster intellectual progress.

Concerningly, my email correspondence with Robert Forsberg, a University Museums employee who regulates events in Lee Chapel, suggests that the university is not being above board with its event rules.

Forsberg told me that “only official university events (i.e. Alumni Weekend assemblies, honor society orientations and inductions, Admitted Students Days, Mock Convention, etc.) can have photography or video recordings of events in the Chapel.”

Remarkably, Mock Convention — a student organization — counts as “official,” whereas College Republicans and College Democrats — also student organizations — do not.

The distinction, which Forsberg failed to properly make in his emails to me, is between “Major Events” and those excluded from that definition.

According to the University Chapel Use Guidelines, only non-Major events can use outside equipment (presumably including a camera) in the chapel.

Oddly enough, the most important events held in the chapel are somehow not “Major Events”: Honor System Orientation, Honor Society Inductions, and Student Body Hearings, among others, are excluded from the definition of a “Major Event,” based on the University Facilities Use Policy.

Events organized by student organizations can be excluded from the definition of a “Major Event” — and therefore allowed to use recording equipment — if the event is held “for the primary benefit of the University community,” if it is “held in a timely manner,” and if it receives the blessing of either the Dean of Students (Sidney Evans) or the Provost (Lena Hill).

It is absurd that student organizations must request permission from the upper levels of university administration in order to simply use a camera at an event.

And the vague, subjective criteria used to approve exceptions — that the event must be held “in a timely manner” and “for the primary benefit of the University community” — leaves room for discrimination between favored and unfavored events and organizations.

I am unsure whether College Republicans or College Democrats requested authorization from Provost Hill or Dean Evans. But Forsberg was misleading when he told me that “only official university events… can have photography or video recordings of events in the Chapel,” especially as the University event policies contain no explicit references to videography, recording, live-streaming, or “official” and “unofficial” events.

I like to think that University staff and administrators perform their jobs without partiality, and I should note that Forsberg’s correspondence with me was prompt and professional. Yet Forsberg’s misleading statements, the vagueness of the online policies, and the timing of their initial implementation (the most restrictive rules were added just as College Republicans began working to host Matt Walsh) could suggest that ulterior motives are at work.

I do not want to jump to conclusions. But at the very least, the University should clarify and streamline its rules. Events should not be subject to the opaque whims of staff and administrators, and planners should be able to quickly determine event viability from the published policies.

It should be easy for student organizations to plan and execute high-profile events in conjunction with outside sponsors, who often provide needed funding. None should endure the arduous negotiations and rule changes dealt with by College Republicans and The Spectator while planning Walsh’s visit.

President Dudley and other administrators ought to dedicate themselves to making the campus as accessible as possible to speeches, debates, and discussions. Anything less would be a slight against the sacred duties of the University.

The opinions expressed in this magazine are the author's own and do not reflect the official policy or position of The Spectator, or any students or other contributors associated with the magazine. It is the intention of The Spectator to promote student thought and civil discourse, and it is our hope to maintain that civility in all discussions