Marquette is no exception to the rise of new issues regarding freedom of expression on the Web that has emerged with the ever-expanding blogosphere.
During fall semester finals week, second-year dental student Ted Schrubbe posted what the university deemed to be off-color comments about his classmates and a professor- all of whom remained nameless- and made references to alcohol consumption.
The Dental School administration’s ensuing punishment, which threatened suspension for the duration of the academic year and would have taken away Schrubbe’s scholarship, carried the debate about free speech at private schools to the forefront of Marquette’s campus.
The administration’s actions came under fire from many who felt the school had violated the law by limiting the student’s right to free speech, a right guaranteed to each citizen in the Constitution. This assumption was incorrect, due to Marquette’s status as a private university. Since private universities such as Marquette do not rely heavily upon government funds to operate, they are legally free to establish their own codes of student conduct. Government-funded public universities, on the other hand, are bound to extend to their students the freedoms enumerated in the Constitution.
In the past, Marquette has chosen to stifle certain types of student expression on campus. The removal of the Adopt-a-Sniper table during last year’s Mission Week, the lack of pro-choice or homosexual rights advocacy groups and the efforts to have rallying students stay off campus and stick to the sidewalks of Wisconsin Ave. during the 2004 presidential election are all instances in which Marquette has chosen to limit student expression.
The explanation? Director of University Communication Brigid O’Brien Miller said: “The university recognizes students’ rights of free expression within legal and ethical guidelines. As a Catholic, Jesuit university, Marquette also reserves the right to maintain an environment that is in keeping with our values.”
When it came to Shrubbe’s blog, many students were upset by Marquette’s willingness to take advantage of the legal leeway it has to maintain its desired environment.
“It was one of those events that really struck a chord with students. On one hand there was outrage about the severity of the punishment itself but also the implications for freedom of speech,” said Dek Glynn, Legislative Vice-President of Marquette University Student Government. Following the blog incident, Glynn co-authored a resolution demanding the administration be more prudent in its handling of issues involving student expression.
Plans are also in the works within MUSG to address student freedoms more broadly through a student’s bill of rights. Senator Pat Landry has been driving some of the preliminary work on this legislation and has discovered that the balance between preserving values and preserving freedoms can be difficult to strike.
“Right now we want to include a freedom of speech or expression section as well as a freedom from harassment section. One question might be whether the two conflict, and how?” he said.
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a students’ rights organization based in Philadelphia, states, “If a private university states clearly and publicly that it is devoted to a given orthodoxy, that institution has considerably more leeway in imposing its views on students, who have given their informed consent by choosing to attend.”
Marquette, in adhering to a Jesuit philosophy, fits into this category of institution, and few have questioned its legal prerogative to act in such a way. Nevertheless, with many students expressing displeasure, and more than one legislative attempt by MUSG to address the issue, students have shown that the school’s willingness to exercise its legal right in such a manner may not go uncontested.
Popularity: 3% [?]
