The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has spotlighted Syracuse University as its monthly “speech code” violator for September, citing the university’s Computing and Electronic Communications policy as a chief violator of free speech.

FIRE defines a speech code as any university regulation or policy that clearly and substantially restricts freedom of speech. FIRE’s speech codea system labels a university’s policies as a “red,” “yellow,” or “green,” based on FIRE’s opinion of how restricted free speech is at an institution, according to the organization’s website. SU’s Computing and Electronic Communications is the only policy that received a red-light rating out of all of SU’s policies.

Monthly speech codes are not a ranking, but a system that aims to bring attention to “particularly egregious” instances of restricted expression, said Robert Shibley, senior vice president of FIRE. The organization first gave the university its red-light rating in December, but SU is being specifically spotlighted by FIRE this month.

“We see a lot of restrictions in colleges and universities’ IT policies that really go much further than parts of the Constitution will allow,” Shibley said. “Or even farther than what is dictated in their own free speech policies.”

SU’s Computing and Electronic Communications Policy outlines several behaviors and activities performed on the SU Computer System that are improper and prohibited, including storing obscene material, harassing others and forging emails, among others, according to the university’s website. SU’s system includes computers and computer accounts, according to the website.

Shibley said the organization believes that by limiting students from posting this type of content, SU is in violation of free speech.

“I haven’t seen the rankings, but any unbiased look at the facts will show that Syracuse places a high value on free speech and also fostering an environment for students that is supportive and welcoming,” Kevin Quinn, senior vice president for public affairs, said in an email.

Roy Gutterman, director of the Tully Center for Free Speech, said the university is obligated to allow as much free speech as it can. Developing any sort of code or restriction such as the policy can be seen as a “detriment to free speech,” he added.

Gutterman said it can be difficult to identify what exactly is defined as offensive or obscene, adding this makes it very difficult to legislate. In recent years, several cases in which students were brought under fire for exhibiting questionable online behavior could have been considered as off-campus speech, said Gutterman, who is also an associate professor of newspaper and online journalism.

He said this brings forth the question of what is considered on-campus and off-campus activity online.

“I study this stuff and I’m incapable of coming up with a definition for what’s insensitive or offensive,” Gutterman said.  “What’s offensive to me might not be offensive to someone else and vice versa.”

Shibley said defining what is considered offensive is confusing both online and offline, but the First Amendment exists as a guide in these situations. In the context of the First Amendment, he said, violations can’t be a basis for silencing free speech.

Eliminating the policy would be the university’s best solution, Shibley said. He said it is unlikely the university is administering the policy and consequently preventing anyone from offending others online. The policy is only enforced when someone submits a complaint, he said.

The policy is ineffective, he said, because many students don’t find out how their behavior was offensive until after the complaint is filed, making it difficult to prevent these actions before they’re committed.

“The intention of this is to get people talking,” Shibley said. “They shouldn’t need a policy like this to persuade them.”

Published on September 10, 2013 at 3:04 am

Contact Annie: apalme05@syr.edu