Permission to Protest?

[reinko]

Over/under on this be locked by 4pm EST today, but folks thoughts??

https://marquettewire.org/4014646/news/demonstration-policy-revised-this-past-week/

[brewcity77]

I think this quote from the article sums it up well:

“The message this policy sends to students is that you can have grievances and express them as long as you clear them with us, the administration, first,” Rocco said. “I think that’s a dangerous message.”

The point of protest is that people disagree. Whether due to on campus employment conditions or wages or something more political, protest is only effective when it makes people uncomfortable. That's the very reason protest can spark change. The idea that only approved, orderly, well organized protests will be allowed goes against the spirit and efficacy of the First Amendment. This should be struck down.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

A few things.

First, this is a poorly witten and innaccurate article.  They should have linked to the overall "Demonstrations Policy" and not the one specific to the Alumni Memorial Union which gives an incomplete picture of how Marquette handles these things.  You can find that policy here:

https://www.marquette.edu/student-development/policies/demonstrations.php

Second, the reason colleges and universities have been adopting such policies are due to protests, oftentimes instigated by people not associated with the university, over various guest speakers.  We have all seen the headlines where speakers have been shut down due to protests right?  People have been rightly critical of those protests due to the university striving to be a "marketplace of ideas."

So in the end it really matters most how the University carries out this policy.  It says right within the policy "All students who are members of the university community have the right to peaceful demonstration (including, but not limited to, rallies, gatherings, protests, parades, and processions) on campus."

Would they allow a student-lead "pro choice" demonstration or something similarly controversial?  That's where the answer lies.

[forgetful]

PCU is an under-rated movie.

"We're not going to protest".

[mu03eng]

I think this quote from the article sums it up well:

“The message this policy sends to students is that you can have grievances and express them as long as you clear them with us, the administration, first,” Rocco said. “I think that’s a dangerous message.”

The point of protest is that people disagree. Whether due to on campus employment conditions or wages or something more political, protest is only effective when it makes people uncomfortable. That's the very reason protest can spark change. The idea that only approved, orderly, well organized protests will be allowed goes against the spirit and efficacy of the First Amendment. This should be struck down.

What does a private institution have to do with the First Amendment?

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Yeah this isn't a legal, First Amendment issue.  Marquette has every right to limit whatever protest it wants on its grounds. 

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

PCU is an under-rated movie.

"We're not going to protest".

Jeremy Piven's finest work

[StillAWarrior]

Most private businesses don't invite or allow protests on their property.  Find me a business that says, "if you ask permission first, I'll allow you into my building to have your protest."  It generally doesn't happen.  Marquette does allow protests and demonstrations -- even in its private buildings.  And it even specifically allows "walk through" protests without advance permission or approval at any time.  Again, try that in another private business.

Also, this:

What does a private institution have to do with the First Amendment?

[brewcity77]

What does a private institution have to do with the First Amendment?

Two aspects. First is that there are numerous public portions of the private institution. Roads and sidewalks, for instance. Second, while a private institution, it is also a venue to educate and prepare students for the rest of their lives. Part of that is allowing them to participate in the (small d) democratic process.

I get the divide here, but protest and universities have been connected for generations. And as long as federal endowment money goes to universities, whether public or private, I lean toward more liberal allowance of protests. Again, the point of protest is discomfort, not falling in line with "acceptable" forms of protest.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Two aspects. First is that there are numerous public portions of the private institution. Roads and sidewalks, for instance. Second, while a private institution, it is also a venue to educate and prepare students for the rest of their lives. Part of that is allowing them to participate in the (small d) democratic process.

This policy doesn't cover public sidewalks.  Anybody can protest along Wisconsin Avenue whever they want as long as they don't break the laws of the City or State.

I get the divide here, but protest and universities have been connected for generations. And as long as federal endowment money goes to universities, whether public or private, I lean toward more liberal allowance of protests. Again, the point of protest is discomfort, not falling in line with "acceptable" forms of protest.

I would argue that if Marquette executes this policy as it stands, it is a "liberal allowance of protests."

[StillAWarrior]

Two aspects. First is that there are numerous public portions of the private institution. Roads and sidewalks, for instance. Second, while a private institution, it is also a venue to educate and prepare students for the rest of their lives. Part of that is allowing them to participate in the (small d) democratic process.

I get the divide here, but protest and universities have been connected for generations. And as long as federal endowment money goes to universities, whether public or private, I lean toward more liberal allowance of protests. Again, the point of protest is discomfort, not falling in line with "acceptable" forms of protest.

But you linked an article that is discussing specifically a policy about protests within AMU.  It's absolutely reasonable (and necessary) for Marquette to regulate that.  And, as I mentioned before (and is mentioned in the article), they can protest/demonstrate in AMU without any advance approval or permission if they keep things moving.  This is an extremely accommodating policy.

Edited to add from the policy:  The Alumni Memorial Union (AMU) will allow members of the Marquette University community to host and participate in on-campus demonstrations within the AMU’s public spaces. The AMU will allow members of the Marquette University community to pass through the building as part of their peaceful demonstration. However, if groups would like to stay within the building beyond walking through it or if the group would like to request signatures from guests in the building for a petition, they must adhere to the AMU’s Demonstration Policy.

[brewcity77]

But you linked an article that is discussing specifically a policy about protests within AMU.

Just going to note, I didn't. I just responded.

[StillAWarrior]

Just going to note, I didn't. I just responded.

Fair enough.

[StillAWarrior]

Given my prior posts in this thread, I think it's only fair that I acknowledge that the broader policy that Fluffy linked also requires advance notice and approval for demonstrations in other locations.

[Cheeks]

I’ll just be happy when both sides are given equal treatment to speak on campus and not be blocked which is happening way too much.  If we want a free speech convo, let’s fix the access part first.

[Tha Hound]

Just an observation - It almost seems like my alma mater actively tries to promulgate policies that attract negative press. It is bewildering. This just seems completely unnecessary, especially on a college campus.

Edit - I see people correctly stating that this is not a 1a issue, and that Marquette is within its rights here. The question we should be asking is not whether it can be done, but whether it should.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Just an observation - It almost seems like my alma mater actively tries to promulgate policies that attract negative press. It is bewildering. This just seems completely unnecessary, especially on a college campus.

Some of this is definitely necessary.  The preapproval part is not really necessary and where the sticking point lies.  Could definitely be abused.

[Golden Avalanche]

Jeremy Piven's finest work

Indeed.

And the last time the greater world witnessed his genetic hairline.

[mu03eng]

Two aspects. First is that there are numerous public portions of the private institution. Roads and sidewalks, for instance. Second, while a private institution, it is also a venue to educate and prepare students for the rest of their lives. Part of that is allowing them to participate in the (small d) democratic process.

I get the divide here, but protest and universities have been connected for generations. And as long as federal endowment money goes to universities, whether public or private, I lean toward more liberal allowance of protests. Again, the point of protest is discomfort, not falling in line with "acceptable" forms of protest.

All fair, but if the line in the sand is first amendment that invites chaos that is totally counter to the mission of a university. Government by its nature is slow and methodical and is designed to be disrupted so that it is responsive to the citizenry. A university does not have that mission and it while it should be a place to educate in both theory and practical application it certainly should be a 100% real world experience, etc.

[mu03eng]

Jeremy Piven's finest work

"You're wearing the t-shirt of the band that you are going to be?!?! Don't be that guy"

[Benny B]

The problem with protesters (read: not protesting) in the current age is the same issue that makes fraternities so dangerous... you want people to remember you (or the movement), so everyone thinks they have to keep one-upping their predecessors. 

That's why you need boundaries and limits on protesters, not the actual protest.



That said, I'm curious as to how many people who participate in a public protest honestly believe they're doing so more for purposes of making a difference than they are for purposes of saying "I was there."

[D'Lo Brown]

The problem with protesters (read: not protesting) in the current age is the same issue that makes fraternities so dangerous... you want people to remember you (or the movement), so everyone thinks they have to keep one-upping their predecessors. 

That's why you need boundaries and limits on protesters, not the actual protest.



That said, I'm curious as to how many people who participate in a public protest honestly believe they're doing so more for purposes of making a difference than they are for purposes of saying "I was there."

I believe the majority of people that were killed at Jackson State and Kent State weren't even onlookers/gawkers, they were literally just walking by to get to class/work/home.

I trust protesters to know how to protest more than I trust universities or law enforcement to discern the difference between a protest and an insurrection.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

What does a private institution have to do with the First Amendment?

Marquette, like most private universities, guarantee first amendment rights to students as part of their acceptance. It's a contractual obligation.

[mu03eng]

Marquette, like most private universities, guarantee first amendment rights to students as part of their acceptance. It's a contractual obligation.

Perfectly fine, what does a private institution "limiting" protests on private property do to impinge on the students right to protest their government. The first amendment prevents the government from limiting speech in anyway.....that has nothing to do with a private entity "limiting" speech on private land.

If Marquette were to discipline a student for going to Madison to protest in the capital.....that's an infringement of that students first amendment right(though it's somewhat tenuous because that depends on MU getting funding from the government)

If Marquette were to discipline a student for violating it's policy on protest on MU property that has no infringement concerns.


I'm all for open dialog on campus and providing as much opportunity for voices to be heard, but we can't do so by hiding behind the first amendment.....it has no bearing on this concern.

[StillAWarrior]

My daughter recently started at Purdue.  Reading up on things, I've been pretty impressed with their commitment to protecting free speech and public discourse (and yes, I'm aware that it's public and has some different rules that apply).  It was hilarious on Facebook last week when some parents realized that their children were being exposed to a very harsh and vocal preacher on campus.  People were literally disappointed that the campus police weren't hauling the preacher away.  Several expressed extreme concern for their kids' safety (because they equated him calling girls whores and saying their skimpy clothes meant they wanted to be raped with an actual threat of rape).  The thread was disturbing.

I kept quiet, but I couldn't help thinking that the kids' classmates almost certainly posed far more danger to them than some preacher.


The guy reminded me of the "God-mobile" from back in the day.