Restricted Freedom

The Letter of Victory

2006-11-28T07:41:00.000-08:00

I received this letter yesterday from Gail DiSabatino, VP of Student Affairs. It basically says that 1) the CC's are off the hook, and 2) the Speech Zones are toast.

So, we won. Speech zones are gone. Yay!

Late Update

2006-11-20T11:27:00.000-08:00

Sorry it's been a while since I last updated. This weekend rather busy. I'll fill you in on the details later, but for right now, just know that the University seems to be committed to its promise of revising and redoing the speech codes. I gather this from my communicaes with the administration and related peoples. In light of this, I am issuing this official statement from the Clemson Conservatives:

"We consider the statement from the Office of Student Affairs to be a great victory for the Clemson Conservatives, but more importantly, the students of Clemson. I think it sends a great message to the student body that the individual student is bigger than his university, and that the mission of the university is to serve the students—not the other way around. I am happy that the university has recognized the serious iniquities with their speech zone policy, which is now under review, and has begun to take measures to correct it. I hope that the revised policies will reflect a student's constitutional right to free speech and expression, and that no Clemson student should ever have fear of reprisal from utilizing rights granted to all citizens of this great nation. The Clemson Conservatives is excited to be a part of this monumental step of creating an academic environment where free inquiry is truly free, and helping to transform Clemson University into a model school for this state and for the nation."
-Andrew Davis (11/20/06)

Half a victory? Or not really...

2006-11-16T22:01:00.000-08:00

So tonight I recieve an email from Joy Smith alerting me and others that the University has suspended its solicitation and speech zone codes for further review and consideration. At first, this seemed like we had won, but the decision resolves none of our demands. Copied below is the email message:

Please share the following message with appropriate groups or individuals. Thank you!

Questions and concerns have been raised regarding the Clemson University Sales and Solicitation policy. Therefore, the University has begun the process of reviewing and considering revisions to this policy as well as other related policies. During this period of review, Clemson University affiliated individuals or groups may assemble, protest or demonstrate on campus as long as they do not disrupt the normal or previously scheduled activities of the University or University affiliated entities, violate the free speech, assembly or movement of other individuals or organizations, damage property, or create an unsafe situation for any individual, group or organization.

Gail A. DiSabatino
Vice President for Student Affairs
Clemson University

I then responded to the email, and back to Joy:

Joy,

While again I will applaud the University for taking steps in the right direction, there still remains some serious questions that this recent decision does not answer. A revision and consideration of policies does not guarantee to any degree the assurance of their complete abolition. You will note that this was one of the demands of Clemson Conservatives,as it is with FIRE. Additionally, there is no mention of exoneration ofthe Clemson Conservatives for actions that are now obviously shown to havebeen malum prohibitum. We feel that resolutions to these two demands havenot been met sufficiently. It appears that while the University has grownwary of the egregious problems of speech zones on campus, that the currentdecision merely delays action. Perhaps I have been mistaken and prematurein my assumption, and that answers to these two questions are to be madeshortly. However, I feel that such an issue as speech zones requires suchvigilant attention to any decision made regarding them because of theirimpact on students and groups—as the Clemson Conservatives have seen firsthand. If you could please answer my questions, or direct to the person incharge of answering such questions, it would be appreciated.

Andrew Davis

Press Release

2006-11-16T21:53:00.000-08:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY SANCTIONS STUDENT GROUP FOR FREE SPEECH

GROUP PLANS SECOND PROTEST

Nov. 16, 2006

Clemson, SC--The Clemson Conservatives, a Clemson student organization, is planning a "Free Speech Protest" tomorrow on the Clemson University campus only a week after being sanctioned by the University for protesting outside of a free speech zone. Despite threats from administration officials of loss of student recognition, arrest and even the expulsion of the student leader of the organization, the activist student organization plans to hold their protest of Clemson's "speech zone" policies.

On Oct. 30, the Clemson Conservatives defied university officials by holding a protest of a Clemson Gay Straight Alliance rally, after the Clemson Conservatives were told they were restricted to one of two speech zones on campus. A police complaint was filed with the Office of Student Conduct against the student organization the next day, resulting in the group being "verbally admonished" and "censured" by the University. The charge was "holding an event in a non-designated area." Andrew Davis, chairman of the group, was told by Alesia Smith, director of the Office of Student Conduct, that in a future violations, the University could "pursue [him] as an individual," and also "repeated attempts could possibly alter [his] status here at the university."

Clemson University code for events on campus state that free speech events must be restricted to two locations on campus. University regulations state: "The Union has two designated Free Speech area. These areas are 1.) Hendrix Center Lower Plaza; and 2.) Cox Plaza."

In response to action against the student group, the Clemson Conservatives have contacted the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a nonprofit group based out of Philadelphia that represents students and student organizations in First Amendment cases in universities across the nation, to represent them. FIRE agreed to represent the group.

"Clemson's 'free speech areas' policy is unconstitutional, unfair, and succeeds only in making criminals of students who wish to speak freely," says FIRE's letter to Clemson University president James Barker. "Students at Clemson, a public university, should never fear punishment for exercising their most basic rights on the Clemson campus." FIRE has given the University until Nov. 27 to respond.

FIRE has successfully fought speech zone cases at West Virginia University, Seminole Community College in Florida, Citrus College in California, the University of North CarolinaGreensboro, Texas Tech University and the University of NevadaReno. All of these schools have changed their policies voluntarily, or by court order.

On Davis' Web blog about the events revolving around this recent controversy, the Clemson Conservatives issued an official statement, saying: " The Clemson Conservatives are hereby declaring that they are neither bound nor held by codes so fundamentally flawed as to negate rights granted to them as citizens of the United States, of which they are first, and only secondly, a student." They also state they will fight the university until the speech zones are abolished, and their group is cleared of all related charges.

Tomorrow's protest is to take place from 9 a.m. till 4 p.m., and is currently registered for the Hendrix Student Center free speech zone; however, there is skepticism the main event will actually be held in that location. Possible alternative locations include the library bridge or other such highly trafficked areas on campus.

For more information, you can contact Clemson Conservatives chairman, Andrew Davis, at 843-283-9248, or at cconsrv@clemson.edu . This Friday's edition of The Tiger Town Observer and The Tiger, two student newspapers on campus, will have articles relating to the free speech controversy involving the university and the Clemson Conservatives. Both newspapers have previously covered this issue.

Article in the Observer

2006-11-15T19:48:00.000-08:00

The following is an article by Associate Editor Erin Gillespie, and can be found here. Be sure to register with the Observer for future news.

------------
OUR RIGHT IS RESERVED
by Erin Gillespie, Associate Editor

Our right is reserved, by the Constitution of the United States of America, to freedom of speech. Since, last time I checked, Clemson University is not (yet) an autonomous state with no obligation to abide by the laws and precedents delineated in the Constitution of the United States of America, it would perhaps be wise for Clemson's administration to rethink their strategy in reference to the university's "free speech zones". It would be a difficult endeavor to set out to win a legal battle against the law of the land. I hear the Constitution is a relatively worthy opponent.

On October 30th, the Clemson Conservatives, a conservative activist group on campus, gathered peaceably outside of Daniel Hall to protest a rally held by the Clemson Gay-Straight Alliance in favor of same-sex marriage and against the amendment to the South Carolina state constitution that would define marriage as one man and one woman. Andrew Davis, chairman of the Clemson Conservatives, had been warned by various members of the University's administration to hold the protest in one of Clemson's two free speech zones, lest he, and his group, face punishment. In the interest of upholding free speech on campus, Davis deferred being made to assemble in the remote free speech zones, and opted to direct the Clemson Conservatives to gather outside of Daniel regardless of the University's policy.

The Clemson Conservatives were met by two police officers armed with video cameras. They were not approached, nor were they told to leave. However, on November 9th, the Clemson Conservatives were formally charged with holding a protest in a "non-designated area", and thusly were given an "admonition" and "censure" by the University Office of Student Conduct. Andrew Davis was told that if he and/or his group chose to conduct another protest outside of the speech zones, they would likely lose their recognition as a student organization at Clemson University. The office of student conduct also warned of action being taken against Andrew Davis personally if he had anything to do with organizing another protest outside of free speech zones. They informed Davis that if he had a record of more than one violation of University policy, his academic career could be "in jeopardy". Translation: "We're going to kick you out if you defy us again."

Since Andrew Davis' appeal to the Clemson University administration for the abolishment of free speech zones on campus in the October issue of The Observer, the University has remained unmovable on the issue of students' free speech. The only response that Davis has received has been in the form of threats and hostile warnings.

As a result of Clemson University's overt negligence in upholding students' Constitutionally protected right to freedom of speech, an advocacy group called the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, or FIRE, has been notified and has since expressed serious concern over the state of free speech rights of Clemson University students. The FIRE has handled free speech zone cases on campuses nationwide, including Appalachian State University, Tufts University, Texas Tech University, and Citrus College. In all of the aforementioned cases, FIRE and free speech have won out over the oppression and unconstitutionality of resigning free speech to remote areas on campus.

FIRE has dispatched a letter of concern as well as a notification of potential action to President James Barker, as well as many other Clemson University officials. The letter urges the University to cooperate and to abolish the free speech zones on Clemson's campus. "Clemson's 'free speech areas' policy is unconstitutional, unfair, and succeeds only in making criminals of students who wish to speak freely," says FIRE's letter to the University. "As a public institution, Clemson is legally obligated to uphold the First Amendment rights of its students and faculty." FIRE has given the University administration until November 27th to respond.

Once more The Tiger Town Observer entreats the administration to reconsider their unconstitutional policy concerning the free speech of students. The Observer advises the administration to consider the cases like this one on campuses across the nation that university administrations have lost due to the unconstitutionality of their universities' policies. The fact is, quite simply, that free speech zones cannot stand up in court. They haven't anything to stand on. We all, as students and faculty, are first and foremost citizens of the United States of America. Under our nation's Constitution, we are all afforded the same right to freedom of speech that knows no bounds, and isn't restricted to "zones." The United States Constitution does not become null and void when we enroll in Clemson University or step on Clemson's campus.

The Observer, as well as the Clemson Conservatives, are fully committed to seeing Clemson University's free speech zones abolished with all deliberate speed. The administration of Clemson University should be advised that The Observer expects full compliance with the requests denoted in FIRE's letter to President James Barker. In Clemson's bid to make the list of the top 20 schools in the nation, it would be a shame to let these ugly free speech zones become an even uglier blemish on Clemson University's reputation.

Our Public Statement

2006-11-15T19:13:00.000-08:00

"Being necessary to the preservation of freedom within the United States, the freedom of speech as defined by the First Amendment is unalienable and sovereign above all government decrees. This being wholly and unequivocally true, it should follow that no public university should have the right to restrict, limit, or abridge this fundamental right except in those circumstances ascribed by common law, given they are the constitutionally appointed arbiters of these constitutional rights. Clemson University has overstepped its rights as administrators of the university to restrict and bind students to unconstitutional codes regarding speech on campus. The Clemson Conservatives are hereby declaring that they are neither bound nor held by codes so fundamentally flawed as to negate rights granted to them as citizens of the United States, of which they are first, and only secondly, a student. The Clemson Conservatives will continue to fight by whatever means necessary until the speech zones are removed, the punishments of acts malum prohibitum revoked, and the innocence of the Clemson Conservatives recognized and restored."

- Andrew Davis, chairman

Merry Christmas

2006-11-15T12:26:00.000-08:00

Today a few members of Clemson's administration received an early Christmas present from the Clemson Conservatives and the Observer. President Barker, Joy Smith, and Dr. George Smith all received a copy of the FIRE's Guide to Free Speech on Campus, as well as a freshly printed copy of the Tiger Town Observer, which has a focus on the speech zone controversy currently going on. In this issue, Erin Gillespie has a scathing "advisory" article to the university encouraging them to submit and abolish their speech zones or prepare for a nasty battle. This comes after last month's "Open Letter" to the university written by myself, warning them of the unconstitutionality of speech zones. We'll wait and see if I get a "Thank You Card" from them.

Meeting of the Faithful

2006-11-14T21:34:00.000-08:00

Tonight the CCs met and discussed and finalized the details of the protest. We also discussed the potential risks, so that everyone was on the same page. Arrest was one of the issues discussed. While we believe the university to be much smarter than taking such actions, and believe they don't have the audacity to pull such a stunt, it had to be brought up...especially since George Smith had talked about it.

But all went well, and everyone is behind everyone else.

Relevant Comic

2006-11-13T22:15:00.000-08:00

From: Hammer of Truth

Is It Worth the Risk?

2006-11-13T21:51:00.000-08:00

I want address something that has been on my mind these past few days, and apparently on the minds of some of my good friends. I have been asked quite a few times: ‘Is it really worth it?’ They mean, is it really worth potentially being expelled or suspended for what the Clemson Conservatives are doing. After all, more than one administration official has levied that threat against me, among others.

Talking to a trusted source I have discovered several instances of threats about what the university could, and may do, if the CCs continue. Dr. George Smith (Director of University Union), has mentioned arrest and other police action. Alesia Smith (Director of the Office of Student Conduct) threatened me as an individual, as well as the group, and also stated a potential alteration of my “status here as a student.”

I must make one thing clear: I know full well of the potential outcomes of what we’re going to do. I am not looking at this event simply from an optimistic perspective. The university, under current regulations (backed by their fair warning), has stated that they can and will come after me if we disobey them again. And I have told the university that we will disobey them again.

I never enter into one of these types of scuffles with the university without exploring every option, and weighing all the potential outcomes. However, I am willing to accept anything the university wishes to do to me or my group. What we do is of our own volition, under the full understanding of what our actions may warrant. The university will act under their volition also, knowing full well the consequences of their consequences.

All things worth fighting for encumber some sort of risk. Our nation would not be what it is today had Madison, Paine, Jefferson, Adams, Dickinson and the other founding fathers had decided the threat of British reprisal for rebellion outweighed their desire for a government that respected the natural rights of man. Would the Boston Tea Party have ever occurred if Samuel Adams decided it best that he rest comfortably on his laurels—in silence—than risk backing up all that he believed?

Men of courage are separated by action. Action defines who is willing to go beyond words in pursuit of a maxim he holds, and who is comfortable with submission.

Sure, I have a lot to risk. But who else will carry the torch? How long will it take for another to come along and take up what the Clemson Conservatives decided to drop when the danger was perceived too great? The answer is too long. Action must be taken, and it must be taken now.

This isn’t for just me or the Clemson Conservatives. It’s for the students. It’s for the faculty. It’s for the university.

Call me an idealist. Call me a radical. Call me a muckraker. Just don’t call me passive.

Free Speech Protest Registered

2006-11-13T21:40:00.000-08:00

After a frustrating, multi-day campaign to garner the needed signatures to approve of the event, I finally recieved CUPD approval today. Apparently if you want to get any event approved, you have to make an appointment well in advance with the chief. Here is a copy of our confirmation letter.

Also, today FIRE officially sent their letter to the University. They have two weeks to respond and abolish the speech zones or else they face the wrath of, well, everyone.

The free speech protest is really picking up momentum. Daily I hear more and more people saying they're going to come out and support the cause. The Tiger is going to do a large article on the situation, which will come out Friday. Word has it also the Anderson Independent and Mail plans to cover the event.

A press release will be sent out tonight updating the media and alerting them to the event this Friday. I'll post that as soon as I draft it up and send it out.

First Media Coverage

2006-11-12T18:44:00.000-08:00

The Tiger, a student newspaper at Clemson University, has recorded our struggle in a news brief section. While not completely spot on, it gets the general gist of everything. Text of the article and a link to it is posted below:

Student's freedom of speech causes administration trouble

Members of several student organizations were reprimanded after group protesting this past week. One group, the "Clemson Conservatives," sat outside of the Daniel Auditorium and protests Clemson University's Gay Straight Alliance, who were hosting the "Marriage Amendment Rally" at the time. The "Clemson Conservative" group received speech zone violations claiming they did not follow the university's code while protesting at this location. There are two speech zones on campus that contain all "free speech" events. The "Clemson Conservatives" did not stay within their speech zone and now face punishment, including verbal admonition to losing activity privileges on campus, and losing university recognition from officials. "We are morally opposed to any attempt by the university to limit or abridge the fundamental right of Americans to freedom of speech," said Clemson Conservative chairman, Andrew Davis. "As far as we are concerned, the entire university is a free speech zone, not just two small spots on
campus."

Original Can Be Found Here

Pictures From the CGSA Protest

2006-11-11T22:31:00.000-08:00

Cpt. James Gowan in the background, as some hippie/gay person yells at us.

Associate VP and Dean of Students, Joy Smith, as she goes into the CGSA Marriage Amendment Rally.

>

To: Clemson, From: FIRE

2006-11-10T23:53:00.000-08:00

November 10, 2006

President James F. Barker/Clemson University/Office of the President

201 Sikes HallClemson, SC 29634

Sent via U.S. Mail and Facsimile (864-656-4676)

Dear President Barker:

As you can see from our Directors and Board of Advisors, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) unites leaders in the fields of civil rights and civil liberties, scholars, journalists, and public intellectuals across the political and ideological spectrum on behalf of liberty, legal equality, freedom of religion, academic freedom, due process, and, in this case, freedom of speech and expression on America’s college campuses. Our website, www.thefire.org, will give you a greater sense of our identity and activities.

FIRE is deeply concerned about the unconstitutional policies restricting freedom of speech at Clemson University. According to Clemson’s policies, the university designates only two “free speech areas” on campus. On November 9, the Clemson Conservatives (CCs) student group was found guilty of holding a protest in a “non-designated area” and received a “censure” and “admonition.” Restricting free speech to only two areas of the Clemson campus severely chills freedom of expression and ignores both Clemson’s own policies and students’ expectation of freedom of speech, which Clemson, as a public institution, is bound by the First Amendment to protect.

This is our understanding of the facts. Please inform us if you believe we are in error. The Clemson Student Handbook’s “Sales and Solicitations Policy” states that there are only two “free speech areas” on campus—the Cox Plaza and the Hendrix Plaza. Clemson’s “Event Registration/Sales & Solicitations” guidelines define the Hendrix Plaza area as the lower plaza of the Hendrix Center, an isolated location with minimal visibility behind the Hendrix Student Center. The Cox Plaza is more centrally located, but is still set away from the main hub of campus, the library bridge area.

The “Event Registration” guidelines state that students or student groups planning to hold an event in either of the “free speech areas” must reserve the area 72 hours in advance of the planned event. Students must obtain an event registration form from either the University Union or the Hendrix Student Center and acquire signed approval by representatives of both the University Union and the location where the event is to be held. If the event is a “social event,” approval is also required from the Clemson University Police Department (CUPD). Students must make the signed form visible and readily available throughout the duration of the event.

On October 27, 2006, Andrew Davis, chairman of the Clemson Conservatives (CCs) student organization, began the registration process to protest a meeting of the Clemson Gay Straight Alliance (CGSA). Despite the existence of “free speech areas,” Davis reports that student protests often take place outside of those areas. Davis therefore registered the protest for October 30, from 5:45-6:45 PM, outside the Daniel Auditorium, where the CGSA was meeting. Davis obtained the event registration form and had it signed by both the University Union representative and the property manager of the Daniel Building. Davis sought final approval from the CUPD, per Clemson regulations, but Captain James Gowan denied the request on the grounds that the event was scheduled to take place outside of a free speech zone. After Director of the University Union and Student Center George Smith reiterated Gowan’s insistence that the protest be held inside one of the free speech zones, Davis elected to hold the event behind the Hendrix Student Center.

The CCs violated the event registration agreement by holding the protest at 6:00 PM on October 30 outside the Daniel Auditorium. Gowan and another police officer were present to videotape the protest. On November 9, Clemson’s Office of Judicial Conduct found the CCs guilty of holding a protest in a “non-designated area” and sentenced the CCs to an “admonition” and “censure.” Davis reports that Director of Student Conduct Alesia Smith warned him that if the CCs violated the “Sales and Solicitation Policy” again, the university would strip the group of recognition and “pursue [Davis] as an individual.”

Clemson’s “free speech areas” policy is unconstitutional, unfair, and succeeds only in making criminals of students who wish to speak freely. As a public institution, Clemson is legally obligated to uphold the First Amendment rights of its students and faculty. By requiring free speech activities to take place in “free speech zones” Clemson has failed to uphold its obligation. The only possible defense of Clemson’s policy would be that it presents a “reasonable time, place and manner” restriction as allowed by cases like Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989). There is nothing “reasonable,” however, about transforming the vast majority of the university’s property—indeed, public property—into a “censorship area,” and in maintaining a system of onerous requirements by which students must abide in order to exercise their fundamental rights. Federal case law regarding freedom of expression simply does not support the transformation of public institutions of higher education into places where constitutional protections are the exception rather than the rule. Time and again, courts have determined that to be considered legal, “time, place, and manner” restrictions must be “narrowly tailored” to serve substantial governmental interests. The generalized concern for order that underlies the establishment of “free speech zone” policies is neither specific enough nor substantial enough to justify such restrictions.

Moreover, Clemson’s strict regulations on speech violate the university’s own promises that students retain their constitutional right to free expression. The “Statement of Equity” contained in the “Sales and Solicitations Policy” states that “nothing in this policy or its regulations is intended to infringe upon any constitutional or other legal rights regarding freedom of speech” and Clemson’s “Bill of Rights and Responsibilities” promises that “students shall be free to examine and to discuss all questions of interest to them and to express opinions publicly and privately. They shall always be free to support any causes by lawful means” (section IV, Freedom of Inquiry and Expression, part A). Clemson’s “Sales and Solicitation Policy” runs afoul of both the First Amendment and Clemson’s own commitments to free speech by restricting speech and assembly to two small areas of its vast campus.

Davis also reports that the “Sales and Solicitation” policy is enforced arbitrarily. Although the “Statement of Equity” promises that the “application of this policy and regulations will be neither arbitrary nor capricious, nor shall they be based on the political content of the solicitation,” Davis reports that on March of 2004, an anti-war protest was held on Bowman Field, outside the free speech zone. The selective enforcement of policies represents suggests viewpoint discrimination in the determination of who can speak and which messages can be heard.

FIRE has challenged the establishment of free speech zones at universities across the nation, including at West Virginia University, Seminole Community College in Florida, Citrus College in California, the University of North Carolina–Greensboro, Texas Tech University, and the University of Nevada–Reno. In all of these cases the institutions challenged have either decided to open their campuses to expressive activities or have been forced by a court to do so. For instance, in FIRE’s case at Texas Tech, a federal court determined that Texas Tech’s policy must be interpreted to allow free speech for students on “park areas, sidewalks, streets, or other similar common areas…irrespective of whether the University has so designated them or not.” See Roberts v. Haragan, 346 F. Supp. 2d 853 (N.D. Tex. 2004). Clemson would be well advised to take this decision into account in considering its own policies.

FIRE requests that Clemson immediately revise its “Sales and Solicitation Policy” and open its entire campus to the free expression of Clemson students. We ask that the university remove the “censure” and “admonition” from the Clemson Conservatives’ record. Students at Clemson, a public university, should never fear punishment for exercising their most basic rights on the Clemson campus. We ask that Clemson affirm that free speech is to be celebrated, honored, and broadened—not feared, restrained, and hidden. Let your students exercise their basic legal, moral, and human rights; let them speak, assemble, and protest as their consciences dictate without fear of administrative reprisal.

FIRE hopes to solve this matter amicably and swiftly, but we are committed to using our resources to oppose the unconstitutional limits on freedom of expression at Clemson University. We request a response on this matter by November 24, 2006.

Sincerely,

Tara Sweeney
Senior Program Officer

cc:
Doris R. Helms, Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost, Clemson University
Gail DiSabatino, Vice President for Student Affairs, Clemson University
Joy Smith, Associate Vice President and Dean of Students, Clemson University
Alesia A. Smith, Director of Student Conduct, Clemson University
William C. Price, Associate Director of Student Conduct, Clemson University
George M. Smith, Director of the University Union and Student Center, Clemson University
William L. Stanphill, Director of Campus Recreation, Clemson University
James Gowan, Interim Police Chief, Clemson University

Police Evasion

2006-11-10T23:44:00.000-08:00

Typically people run away from the police, yet, here in Clemson, it is the police who hide from the people. Today, after multiple attempts (3) to acquire the signature of Cpt. Gowan for my even form, I get the run-around, again. Evidently a normal police officer doesn't have the authority to sign off on a free speech event.

I was eventually told that the best way is to make an appointment. I find it absolutely preposterous that one should have to make an appointment just to get a signature of approval for an event. Yet, that is the only way our beloved police chief here at Clemson is accessible.

But what can you do? Not get it signed? Frustrated, I called his secretary, who conveniently did not answer, and told her to schedule me a meeting with Gowan for 8:30 a.m. on Monday. I'm still fuming over all of this...but this is one thing that must be done before the event can take place next Friday.

Responsibility Release

2006-11-09T19:37:00.000-08:00

I should have done this before, but I forgot. I just want to warn the readers that I have a really bad habit of not proof-reading anything I write. I suppose I got used to copy editors doing it for me. So forgive me for typos and sentences that you can't really understand. I'm not stupid, just lazy...I guess.

Nov. 6, 2006 Press Release

2006-11-09T19:09:00.000-08:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 6, 2006

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY UNDER FIRE FOR ABRIDGING FREE SPEECH

CLEMSON, SC—The Clemson University administration is under heat from student organizations after the university clamped down this past week on a group protesting. The university’s decision to file a complaint against the student group “The Clemson Conservatives” for speech zone regulations violations comes only two weeks after an open letter regardingthe unconstitutionality of speech zones was published in the local political journal, The Tiger Town Observer. The letter targeted university officials.

On Oct. 30, the Clemson Conservatives set up outside of Daniel Auditoriumto protest the Clemson University’s Gay Straight Alliance, who were hosting a “Marriage Amendment Rally” in opposition to “Amendment I” that South Carolina voters were to vote on in the upcoming election. The Clemson Conservatives were originally denied use of the location becausetheir event, according to university codes, required them to have it in a“speech zone.” The two speech zones on campus exist to contain all “free speech” events. Because the student group defied university officials’ demands to remain in the speech zones, the Clemson Conservatives now face action from the university. Punishments include verbal admonition to losing activity privileges on campus, and even losing university recognition.

“We are morally opposed to any attempt by the university to limit or abridge the fundamental right of Americans to freedom of speech,” says Clemson Conservative chairman, Andrew Davis. “As far as we are concerned,the entire university is a free speech zone, not just two small spots oncampus.” Davis, who has been at the center of controversy for his “radical” politics, as a Greenville News article once labeled him, has contacted the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education for assistance in battling back against Clemson. The FIRE group represents college students and organizations across the United States in cases where First Amendment rights have been violated by universities.

Davis says his group plans to fight the university as long as speech zonescontinue to exist. “As long as students continue to possess cognitive independence, and as long as the University allows the wretched speech zones to continue existing, a showdown is inevitable,” said Davis in his Oct. letter published in the Observer.

In March of this past year, the University of North Carolina Greensboro abolished its speech zones after a massive public backlash and through the efforts of FIRE when a student group there was punished for protesting outside of one of the zones. West Virginia University also abandoned their speech zone policies after a lawsuit was filed against theuniversity, and as public pressure mounted against such policies.

For more information, contact Andrew Davis at 843.283.9248, or you can email the Clemson Conservatives at cconsrv@clemson.edu. You can also readthe open letter to the university at http://www.tigertownobserver.com, or find more information about FIRE at http://www.thefire.org.

Background Information

2006-11-09T18:29:00.000-08:00

Okay, here's the skinny of things. In the October issue of the Tiger Town Observer, I had published an open letter to Clemson University regarding the unconstutional speech zones they had on campus, and about how their policies were a ridiculous contradiction to what the university supposedly stood for. In it, I closed with the warning that a showdown was inevitable, and that the university would not walk away from it unscathed. Little did I know that the showdown was to be only 17 days later.

Towards the end of Oct., I spotted a flyer for a "Marriage Amendment Rally" sponsored by the CUGSA (Clemson University Gay Straight Alliance), which was to be held in Daniel Auditorium on Oct. 30. Thinking: 'Sweet, a chance for the Clemson Conservatives to jump into action!', I quickly organized a protest to the event, and went to register the event.

I knew that this would be a "free speech event," but I didn't really expect to be told we couldn't protest outside Daniel despite not being a free speech zone because the speech zone policy has been basically unenforced. I completed the form, had it signed by the University Union, and the property manager for the Daniel building...but ran into problems at the police department. Evidently aware that I had a plan up my sleeve for a protest, university administration had been conversing all day prior to my arrival at the police station to get the final signature from the department (people had mentioned that people had spoken).

I was told by Captain James Gowan that I could not have this event outside of Daniel because the nature of the event required that it be confined to a speech zone on campus. I was told in order to have the event, I must redo it and have it approved for either Cox Plaza of the Hendrix Student Center (HSC) plaza. I immediately left to speak with the director of the university union, Dr. George Smith, and he told me the same thing. He recommended, if we wanted to have the event outside of the auditorium, that we should set up a table and pass out literature because then it would qualify as solicitation event, and not a free speech one...but such an event woudl require us to remain behind the table at all times and have no other signage.

Yah, not exactly what we wanted.

But Smith was adamant about blocking us from having our event outside a free speech zone. I ended up registering the event for the speech zone behind the HSC, and got the signature from the CUPD that I needed. All was well.

On Oct. 30, the Clemson Conservatives ready for protesting met under the library bridge had headed to Daniel Auditorium to protest. Earlier that morning, we had spoken with our faculty advisor and discovered the police were to be waiting on us. Ready with a lawyer's phone number programed into my cell phone, we headed to our spot where we were to protest in spite of being told we could not. The police were there. Gowan and another university investigator were in plain clothes, and proceeded to videotape our whole protest while remaining about 15 yards away.

The protest went off without a hitch, and we interfered with no one. In fact, the only animosity shown during the event was when a person there for the CUGSA event called us "hatemongers." Oh well. The police remained at a short distance and filmed, but did not disperse us.

The next day, I went to register a "Free Speech Protest" intending to take place on the library bridge. But, just like our protest the day before, we were told it could not be approved because it needed to be in a free speech zone. This was Wednesday.

On Thursday, being out of town, I called up Smith again at the University Union and asked him for his take. He said I knew why it couldn't be approved, and that just because our protest on Tuesday was not dispersed, that it did not mean that we "got away with it," and informed me the police had filed a complaint against our group to the Office of Student Conduct. I thanked Smith, and hung up.

In the midst of all this, we had contacted the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, who agreed to look at our case and possibly represent us. After talking to Smith on Thursday, I contacted FIRE again and updated them. They began working on our case.

**INTERMISSION**

November 8, rolls around, and things begin to start picking up again. Wanting to not let a moment go to waste, and knowing that Clemson has a tendancy to drag out anything that it isn't forced to make a decision on immediately, I started the ball rolling on the complaint against my group. I called up Student Conduct and requested a meeting with Alesia Smith, director of the OSC. I arranged for a meeting the next morning, and later that day recieved my official "charge" that was levied against me.

The next day on Nov. 9 (today), I met with Ms. Smith in her office. I've had previous experience with Ms. Smith, as that during the whole fake anit-war rally incident in April of 2004, I technically was under investigation for student misconduct, a rather superfulous charge that I was never convicted of (though, better than the "fraud" that James Shannon of the MetroBeat and Wendy Weinhold of the Anderson I&M slandered me with). Ms. Smith was cool with me, and did not grant me permission to tape record the situation, despite my objections that I would feel more comfortable with our conversation saved for my records.

Smith and I's conversation was pretty frosty. She explained the charges to me, and asked if I understood them. When asked why we violated the university policy, I explained that "we do not recognize the university's authority to limit where free speech can exist." Ms. Smith informed me that because this was a first offense for the organization, and because this was an organizational activity and not an individual one, the punishment for such violations as we had committed would be verbal admonition and a written censure. I plead guilty to the charges without contest. I think Ms. Smith was a little taken aback by how lucid I was with my admissions, and with the comment that we fully intended to violate the policies again as long as they existed.

Ms. Smith explained to me that if another violation of this type occured, Clemson Conservatives would possibly lose their university recognition (which entails loss of advertising and event privleges), as well as the university's right to pursue action against me as an individual also. She also said repeated attempts could jeopardize my status as a student at the university.

As Ms. Smith walked out of the room to get the censure form, she looked at me and said: "Andrew, you have to pick and choose your battles, and I don't think this is something you want to fight." If she only knew this is how I felt about the university at this moment.

My Autobiography

2006-11-09T17:40:00.000-08:00

Before I begin with all the details and start the real blog about the real issue, I just want to introduce myself. My name is Andrew Davis, and I'm a senior at Clemson University, which is in the upstate of SC. I'm majoring in political science, with a minor in philosophy. I basically live and breathe politics, as unhealthy as that may be...especially for my blood pressure.

Currently, I am the chairman of the Clemson Conservatives, a rather new conservative activist group on Clemson's campus. For the past two years, I served as the editor-in-chief of the Tiger Town Observer, Clemson's conservative journal of news and opinion. Other activities include being a Junior Fellow in the Clemson University Institute for the Study of Capitalism, and a member in the Clemson University Delegation of the South Carolina Student Legislature.

I haven't exactly lead the typical college student's life for my four years here at Clemson. While most college kids revolve around study and play, with only time for eating and sleeping in between...I've actively been purusing what some call the destruction of Clemson, but I just call being politically active. And even then, this isn't like serving as a page in D.C. or working on some political campaign. No, no...I'm afraid it's much more. Most people think of political activists as flaming, lefty moonbats obsessed with saving seals and the rainforest, but that's what I consider myself: a political activist. But instead of throwing paintbuckets on ladies wearing fur, I throw fake anti-war rallies.

In my time here at Clemson, I have put on a hoax anti-war rally, hosted a controversial pro-life group, published the infamous Muhammad Cartoons (second newspaper in the state to do so), and given away an AK-47 variant gun in a raffle. This, among participating in other events on Clemson's campus. Last year I had the chance of sitting on a panel on a debate among democrat gubenatorial candidates for SC Governor. My sophomore year at Clemson, I had the once in a lifetime chance to interview Jesse Jackson (the Rev. intentionally omitted). This past Summer, I spent a week in the Czech Republic for a geopolitical journalism course sponsored by the Collegiate Network. So, needless to say, things have been quite a blur these past four years.

Last March, the Greenville News described me as a "radical" in a biographical piece they did on me following the AK-47 event. In a sense, I guess this could be true. While my political beliefs come straight from paleo-conservatism (you know, the real ones)...I suppose the little screaming activist in me is what strike people as "radical." But I try to avoid such words because they have very negative connotations associated with them. I just believe there are two types of people: those who say, and those who do. Those who say profess to be certain things, but when it comes to standing up for what they believe in, they lack the spine. Those who do say what they believe, and will back it up with action and vigor.

That's me. I'm that guy.

Initial Setup

2006-11-09T17:09:00.000-08:00

Umkay guys, I figure the best way to keep everyone updated on the whole free speech issue at Clemson is to keep an active blog. I want to get it set up now before things get really nuts, as I anticipate occurring. So hang tight as I get this active and updated.