Princeton University muzzles students

Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 20:33:38 -0500
To: fight-censorship+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: declan@well.com (Declan McCullagh)
Subject: Princeton University muzzles students, from HotWired
Sender: owner-fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu

Kudos to Brock for writing about Princeton University's attempt to
muzzle student online speech -- by citing IRS regulations.

Sure, Princeton isn't bound by First Amendment strictures since it's
not a state university and there is no state action. Nevertheless, it
should abide by the fundamental and long-standing principles of
academic freedom. Especially as a supposedly leading institution of
higher education, Princeton should stand head and shoulders above the
rest in fighting for free expression on its campus. To its shame,
it didn't.

The university attorneys should have at least read the two relevant IRS
revenue rulings (they didn't) before announcing such a restrictive
policy. And this isn't the first overbroad censorial policy that
Princeton has on the books. Carl Kadie comments on another one at:
  gopher://gopher.eff.org:70/00/CAF/policies/princeton.edu.critique
The Justice on Campus Project (http://joc.mit.edu/) has similar info.

When Princeton administrators claimed they followed the letter of the
law, in truth they used the law as an excuse to muzzle their students.

-Declan

-----------------

Read the full article at:
  http://www.netizen.com/netizen/96/30/campaign_dispatch3a.html

HotWired
The Netizen

Poison Ivy
Campaign Dispatch
by Brock N. Meeks
Washington, DC, 24 July


   Princeton University is apparently prohibiting students from
   exercising their First Amendment rights by going after folks who set
   up Web pages in support of presidential candidates, Dispatch has
   learned.

   Princeton launched its preemptory strike against free speech on 19
   July in a statement issued by its general counsel's office, which
   warns that a violation of the school's policy against politicking
   "will result in appropriate disciplinary action."

[...]

   Small problem: the IRS disagrees. Although there is no direct IRS
   ruling involving the use of a university's computer resources by its
   faculty, staff, or students to set up political Web pages, agency
   spokesman Wilson Fadely said there are two previous rulings "that may
   apply." The first deals with a student newspaper that directly
   endorsed one candidate for office over another. Despite the fact that
   the newspaper was published with university resources, "that was
   deemed not to be intervention," Fadely said.

[...]

   So where does Princeton get off riding its tax-exempt hobby horse as a
   de facto means to trample free speech? "No comment at this time," said
   Howard Ende, a Princeton attorney and co-author of the 19 July
   statement. When informed of the IRS rulings, Ende's reply was an
   enigmatic, "Oh, really."

[...]

   The one saving grace of the scenario is the perverse pleasure one can
   take in realizing that an elitist Ivy League school is so
   anal-retentive that it makes the IRS look reasonable. Go figure....

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Thu, 25 Jul 1996, Declan McCullagh wrote:

> When Princeton administrators claimed they followed the letter of the
> law, in truth they used the law as an excuse to muzzle their students.

This instrumentalist conspiracy theory is a bit of a leap beyond the facts. 
They were spammed. The content of the spam was political. They responded
quite stupidly. There is no evidence that they were looking for "an excuse
to muzzle their students." 

They should "clarify" the policy, which everyone who would be expected to
enforce it opposes, within two weeks. Commercial speech might take longer.

- -rich

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQBVAwUBMfiFyJNcNyVVy0jxAQGznwIAkC50QnSfsuGZ+cylFBgDK/ibL136O6eW
LgXRVdCx4ZE2QERgq54O1FOWkvRdLfoXqVpr1Eai65z2wY117bBH6w==
=4XWE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----