This Tuesday I joined several students in handing out information about the College Republicans’ Support the Troops supply drive. In addition to these pamphlets, we also handed out yellow ribbons to students who wanted to show their support for the American soldiers overseas. At the same time, several students had staged a “die-in” to represent the lives in the lost four years during the War on Terror. Shortly after I arrived to help distribute information to support the living, a woman named Debbie Wilson aggressively approached my peers and me to ask if we had authorization to be distributing such material on “private property,” Well, the answer to your question, Ms. Wilson, is “No.”
I, personally, was unaware that we needed permission to distribute information, hand out ribbons and, most importantly, read literature aloud in the Quad. Does Subway or Dominos receive approval for every freebie they hand out numerous times throughout the year? I understand and respect the premise of private property, and furthermore the restrictions to basic rights that can be applied on private property. My problem with this is that in enforcing such strict rules and regulations, the University has violated its own mission statement. Ms. Wilson, according to the SLU People Finder, is the program coordinator of Micah House. I have a problem with a University employee telling me that I do not truly support the troops or believe in the war because I am not over there.
On the University’s Web site, the mission statement elaborates by stating that it “welcomes students, faculty and staff from all racial, ethnic and religious backgrounds and beliefs and creates a sense of community which facilitates their development as men and women for others.” I am wondering where the sense of “community” was when Ms. Wilson dismissed my beliefs and continued by telling me what my beliefs really were. Is this the type of representative SLU is proud to support? A woman who disrespects students’ beliefs and then calls DPS on those who stand their ground?
Furthermore, the University’s Web site states that it supports an “academic environment which values and promotes free, active and original intellectual inquiry among its faculty and students.” Does this statement only apply when the faculty and administration approve of the “free, active and original intellectual inquiry”? My last point is that the enforcement of private property laws not only violates such concepts of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly, but directly disregards the mission statement posted on the University’s Web site. When I asked Ms. Wilson if we were not allowed to read literature aloud on school property without approval, she simply replied, “yes.” In an environment that supposedly “welcomes students, faculty and staff from all racial, ethnic and religious backgrounds and beliefs,” it is troubling to hear that such a basic Constitutional right as the First Amendment only applies when the University approves. I do not blame Ms. Wilson for the University’s hypocrisy, as she is simply an ambassador for a greater problem. I advocate that University edit its mission statement or better yet, abide by it.
Amy Kaufman is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences.
