Finding Common Ground presents TABOO TOPICS

Tech does not have a particular reputation for stepping on students' rights, but those who attended Dr. Anne Dupre's discussion on Thursday night know that voicing an opinion may be harder than it sounds.

Dupre gave a lecture in the Student Center Ballroom on Thursday, Sept. 20 as a part of the Finding Common Ground initiative. The seminar, entitled "Taboo Topics: How Free is Your Speech at Tech?" dealt with controversial issues facing college students such as the first amendment, Title IX, sexual harassment, personal liberties and the vague line between legality and illegality.

Courts all over the country are struggling to establish a list of what they consider allowable and unallowable. For example, schools and universities have to contend with student violence and administering an acceptable punishment for the students who pose a risk to their classmates. After the Columbine High School tragedy and similar incidents, most schools and universities have taken increasingly serious precautions against violence.

Threats, even said jokingly, are not taken lightly anymore, and students who are different or who seem to be outsiders are carefully watched. Is this an invasion of privacy? Is it a product of stereotypes that single out individuals who are unique or perhaps just introverted?

"This is now a post-Virginia Tech world. People are nervous about students who act irrationally, and when people have fear, they overreact," said Dupre, a professor of educational law at the University of Georgia.

In order to maintain order on campus, authorities must take seemingly overcautious measures to prevent potential attacks.

Violence against innocent people is what these laws and regulations are trying to prevent, but what constitutes "innocent?" Judicial officials are having a difficult time deciding what an individual must do to be stripped of the "innocent" label.

For instance, a University of Florida student was recently tasered at a political event-was the student a victim of police brutality, or was he truly a danger to the others present?

"[Law enforcement officials] have to battle the line between liberty and order. They must maintain order, as they are afraid of disruption. They must also observe the liberties guaranteed citizens by the Constitution: they can't trample all over people's rights," Dupre said.

Dupre also mentioned the use of video in today's society. YouTube and other video-publishing web sites provide a secret window for strangers to watch videos posted by students or their friends. Knowing that there is an ever-present chance that a seemingly innocuous mistake can end up on the web adds a sense of reluctance to everybody's daily routines.

For that very reason, Dupre does not allow her students to videotape her lectures. Her reasoning, however, is not because she is afraid that she will end up all over the web, but that her students will.

If a student answers a question incorrectly, then when that student graduates and decides to run for office, it will not be difficult for his or her opponents to find propaganda material if it is on YouTube.

"Take the Miss Teen South Carolina mistake for example. That poor girl has one screw-up, and suddenly there are all these videos of her on the internet. Can't a girl get a little bit of privacy?" Dupre said.

The topic addressed by the majority of the seminar was free speech. How are people supposed to know what is protected under the "free speech" umbrella and what is not? The line between free speech and verbal harassment is very hazy.

For instance, it is common knowledge that running into a movie theatre shouting "FIRE!" is not protected under "free speech," but what about voicing political views and opinions? If a group of students wanted to rally against a certain political figure or movement, they would be allowed to do so - unless it gets out of hand.

According to Dupre, in front of the student union at the University of Georgia, there is a certain area of campus called the "Free Speech Zone." In this area, students are allowed to protest whatever they see fit, and the university cannot bother them.

"Of all places, a college campus should be a place for people to voice their opinions," Dupre said.

Political protests have a reputation for being mildly vicious, but the really infamous events involve religious or racial propaganda. Religions especially differ greatly in the kinds of things that their followers believe.

It is to be expected that people will passionately defend their own religion against all other religions. Here's the free speech catch: the arguers have to determine what is accepted as "an outlet of personal opinion" and what constitute fighting words against other religions.

Moreover, authorities are struggling to decide what to do with student organizations that operate against the norm. High schools support clubs and groups, and the principal is responsible for allowing groups permission to establish themselves.

However, several high schools have had to completely abolish club involvement because certain "unworthy" groups wanted to form. Is this right? Should a high school, firstly, be able to deny certain kinds of student clubs the right to meet? Secondly, when the school realizes that they cannot deny specific clubs to meet, should they be able to completely do away with clubs entirely?

Another important topic discussed was how speech encompasses every means by which humans communicate.

Not just spoken words, but picket signs, t-shirts and bumper stickers are all ways that Americans choose to voice their opinions. Some people wear t-shirts that are highly offensive and crude just because they are permitted to do so. Should these determined people be allowed to wear t-shirts with their slogan of choice? Many people believe that some slightly vile apparel is acceptable, but at what point do they become hateful?

The United States is wrestling with decisions like these every day. The freedom granted under the First Amendment is indeed a double-edged sword.

The freedom to voice opinion is essentially the backbone of American political philosophy, but Dupre brought to light in her discussion the issues that seem to straddle the line between socially acceptable and unacceptable.

While no one may readily have an answer or clear way to define citizens' rights, the important action is to reflect on them and not take them for granted.