By KELLY KULTYS
NEWS EDITOR

Rev. Joseph M. McShane’s, S.J., president of the University, email to members of the Fordham community back in November sparked students to gather against University censorship.
As a response to the controversy caused by the Ann Coulter invitation, McShane sent an email to the University stating, “Still, to prohibit Ms. Coulter from speaking at Fordham would be to do greater violence to the academy, and to the Jesuit tradition of fearless and robust engagement. Preventing Ms. Coulter from speaking would counter one wrong with another.”
According to Stephen Erdman, FCRH ’13, executive president of United Student Government (USG), a group of students entitled Fordham Students for Free Speech began to meet to combat censorship on campus.
Fordham Students for Free Speech originated on Facebook, sharing in McShane’s free speech senitments. Their “about” page states, “In light of Fr. McShane’s recent letter defending free speech as critical to our university identity, student organizers for free speech have new grounds to argue for their demands. This group exists to generate ideas, facilitate communication and organize activities related to lobbying for students to have free speech at Fordham.”
“They started meeting in person to discuss the issue, so [Aileen Reynolds and I] were invited on Facebook and decided to go to those meetings and start getting involved to hear what their concerns [and] thoughts were on the issue,” Erdman said. “[Then] potentially where Fordham could move forward [with policies].”
They started with brainstorming what exactly the problem is and then what policies could be put in place to resolve that problem.
“From our end, it became clear that we didn’t really know what the problem was, but we knew there was a problem, but we couldn’t fully articulate it,” Erdman said.
Erdman and Aileen Reynolds, FCRH ’14, executive vice president of USG, listened to students speak about things that they believed had been censored on campus. They desired to understand what challenges students face when they plan to hold potentially controversial events.
In recent weeks, the group has expanded, working to identify free-speech issues students have faced when it comes to hosting events, inviting speakers or organizing other activities on campus. They gathered testimonials from various student organizations on campus by asking various questions including what their specific incident was, who was involved from OSLCD, what process they went through to attempt to get their event, speaker, sign, etc. passed, if modifications were made and what was the eventual result, such as a delayed approval or an outright denial.
“Some of them can be from a slight modification that was encouraged by someone in OSLCD and there are some examples that haven’t been approved,” Reynolds said.
What they have found so far in gathering the testimonials seems to be a lack of consistency from one person to the next.
“There’s been a wide range of difficulties groups have faced, which is why we’re collecting testimonials to get concrete examples of what’s going on,” Reynolds said. “But I think an overarching issue is that because there’s very little written policy, that a lot of it is up to interpretation and who you’re working with, so it seems to be that students are having issues with really understanding why an event can or can’t happen, or needs to be altered, because they don’t have anything to really refer to.”
Erdman said that right now the most concrete written documentation about censoring events comes from the student handbook in the hate speech clause, which loosely defines the parameters of what types of speech are not allowed on campus.
Christopher Rodgers, dean of students, and Alanna Nolan, assistant dean of students, both agree, however, that the current policy seems to be in the best interest for the students.
They believe it allows for an open dialogue between students and administration and does not strictly limit the types of speakers and events held on campus.
“The balance we try to strike with programs can be tricky and merits ongoing conversation and reflection in light of our principles and values,” Rodgers said via email. “This is why we are always engaged with our students on these issues and why my door is always open to anyone who wants to talk. I’ve spent many hours talking with students about these very issues over the years and see it as especially vital to listen carefully to those who disagree.”
Some believe, however, that this can create confusion.
“There are other things that are also not permitted that probably don’t fall under the jurisdiction of the hate speech clause but are still deemed inappropriate,” Erdman said. “There’s nothing formal in writing that explains why those things are inappropriate.”
There are multiple steps that students have to go through to hold an event on campus.
The first is that students submit their proposed event to OSLCD and Jennifer Lackie, assistant director of student organizations and programming, through Orgsync.
After Lackie, the proposal is forwarded to Nolan for further discussion, especially if the event has any questions regarding its content or logistical issues. Then Nolan discusses the events with Rodgers to determine what has to happen for the event to take place. Throughout the process, there is consistent questioning, especially if it is a new event or one that could potentially cause controversy.
Many times, according to Nolan, an event is questioned for its logistical or security purposes, such as when a high-profile speaker is booked. OSLCD needs to know where this is happening, how the speaker would get onto campus, what security is necessary and then notify the University Media Relations Department to prepare them for potential outside questions.
“What we’ve seen so far is that a club will face resistance from OSLCD when they’re trying to do something and they will view that as an outright rejection and stop there,” Erdman said. “I understand why they would stop, but we think that if that if some student groups would push back more, they would be able to do what they wanted to do.”
This is consistent with what Rodgers and Nolan said in relation to students working to get events approved.
They believe that if students are well-prepared and can come to them with legitimate reasons why their potentially controversial event should happen, they can work with them to make it happen.
“To best assist students with activities, coordinate the many events on the campus and simply assure we know what’s happening, we try to reach out as soon as possible and maintain good communication with the clubs and organizations,” Rodgers said. “Usually, this is a simple and quick back-and-forth, but in a small number of cases, this can slow things down a bit or a misunderstanding can result. This is why it’s so important that our doors are open to discuss these problems when they occur.”
During Rodgers’s time here at Fordham, he has never stopped a speaker from coming or a demonstration from occurring if the students holding the events went through the proper procedures outlined in the Handbook under the Speakers and Demonstration policies.
“While events sponsored by academic areas are not our responsibility, I simply cannot recall any instance where a student speaker or demonstration request has been declined here at Fordham,” Rodgers said. “I see this as a rather strong commitment to free speech, especially given the sometimes strenuous objections some have lodged with us to many of our invited speakers and protests.”
Sometimes, however, this process and questioning can be a bit confusing to students.
“What we’ve noticed in different conversations with different people is that because it can stop at different levels, not everyone knows about everything that’s happened,” Reynolds said.
The next step in the process is getting the administration’s perspective on the testimonials.
“We’re going to give [the testimonials] to Dean Nolan and there will be an opportunity for her and her office, as well as Dean Rodgers and anyone in Student Affairs, to provide any commentary they wish to be included in the document,” Erdman said.
Once all the data is accumulated from student testimonials and administrative comments, these will be combined into an overview and publicized at USG, which will vote on making it public.
Both Reynolds and Erdman hope these testimonials will provide clarity and information for both students and administrators involved in the process.
“It’s very complex and that’s why we’re trying to gather these documents to analyze it,” Reynolds said.
“I think it’ll clear up a lot of misunderstandings about what is acceptable and what isn’t acceptable,” Erdman said.
“I think we’re hoping this can educate everyone and raise awareness so that club leaders feel that they can talk to us about things like this and if they’re facing resistance, USG can become an outlet to express concerns to us,” Reynolds said.
“Our student clubs and organizations do a tremendous job of programming for the community — a strong and justified feeling of ownership and pride in these activities results from the job they do,
Rodgers said. “In turn, it’s our job in student life to make sure we know what’s going on around campus, so we ask questions and talk with our programmers all the time. This may be part of why these misunderstandings arise.”
Currently, many students groups involved with testimonials are not publicly discussing specifics. Anyone who believes that they have experienced censorship can email their information to [email protected].