Spring Break
EDITORIAL:Broken speaker rules
Editorial | 4/17/07
Posted online at 11:05 PM EST on 4/16/07
/ Last updated at 2:31 AM EST on 4/16/07
If in recent months the University became an ideological battleground, as University President Jehuda Reinharz warned it could become in February, then the greatest collateral damage was not the institution's reputation, but the administration's.
The recently announced guidelines for bringing high-profile speakers to campus are mostly sensible, and could help repair that marred image. But their vaguely worded requirements could give administrators a free pass from future controversies-a smart move, but one that ultimately could be counterproductive.
Announced in an e-mail from Provost Marty Krauss, the guidelines ask that administrators be informed before a group invites speakers in any of the following cases: if Mr. Reinharz would be expected to attend the event; if the event would require security; if it would disrupt other University activities; or if the University would need to help fund the event.
These rules illustrate the administration's serious and admirable interest in hosting prominent public figures on a regular basis, and we agree that the mechanisms for doing so must be more strictly codified. But the guidelines are often very vague.
Although the first and last conditions are self-explanatory, it is unclear, for example, when a speaker should be considered "high profile," or when one is controversial enough to warrant a security presence. Indeed, their strict policies for social events suggest administrators take a very liberal view of the security events require. And event organizers will also be hard-pressed to decipher what types of events would disrupt other activities. Almost anything could fit under these umbrellas.
That's the trouble. If in the future administrators quash a politically sensitive event, they can point to these rules as their reason for doing so, and avoid murmurs that their objection was ideologically based. That helps the administration save face, fulfilling a public relations need we appreciate. But in doing so, speech could be hindered, not supported-violiating the guildlines' stated goal.
The implication beneath all of this is that had the Jimmy Carter event been planned with these rules, some of its pitfalls could have been avoided: Mr. Reinharz would have attended, the rules suggest, and administrators would have planned for its costs and not been caught by surprise.
But the common assumption around campus is that Mr. Reinharz's absence was a political calculation; he had to distance himself from an event that eventually upset donors.
We agree a more organized process for inviting speakers is needed, and half of the Provost's guidelines make progress toward that end. But the administration should avoid any requirements that put public relations above public discourse, whether in perception or in practice.
Associate Editor Aaron Mitchell Finegold chairs the Student Undergraduate Advisory Committee to the Provost, and recused himself from this editorial.
The recently announced guidelines for bringing high-profile speakers to campus are mostly sensible, and could help repair that marred image. But their vaguely worded requirements could give administrators a free pass from future controversies-a smart move, but one that ultimately could be counterproductive.
Announced in an e-mail from Provost Marty Krauss, the guidelines ask that administrators be informed before a group invites speakers in any of the following cases: if Mr. Reinharz would be expected to attend the event; if the event would require security; if it would disrupt other University activities; or if the University would need to help fund the event.
These rules illustrate the administration's serious and admirable interest in hosting prominent public figures on a regular basis, and we agree that the mechanisms for doing so must be more strictly codified. But the guidelines are often very vague.
Although the first and last conditions are self-explanatory, it is unclear, for example, when a speaker should be considered "high profile," or when one is controversial enough to warrant a security presence. Indeed, their strict policies for social events suggest administrators take a very liberal view of the security events require. And event organizers will also be hard-pressed to decipher what types of events would disrupt other activities. Almost anything could fit under these umbrellas.
That's the trouble. If in the future administrators quash a politically sensitive event, they can point to these rules as their reason for doing so, and avoid murmurs that their objection was ideologically based. That helps the administration save face, fulfilling a public relations need we appreciate. But in doing so, speech could be hindered, not supported-violiating the guildlines' stated goal.
The implication beneath all of this is that had the Jimmy Carter event been planned with these rules, some of its pitfalls could have been avoided: Mr. Reinharz would have attended, the rules suggest, and administrators would have planned for its costs and not been caught by surprise.
But the common assumption around campus is that Mr. Reinharz's absence was a political calculation; he had to distance himself from an event that eventually upset donors.
We agree a more organized process for inviting speakers is needed, and half of the Provost's guidelines make progress toward that end. But the administration should avoid any requirements that put public relations above public discourse, whether in perception or in practice.
Associate Editor Aaron Mitchell Finegold chairs the Student Undergraduate Advisory Committee to the Provost, and recused himself from this editorial.
Be the first to comment on this story