DIY History | Transcribe | Campus Culture | University of Iowa Committee on Human Rights policies, 1958-1986 | University Practices And Policies As They Relate To Solicitation Page 2

Transcribe
Translate

University of Iowa Committee on Human Rights policies, 1958-1986

University Practices And Policies As They Relate To Solicitation Page 2

-2-

activities. Although other policies relating to use of University facilities do properly specify such factors (see Operations Manual Sections 60.030 and 60.040), we believe that the Code of Student Life should also be made more specific with respect to these factors. Such a revision would not only help eliminate the possibility, however remote, of arbitrary denials or permits, but also serve to improve understanding of the precise and legitimate reason why a request may be denied or modified (e.g. conflict with another group using the same space at the same time, disturbance of nearby activities due to noise). In our proposed revision to the Code of Student Life, set out below we have incorporated such specific criteria, basing our revision in part on the rules governing use of the Pentacrest and other outdoor University spaces (see Operations Manual, Sections 60.030 and 60.040). Both of these sections are constitutionally sound and have been historically successful in balancing the University's dual commitment to undisturbed academic functioning and free speech.

2. The current rule governing student group solicitation mandates that virtually all solicitation activities take place in the Landmark lobby of the Union. In our judgment, considerations of physical space, order, and the like well may dictate that certain forms of solicitation must take place in the Landmark lobby if they are to take place in the Union. Specifically, where solicitation involves a need for display table space, the Landmark lobby seems best designed for such activities. It is not clear, however, that some activities which fall within the definition of solicitation, (e.g. distributing leaflets, picketing) need to be or should be restricted presumptively to the Landmark lobby. Instead, a more careful definition of the University's concern as reflected in the regulations might permit certain kinds of activities to take place in other parts of the Union or the campus.

Therefore, we have proposed that the rule contained in the Code of Student Life be additionally revised to reflect the availability, with legitimate restrictions imposed by the Union Events Service Office and the Office of Facilities and Planning and Utilization, of other space in the Union and outside University space for student organizations wishing to distribute leaflets, to picket, or similarly demonstrate their support for various issues.

3. The regulation contained in the Code of Student Life makes no provision for expression activities by [underline]individual[end underline] students. We believe that these individuals should expressly be included within the ambit of this University policy. Therefore, our proposed modification to the Code of Student Life contains a clause reflecting the University's interest in individual student expression.

Saving...

-2- activities. Although other policies relating to use of University facilities do properly specify such factors (see Operations Manual Sections 60.030 and 60.040), we believe that the Code of Student Life should also be made more specific with respect to these factors. Such a revision would not only help eliminate the possibility, however remote, of arbitrary denials or permits, but also serve to improve understanding of the precise and legitimate reason why a request may be denied or modified (e.g. conflict with another group using the same space at the same time, disturbance of nearby activities due to noise). In our proposed revision to the Code of Student Life, set out below we have incorporated such specific criteria, basing our revision in part on the rules governing use of the Pentacrest and other outdoor University spaces (see Operations Manual, Sections 60.030 and 60.040). Both of these sections are constitutionally sound and have been historically successful in balancing the University's dual commitment to undisturbed academic functioning and free speech. 2. The current rule governing student group solicitation mandates that virtually all solicitation activities take place in the Landmark lobby of the Union. In our judgment, considerations of physical space, order, and the like well may dictate that certain forms of solicitation must take place in the Landmark lobby if they are to take place in the Union. Specifically, where solicitation involves a need for display table space, the Landmark lobby seems best designed for such activities. It is not clear, however, that some activities which fall within the definition of solicitation, (e.g. distributing leaflets, picketing) need to be or should be restricted presumptively to the Landmark lobby. Instead, a more careful definition of the University's concern as reflected in the regulations might permit certain kinds of activities to take place in other parts of the Union or the campus. Therefore, we have proposed that the rule contained in the Code of Student Life be additionally revised to reflect the availability, with legitimate restrictions imposed by the Union Events Service Office and the Office of Facilities and Planning and Utilization, of other space in the Union and outside University space for student organizations wishing to distribute leaflets, to picket, or similarly demonstrate their support for various issues. 3. The regulation contained in the Code of Student Life makes no provision for expression activities by [underline]individual[end underline] students. We believe that these individuals should expressly be included within the ambit of this University policy. Therefore, our proposed modification to the Code of Student Life contains a clause reflecting the University's interest in individual student expression.