2008 Woodie Awards
Letter to the editor
Issue date: 12/1/05 Section: Editorial
- Page 1 of 1
Dear editor:
Some have recently questioned the constitutionality of the university's actions in the matter of a young lady who attempted to distribute fliers in a show of solidarity with an alleged rape victim.
While it was a kind gesture, and I honestly think this woman was being sincere, the timing was definitely off. However, I find it very hard to believe that this university's administration would blindly tell a student that she was strictly forbidden from handing out her material, unless, of course, they a had a very good reason for doing so.
On the other hand, I find it more likely that this young woman sought sponsorship from the administration in the manufacture or dissemination of these fliers and was rebuffed. That is not censorship; it's impartiality.
Not only has it been alleged that a female student of this university was forcibly and repeatedly violated on campus, but the alleged actors are themselves UTC students. It is of utmost importance-and in the best interests of all involved-that the university act as impartially as possible when accusations of this nature are leveled.
There is also good reason to believe that the university was acting in anticipation of a gag order, although, as of this writing, no such order has yet been promulgated by the county court.
In addition, the university was probably betting that the law would be on their side in the event of a legal dispute regarding their actions in this matter. In all fairness, that is probably correct.
In 1989, the 6th U.S. Court of Appeals found in Poling v. Murphy that, "Limitations on speech that would be unconstitutional outside of the schoolhouse would not necessarily be unconstitutional within it." The judge went on to say that civility is a legitimate pedagogical concern, so long as school officials do not attempt to compel the pupil to say something that he did already not wish to say.
On the other side of that coin, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black opined 20 years previously that students do not surrender all of their rights upon entering a schoolhouse.
All in all, there are less than a dozen people in the whole world who really know what happened in that dorm room. It would avail this community nothing to waste time on idle speculation and gossip in these matters. Remember that these six young men are to face their rightful judgment not in the game room of the University Center, but in a court of competent jurisdiction, and I predict that the truth will be revealed at the latter place, not the former.
Lucas S. McNeeley
Chattanooga
Sophomore
Some have recently questioned the constitutionality of the university's actions in the matter of a young lady who attempted to distribute fliers in a show of solidarity with an alleged rape victim.
While it was a kind gesture, and I honestly think this woman was being sincere, the timing was definitely off. However, I find it very hard to believe that this university's administration would blindly tell a student that she was strictly forbidden from handing out her material, unless, of course, they a had a very good reason for doing so.
On the other hand, I find it more likely that this young woman sought sponsorship from the administration in the manufacture or dissemination of these fliers and was rebuffed. That is not censorship; it's impartiality.
Not only has it been alleged that a female student of this university was forcibly and repeatedly violated on campus, but the alleged actors are themselves UTC students. It is of utmost importance-and in the best interests of all involved-that the university act as impartially as possible when accusations of this nature are leveled.
There is also good reason to believe that the university was acting in anticipation of a gag order, although, as of this writing, no such order has yet been promulgated by the county court.
In addition, the university was probably betting that the law would be on their side in the event of a legal dispute regarding their actions in this matter. In all fairness, that is probably correct.
In 1989, the 6th U.S. Court of Appeals found in Poling v. Murphy that, "Limitations on speech that would be unconstitutional outside of the schoolhouse would not necessarily be unconstitutional within it." The judge went on to say that civility is a legitimate pedagogical concern, so long as school officials do not attempt to compel the pupil to say something that he did already not wish to say.
On the other side of that coin, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black opined 20 years previously that students do not surrender all of their rights upon entering a schoolhouse.
All in all, there are less than a dozen people in the whole world who really know what happened in that dorm room. It would avail this community nothing to waste time on idle speculation and gossip in these matters. Remember that these six young men are to face their rightful judgment not in the game room of the University Center, but in a court of competent jurisdiction, and I predict that the truth will be revealed at the latter place, not the former.
Lucas S. McNeeley
Chattanooga
Sophomore
