Date: Fri, 21 Oct 1994 07:14:26 EDT From: Jarrod Karau Subject: Sidewalk Scrubbing - Censorship? The following is reproduced WITH permission from the Michigan Tech Lode Volume LXXIV Number 6, printed Friday October 14, 1994. The Michigan Tech Lode can be reached at: (906) 487-3441 ------------------------------ by KEVIN MEININGER Guest Writer On Tuesday, Oct. 11, the Michigan Tech administration clashed on a decision to scrub the campus sidewalks for the betterment of students, to maintain the integrity of the university, and to impress corporate recruiters at this year's fall Career Day. The decision was made in response to concerns about obscene, vulgar or threatening comments and artwork inscribed on campus walkways stretching from the ME-EM building through to the Walker building, and down adjacent side paths. All the written demonstrations were done with washable colored chalk, which has been permitted by MTU in the past as an acceptable form of advertising for student groups. October 11 was the Career Center's "1994 Career Day," but it was also "National Coming Out Day," the campaign celebrated coast-to-coast for truth and liberation of lesbians, gay men and bisexuals. One avenue the Copper Country Gay and Lesbian Alliance (CCGLA) uses to promote the event is by chalking the campus walkways. And traditionally, those against the gay lifestyle have made their presence known as well--by responding to CCGLA messages with counter-remarks, attacks and modified remarks (altering CCGLA messages). Some of these responses concerned university officials enough to prompt removal actions. On Tuesday morning, a university-owned industrial street cleaner worked its way east through campus, scrubbing and cleaning everything in its path. The grounds-crew had been authorized by their supervisor, Ron Winquist, who works for Michigan Tech's Facilities Management division. But the order didn't originate from Winquist--instead, he was working under the instruction of Bill McKilligan, the Manager of Operations at Facilities Management. Winquist was surprised at the extent of the sidewalk writings. "In my year and a half [working for Michigan Tech], I've never seen anything like that before," he said. Before instructing his crew to begin the washings, Winquist contacted Jon Ahola, Manager of Public Safety, to find out if any chalkings had been pre-approved by the university. He said he always refers to Public Safety in instances like this because "they always know who has permission to do what." In the event of confusion where a higher authority is needed, the Director of Facilities Management, William Blumhardt, can be consulted. (Blumhardt was out of town on Tuesday.) Ahola indicated that the CCGLA chalk-messages were unapproved. He referenced chapter 9 of the MTU Traffic Ordinance which reads, "No person shall deface or make any mark or inscription of any kind whatsoever or mutilate or destroy any property owned or held by MTU unless he shall first have obtained the written permission of the Vice President of Operations and Finance or his designee." But Provost Fred Dobney later remarked that, in regards to obtaining permission of the Provost to chalk sidewalks, "I doubt that we've ever enforced it." And in fact the 1994-95 MTU Student Handbook makes no mention of required permission for using sidewalks. The sidewalks are considered one of the "available media" and are clearly recommended as an avenue for student publicity. An excerpt from page 47 "Publicity Ideas" reads, "R. Sidewalks-Use material (chalk, masking tape, etc.) easily removed. Two days is the maximum time allowed. You must remove all items." Ahola himself was concerned about the "profanity and threatening statements [found] throughout the campus courts," and said after discussing the issue with Winquist that they had "decided to unilaterally have the whole sidewalks cleaned." He said they didn't want to attempt to discriminate about what should be removed and what should be allowed to remain. As the grounds-crew progressed through campus, it became apparent that some students, staff and others weren't pleased with the decision to clean the walkways. Some people, including members of the CCGLA, approached the Dean's Office to question the authority behind the cleanings. Although Dean Janners and Associate Dean Tyrell were aware of the chalked-messages and counter-replies, they indicated that the matter was out of their jurisdiction, and proceeded to forward the complaints to Dobney, who oversees the Facilities Management operations. Tyrell did comment that the "[counter] remarks were homophobic" and that "no one should be treated like that." Dobney reviewed the complaints and decided to halt the grounds-crew from removing any further chalk messages. He said he "thought that we ought to protect the right of students to speak their mind," and that "students' rights to express themselves is more important than keeping the campus clean." His decision included allowing the messages to remain throughout the day, and to have the sidewalks completely cleaned Wednesday morning. This somewhat non-standard order to refrain from procedure may have caused some confusion among the Facilities Management staff at first, but the orders were swiftly enacted and the street-scrubbing machine was stopped just outside Fisher hall. Winquist joked after learning of the superior order that, "[this is the] first time I ever got in trouble for cleaning the campus!" On Wednesday morning at about 6 a.m., the grounds-crew again used the industrial cleaning machine to wash all the campus courts. They have continued to scrub the sidewalks daily under the direction of Blumhardt since the Tuesday incident. And Blumhardt says they will keep cleaning them "until the abuse of the sidewalks goes away." The administration is concerned about future incidents like this that might occur without a more clearly-defined procedure for how to handle them. Dobney thinks "[we] need to have a policy as to what is permissible and what is not." He has requested Ahola and Tyrell to form a committee which would produce a clear set of guidelines so there is a policy about what-to-do in the future. The new policy would likely be in-effect by this time next fall. Until then, "that's the way we'll proceed until we get more specific guidelines out of this committee." What about the career-day recruiters? Although the corporate recruiters on campus Tuesday probably didn't realize it, their presence was a definite factor in the minds of those who authorized the sidewalk cleanings. For example, Winquist pointed-out that "anytime there's an event on campus, we try to do [as much as we can to clean-up]." And Ahola said "all the sidewalks were cleaned totally in preparation for Career Day." Ironically, the Career Center did not request or approve any specific cleanings. In fact, most of the Career Center staff was unaware that an issue had surfaced in regards to their event. "I wasn't even aware that there was an issue going on here," said Steve Vanek, Associate Director of the Career Center's Cooperative Education program. Barbara Filer, Career Center Director, indicated that they hadn't received any complaints from recruiters about the demonstrations. Ideally, she wants a "very nice-looking campus that creates a positive impression for recruiters," such as having the grass mowed, hallways cleaned and carpets vacuumed. But their "primary mission is to help the students and the companies." They "really don't seek-out or want to be involved in controversy," she said. Vanek also pointed-out, "these people are all adults that come here and can draw their own conclusions." Determining what is inappropriate While a clarification of existing university policy seems to be in order, some staff have their own criteria for what is to be deemed unacceptable. Tyrell believes that threats are dangerous, but clarified to say that "unidentified" threats are not illegal. He said targeting an individual was clearly inappropriate. For example, if someone wrote, "`I want to fucking kill Corina,' that is a threat we would wash away." Not because of the foul language, but because it is a personal threat. He also expressed a strong concern for the lack of dialogue. "We should not be making decisions in a vacuum," he said. Some groups like CCGLA might actually want the negative counter-attacks to remain, for example. And "freedom of expression has got to be protected," so "we should be talking to groups who are [involved] when these things happen." Winquist's grounds-crew are instructed (as a standard procedure) to immediately clean-off writings from any facilities which include swear words or names. But these policies come from a higher authority, such as Blumhardt, the Director of Facilities Management. Blumhardt said, "if anybody defaces university facilities in any fashion, then we clean them off immediately." He believes that university facilities (buildings, sidewalks, etc.) are not a vehicle for a public forum. A "sidewalk is not the bulletin board of the campus," he claims. Additionally, he insisted that "we've never had anything on the sidewalks which was offensive in anybody's minds," and "anything derogatory or negative on our sidewalks [is unacceptable]." He said, "[we] certainly don't want our sidewalks painted up everyday of the year ... [I'm] against it because I'm the steward for you and the state for these $300 million." And Blumhardt has instructed his staff to immediately clean-off any "foul language, obscenity, [or] advertising [found on campus facilities] ... I would hope they wouldn't bother to call anyone [to clarify approval]." Finally, he is concerned about people causing "permanent scars of our facilities." He urges groups to approach Facilities Management to make sure they don't accidentally deface the property in their publicity efforts. Ahola says that "[we] have a responsibility to remove `hate remarks'." Hate remarks are any threatening statements, anti- statements or statements inflammatory against any individual. "We all believe in freeom of speech and expression, and nobody has the right to prevent that...but vulgarity and threatening statements is where it starts to draw the line," he said. He also noted that violations would be considered a civil infraction, and would be assessed and citied in District Court. Students reactions Many students prefer to remain neutral instead of arguing any point on these controversial issues. But some jump at the opportunity to influence the administration. A few members of the CCGLA were happy to comment on their feelings. "I was shocked--it was almost like the university taking sides," said one member in reference to the sidewalk scrubbing. But he also indicated, "I feel more support from the campus -- the students -- this year [than in previous years.]" Ruth Hohman, the groups advisor, said they expect some resistance from their messages, but certainly not "censorship" by the university. The group really enjoys the chalkings because it has been the first "real" group activity that promotes their cause. "I think it's pretty much unanimous with the group that we're going to continue doing this in the years to come," said someone. These members also thought the added publicity from all the issues being raised was good... "on a personal level, [the counter-attacks on our messages] pisses me off, but on an activist level, it's good for people to see--because it makes them think." Theresa Cullen, president of Alpha Sigma Tau, another group who was affected by the sidewalk cleanings (they has chalk publicity too) said, "It's not necessary that we advertise on the sidewalks... it's just a convenient way becaus epeople walk the same ways on campus." She was upset about the ongoing sidewalk cleanings and remarked, "they're wasting more of our money [to keep cleaning the sidewalks] -- it's not that big of a deal ... if we see something vulgar, it just goes in one ear and out the other." Additionally, when questioned about having their chalkings approved, she said she didn't know they were required to be approved, and that "we've been chalking sidewalks for years ... if they had a problem with it, they would've sent us a letter." Other forums for student discussion of the issues have also been taking place. At one point, Jeff Janes, appearing somewhat exhausted with an argument in the newsgroup "mtu.discuss" going-in-circles, made the following comments about what "leaders of industry" might think: "God! Tech students have opinions! What a surprise! Well, we're never going back there again, we'll just go recruit at U or M. Every[one] knows U or M doesn't have queers, commies, or hash-bashers..."