COLUMN: "The Arresting Debate About Photos"

From Brian Newberry's "A Thousand Words," Fall '92 As it stands, snapshots are used to identify people accused of violating the University's "Open Expression Guidelines." Under the current policy, an "Open Expression monitior" may demand identification from any person they accuse of violating the guidelines. If that person refuses, the monitor may then ask anyone -- other than a uniformed police officer -- to take a picture of the alleged violator for possible disciplinary action. But at the last meeting of President Sheldon Hackney's advisory committee, the University Council, a proposal was put forth by the faculty which would also allow University Police officers to take pictures of students. A counterproposal -- put forth by members of the Undergraduate Assembly -- would bar anyone from taking photographs of students, and instead would require that alleged violators be arrested just like any other suspected criminal. Critics of the UA plan say it is ridiculous that a police officer could arrest someone just because they refuse to identify themselves. David Hildebrand, chairperson of the Faculty Senate and a supporter of the first plan, told me last week he is opposed to the UA's idea because he doesn't want to see small incidents blown out of proportion. Well, if these are such small incidents, then why are we even bothering to worry about them? Hildebrand also said he supports the faculty plan because many monitors say they fear they would be attacked if they were forced to take pictures of violators. Using uniformed police officers would eliminate this problem. I don't consider myself a violent person and I'm not exactly the protesting type, but I can relate to that. You see, if someone came up to me at some rally, demanded identification and then proceeded to whip out a camera in the hope of bringing charges against me in a kangaroo court like our beloved University judicial system -- well, I just might give them a real reason to arrest me. To me the whole debate is not really about photographs. It simply highlights the general absurdity of the Open Expression Guidelines. Look, if we are going to have an open expression policy, then obviously we need a way to enforce it. The problem lies with the fact that no matter how we decide to enforce it, the potential for abuse is great -- unless we follow the same procedures that are used in the real world, and arrest violaters. Of course using the threat of arrest means the University must adhere to Constitutional principles -- like free speech. In my conversation with Hildebrand, he expressed the concern that we must always allow controversial groups and individuals the right to express their views without harassment. I agree. But I disagree with Hildebrand and other supporters of our open expression policy in how to acheive this goal. At Penn, I have witnessed fringe speakers and groups from both ends of the political spectrum get shouted down or drowned out in public forums by groups opposed to their views. Victims of this kind of cowardice include everyone from Lesbian Gay Bisexual Alliance speakers to State Representative Steven Friend, an outspoken and controversial pro-life advocate. Nevertheless, we have laws that can protect unpopular speakers without infringing on their critics' right to free speech. Laws guarding against trespassing and disturbing the peace are just two common examples. If a fraternity blasts rock music out their windows to drown out a College Green rally -- or the Progressive Student Alliance decides that a pro-life speaker is not to their liking and insists on acting like a bunch of spoiled two-year-olds at his speech -- then perhaps a little jail time and a hefty fine might just make them think twice in the future. Think this approach is too harsh? Then consider taking the picture of violators, hauling them before the Judicial Inquiry Officer and possibly blackening their college records. If the Open Expression Guidelines are really that important, then what is so much worse about throwing people in jail for the night on charges of disturbing the peace? Is it the bad publicity the University would receive from arresting seemingly innocent students? I suspect it is. The sad part is that the bad publicity would be well deserved. You cannot fairly restrict free speech and open expression in any way, except in cases where it causes physical harm. I don't have the space to get into the constitutional issues of the University's Open Expression Guidelines, but I must point out this fact: Not every building on this campus is owned by the University. Many -- like Van Pelt Library, Steitler Hall and Williams Hall -- are still owned by the Pennsylvania General State Authority and leased to the University. Even without any state funding -- and tax breaks could still be construed as state funding -- the University is not exactly the private institution it likes to think it is. Hypothetically speaking, imagine that a student is prosecuted under the Open Expression Guidelines for an act committed on the steps of Van Pelt Library. When I asked one University administrator if this meant the student could sue the University for a violation of his constitutional rights, the official told me he wasn't going to touch that question with a ten foot pole. I don't blame him. Once again, the debate over how to enforce the Open Expression Guidelines has merely served to point out the impossibility of coming up with a legal and equitable way to restrict free speech in any form. At its heart, the issue of photographs -- while it upsets the paranoid among us and conjures up images of police files -- is only a peripheral issue. The real issue is whether the University has any business infringing on peoples' constitutional rights, when other means exist to prevent the intimidation of speakers and disruption of free speech. What particularly bothers me is that many of those who now argue for photographing students -- and regulating what people say and when they say it -- are probably the same people who participated in 1960s sit-ins, fought for civil rights and protested against Vietnam. Yet under our current regulations, a spontaneous sit-in would be grounds for prosecution -- not on grounds of trespassing, but on the grounds of violating a policy on "open expression." And someone who shouted down a College Green speaker would be subject to discipline not because he disturbed the peace, but because he violated an "open expression" policy. The whole issue really comes down to a question of respect for others -- and that, unfortunately, cannot be legislated justly. Recently a student in Colorado Springs, Arizona, was sent home from school because he wore a shirt depicting the Penguin character from "Batman Returns." His principal said it was "satanic," and therefore not permissable in school. Rational Americans have their hands full dealing with right-wing lunatics like this guy. We shouldn't have to spend our energy worrying about people on the left who are well-intentioned, intelligent -- and yet short-sighted -- and who should know better. Brian Newberry is a senior Urban Studies and History major from Wallingford, Connecticut. "A Thousand Words" appears alternate Tuesdays.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.