GUEST COLUMNIST: Defending freedom of speech on Penn's campus

The editorial ("SAC Exec Board drops the ball," DP, 11/25/98) purported that the funds were granted under false pretenses and that PAN lied about the contents of the demonstration to the SAC Executive Committee. This suggestion is unjust both because it is based on a false perception of the interactions between PAN and SAC and because, as SAC Exec acknowledged last Monday, the SAC Executive Committee was wrong to try and infringe upon our freedom of speech. We were notified by the SAC Executive Committee liaison to the Progressive Activist Network that we would receive the $200 in emergency contingency funds we requested, with the stipulation that the International Concerned Friends and Family of Mumia Abu-Jamal could not speak. Mumia Abu-Jamal is an award-winning journalist from Philadelphia who is currently on death row, despite acknowledgement from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that the judge presiding over his trial was openly racist and that officers who testified against him committed perjury. Many believe that Abu-Jamal deserves a new trial. We were also told that it would be preferable if the Friends and Family did not even attend the event. When we questioned whether members of an organization could be legally banned from attending an event on Locust Walk, they dropped the last stipulation. We notified the organization that they had been banned from speaking at our demonstration. In the hours leading up to the event, members of PAN decided that it is always in the best interest of the University community, and of all victims of our political system, to publicly address any censorship issue. We discussed the SAC stipulations at our event, and we allowed anyone who wished to speak to do so. We made this decision with conviction that SAC does not have the right to dictate what may or may not be said, except within the clearly defined boundaries established in the University's charter. It is our obligation as academics to expose ourselves to new ideas and to challenge any threats to the free exchange of ideas. Just as we condone the reading of a legally banned book, our love for free speech should lead us to condone this challenge to an infringement of free expression. This should not be a controversial point. The SAC Executive Committee publicly announced last Monday that, "SAC's attempt to edit the demonstration because of beliefs that its nature violated SAC funding guidelines was a misinterpretation of those guidelines by the SAC Executive Board, and takes full responsibility for this error in judgement. The SAC Executive Board strongly supports its member groups' right to free speech and in no way intends to violate this right when making funding decisions." SAC's acknowledgement is a victory for all student organizations. The University charter's definition of "political" and the legal reasons for the limits on political activity are being clearly explained and should no longer be used as an excuse to deny funding. PAN deserves support and funding from SAC as a student organization that fills a unique niche on campus. We organize events around issues that affect the entire Penn community, and we also publish PANic, which raises campus awareness on issues that do not receive mainstream media attention. PAN also serves as bridge between many groups on campus and provides support for other groups' events. Most importantly, PAN is dedicated to raising the awareness of the powers-that-be and of the consequences of their actions. PAN empowers students to take an active role in changing our community. I believe that our fellow students are not apathetic (as some insist) but are both unaware of the full extent of the injustice outside of the Quadrangle's walls and are told time and again that they cannot change the system. PAN fulfills an important role in the Penn community's efforts to create a healthy, supportive world for everyone, not just for the elite few in the ivory towers of Ivy League academia. The SAC general body can trust that PAN did not intend to mislead the Executive Board, nor did we intend to lie about the contents of our demonstration. Our sincere desire to raise University awareness of racist and classist elements in our judicial system inspired us to organize the event. When we allowed the community to speak freely at the demonstration, we were attempting to do what was morally and legally correct. The SAC Executive Committee's acceptance of "full responsibility" for their error in judgement should put any issues regarding last week's demonstration to rest and should establish a precedent that will prevent SAC from attempting to tell students what they can and cannot say.