Freedom of speech is one of our greatest liberties, protected by our Bill of Rights. Freedom of expression is of paramount importance, especially at a public institution of higher learning where students should seek truth.
This is no different at Arizona State, our New American University, where we promote the pursuit of learning and expression.
Yet Students for Life, an anti-abortion student group on campus, have leveled a lawsuit against ASU, asserting that their constitutional rights have been violated. This seems like an overreaction on their part, when put in context with the facts of the situation.
Students for Life are apparently under the impression that ASU attempts to discourage the expression of "less favored views."
Last spring, the group, in conjunction with other organizations, put on a grandiose exhibition. Their displays boasted large pictures of aborted fetuses and moderators carrying microphones attempted to engage students.
This exhibition, as some students may remember, took up a substantial amount of Hayden Lawn and the area immediately outside the Memorial Union. The event was highly visible, and student passers-by could not have easily ignored it.
The exhibition was a veritable success. The sizeable event engaged students and was impossible to overlook. Whether one may dispute the gruesome displays as offensive is certainly not at issue; it falls under the umbrella of freedom of speech and the group was well within its right.
It is difficult to believe that the University purposefully tried to discourage the event because it actually took place and was successful.
The group's complaint - filed in July - states that they were required to pay liability insurance; an action they saw as discriminatory. They are seeking monetary compensation and a ruling that will disallow ASU to charge liability insurance for "free-speech" activities.
At a public institution like ASU, there are always concerns with liability and risk management. Charging liability insurance is a standard procedure for events on campus and is in no way used to hinder freedom of expression.
Regardless of its subject matter, an event is an event, and there are always risks, certainly more so with sizeable displays that were set up for the anti-abortion exhibition.
From a reasonable perspective, this was clearly not a University plot to prevent student expression or pro-life opinion. The event happened, so what is the complaint? Liability insurance is just a factor in putting on an event - after all, they weren't just setting up tables.
Students for Life was not treated differently than any other student organization, and if ASU had foregone liability insurance for an event of that size, it would have in fact been preferential treatment, thus discriminating against other student groups.
Students for Life was permitted their exhibition and is free to table outside the MU like any other group. Their constitutional right to freedom of speech is not being hindered and this lawsuit appears to be a petty publicity stunt.
It is very true that freedom of expression is important and inviolable, but that doesn't mean that Students for Life shouldn't exercise their right more prudently.
Rick Beitman is a political science and French senior. He can receive comments and angry rants at Richard.Beitman@asu.edu.
