Freedom of speech is arguably the most-exercised First Amendment right.

When Americans perceive injustices, they react reflexively — protesting, making signs or giving speeches. Excepting a few minor restrictions, these responses are perfectly constitutional.

But on a university campus, the black-and-white of “Congress shall make no law …” bears a different hue.

At places such as Iowa State, students, faculty and administration struggle to balance emotion and reality in the practice of this prized freedom.

In one sense, everyone agrees: content-based restrictions on free speech should be avoided at all costs.

“We accord faculty and students the widest range of freedom in their academic pursuit. It’s absolutely essential to the character of the university,” said ISU President Martin Jischke.

“If any place should embody free speech in our society, it should be a university,” said Herman Quirmbach, associate professor of political science and adviser to ACLU@ISU, the local chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

The agreement vanishes when public bodies — such as the administration — try to limit speech, and when citizens — such as students — try to be more aggressive in their speech.

“I am not aware of any situation where we have silenced a student because of the content of what they are saying,” said Dean of Students Kathleen MacKay.

Xavier Allen, president of the Black Student Alliance, disagrees.

“If you’re speaking on something that’s agreeing with the university, you’re probably safe from having anything negative happen to you,” Allen said. “But if you’re speaking about how the university is treating certain issues, it’s [different].”

Three Types of Fora

It may come as a surprise to protest-hungry students that the Supreme Court has grouped public property into three categories for speech: open, conditional and non-traditional.

The three-part system was outlined in several rulings, including Perry Education Association v. Perry Local Educators’ Association (1983).

In the 5-4 majority’s opinion, Justice Byron White reaffirmed that speakers are not guaranteed total access to school property.

Freedom of speech does extend to school grounds, but “this is not to say that the First Amendment requires equivalent access to all parts of a school building,” he wrote, citing high court rulings in 1969 and 1972.

Open fora, the first of the three categories, are areas traditionally devoted to speech, such as plazas, parks and streets. Here, speech is almost universally permitted, said Paul Tanaka, director of University Legal Services.

“The object of government is to tolerate to the greatest degree the speech that occurs in this type of forum,” he said.

At ISU, the Edward S. Allen Free Speech Area, south of the Hub, belongs to this type, according to university regulations.

Areas that the state opens to free speech comprise the second category, according to the Perry case, and in these areas, officials may regulate when, where and how expression takes place.

Content-based rules must be narrowly drawn and may be set up only when the state has a compelling interest, the court said.

The steps of Beardshear Hall and the Plaza of Heroines in front of Catt Hall are two of ISU’s conditional speech areas.

At fora in the third category, government may prohibit speech entirely to reserve the building or room for its intended purposes, as long as the restrictions are content-neutral.

The court said this privilege of limiting expression is similar to the power exercised by a private property owner.

Examples of these spots, Tanaka said, are university offices and waiting rooms at the Student Health Center.

What’s the Policy?

Any person seeking any forum on ISU’s campus, except the Allen Free Speech Area, must fill out an Activity Information and Authorization Form, available at the Student Activities Center.

These requests for use of campus space are routinely approved, MacKay said.

Only when groups ask to occupy “unusual” locations, like the steps of Beardshear Hall, do the forms cross her desk.

After scouting alternative spots and considering safety, sound and crowd factors, MacKay makes her decision.

“I don’t think I’ve ever turned one down,” she said, noting that several organizations have moved their events after she outlined the disadvantages of their initial choice.

This procedure has raised some hackles, especially those of Ames Tribune editor Michael Gartner, who in 1997 wrote a Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial on the subject.

Asked his opinion on the mandatory pre-speech permission form, Gartner had some choice words.

“It’s bizarre. If there’s anything that’s self-contradictory, that’s it,” he said.

Tanaka explains the necessity of a permit this way: “Space is a resource, and you need to make sure it’s not dominated by one particular group.”

But even Tanaka admits that there is room for change.

“I am a person with some sympathy toward revising our policies,” he said.

Ideally, these changes would give students more comfort that administration controls on speech are not content-based, he said.

“That’s not how we’ve used [regulations], and that’s not how we should use them,” Tanaka said.