Is it “an appropriate means for a healthy debate” or just one more instance of the university as Big Brother?

Door d‚cor and its regulation have been a source of debate at Iowa State in recent years. And with the creation of a new residence hall door policy, the discussion continues.

The current policy permits almost all decorations, but offensive material is subject to discussion and a non-binding vote on removal.

The new policy was instituted in the fall of 1997 to combat the “sterile environment” of undecorated doors in ISU dormitories. The relaxed restrictions follow a 1993 effort which banned all decorations as a result of several intense disagreements over racial and anti-homosexual messages placed on doors.

First implemented only for last semester, pending further review, the policy has since been renewed by the Inter-Residence Hall Association, with one change. It now does not have to be certified every semester and will be permanent unless the IRHA decides to re-open the debate.

The Policy

In short, the policy provides guidelines for conversation about offensive materials posted on residence hall doors.

“Any resident or staff member questioning the appropriateness of material(s) … may request that the issue be brought up for discussion” at a meeting of the house, according to the policy.

Then, a meeting will be held, at which attendance “is not mandatory for any resident, including the person whose door contains the material considered offensive.”

During the meeting, all residents will have “the opportunity to ask questions or share their perspective on the issue,” the policy states.

After the discussion, residents can “vote on whether or not they agree that the material is offensive … The vote is not binding,” and the house president will notify both parties of the results.

Opposing Views

Violations of the new rules have been virtually non-existent, but while the administration is clearly satisfied with the results, some legal experts are not.

“I applaud their attempt to allow student free speech, but I don’t think the new policy is constitutional anymore than I thought the old one was,” said Dom Caristi, an assistant professor of journalism and mass communication at ISU.

“Any state agency is on shaky ground when they start trying to prohibit speech to protect people’s sensibilities,” he said, citing a 1970 Supreme Court case in which a man was taken to court for wearing a jacket in the Los Angeles County Courthouse which read “Fuck the draft!”

The court ruled for the protester, saying bystanders “could effectively avoid further bombardment of their sensibilities simply by averting their eyes.”

Caristi said in the case of the door policy, he is not comfortable with “the idea that people would be able to vote and coerce someone to take [the offensive material] down if it’s done under the color of government action.”

But Paul Tanaka, the director of university legal services, disagreed.

“I think that the current policy is constitutional,” he said. “Not all speech is protected. Otherwise we wouldn’t have laws against defamation and harassment. To the extent the university is trying to control that kind of speech, that is permissible.”

Section 5 of the policy allows individual houses to recommend that the Department of Residence remove five types of material: privacy-violating, defamatory, pornographic and obscene (according to state law), sexually or racially hostile, and violence-inciting.

“If the Department of Residence finds that any of the above criteria are met, [it] may order that the resident posting the material make a choice between removing the material or removing him/her from the residence hall system,” the policy states.

This decision may be appealed to the vice president for student affairs.

“When you try to put it into procedures, you make problems for yourself,” said Herb Strentz of the Freedom of Information Council at Drake University.

“The answer to bad or unpopular speech is more speech,” he said. “There is nothing in the policy that a person can’t do on their own.”

Strentz said policies such as the one at ISU create awkwardness and formality. “There is more impact and more effectiveness” from informal peer pressure, he said.

Defamatory or obscene speech is undesirable, Strentz said, but he argued it is perhaps a necessary evil. “That’s the kind of speech we have to tolerate in order to encourage free expression in general,” he said.

Praising free speech as the “key to self-government,” Strentz said too much emphasis is placed on the small amount of bad speech that exists.

“It’s just the side show we’re protecting, not the main event,” he said.

Randy Alexander, director of residence at ISU, said the new policy does not punish speech — it allows for intelligent dialogue.

“The purpose of the vote is to give all the members of the community [the house] an opportunity to give feedback on what’s happening,” he said. “One of the things that led to the ban was there wasn’t an avenue that encouraged people with different viewpoints to get together and talk about it in a productive sort of way.”

Alexander, who must sign off on the IRHA-approved policy for it to go into effect next semester, said he most likely will give his okay.

“Based on what I’ve heard from the staff, I don’t have a problem with continuing the policy,” he said.

Door Policies at ISU

Previous to the incident in 1992 which provoked the ban, there were no restrictions on what students could or could not hang on their doors, and IRHA adviser Pat Robinson said the total prohibition was prompted by the frequent appearance of “hate speech” material.

“We had several incidents of symbols being put on doors that were pretty derogatory,” she said, giving examples such as a swastika and a picture of Malcolm X with a gun pointed at his head.

“We talked to people about the effect these kind of postings were having, but they wouldn’t take them down,” Robinson said.

A diverse committee, composed of administration personnel and student representatives from organizations such as Government of the Student Body, the Women’s Center and Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Alliance (now Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Allies Alliance), was formed in fall 1992.

Robinson said the committee, of which she was a member, first formulated legislation prohibiting certain kinds of racial “hate speech,” but when the U.S. Attorney General told them such a rule would violate the First Amendment, they settled on an all-out ban.

“It wasn’t worth people feeling unsafe and threatened in their living areas, and so we just decided ‘nothing on the doors,'” she said.

Mark Ingles, then editor of The Drummer, said he was against the ban.

“I don’t agree with this lazy totalitarian approach to policing your ‘subjects,'” he said. “Don’t get me wrong. I’m 100 percent behind protecting people, but this sort of carte blanche approach of limiting everyone’s speech is absolutely dead wrong. The only way to fight against bigotry and intolerance is through more speech, not less.”

In the spring of 1995, another group was formed to review the policy, and Robinson again was a member. The new committee recommended that the Department of Residence provide bulletin boards for each house, remedying what Robinson said was the main fault of the ban.

“I think students saw the biggest problem as not being able to leave messages for their friends,” she said.

But, according to Robinson, “some people thought the halls were kind of drab,” and the issue was brought up numerous other times.

As an article in the Oct. 2, 1996, edition of the Daily put it, “There have been on-again, off-again campaigns to change the policy for several years.”

After students met with Alexander in October 1996 to share their concerns, IRHA committees wrote a proposal asking for a policy change.

Several revisions followed, and the current policy emerged.

“This policy is good, because the initial decisions are made by the residents of the house,” said Vice President for Student Affairs Tom Hill.

“I think it’s working now,” Robinson said. “Students have First Amendment rights to put things up on the doors, but they also have a responsibility when they live in a community to decide what’s best for the community, and sometimes exercising your rights isn’t good for the community.”

What Policy?

At the two other regents universities in Iowa, the “door policy controversy” is non-existent, and the guidelines for residence life at both institutions reflect that absence of disagreement.

The University of Iowa Residence Hall Guidebook includes only one paragraph discussing the issue, beginning with the admonition, “The outside of every student room door is considered to be public space.”

Later, it says, “Out of consideration for others, any posted material should not be offensive” or cover more than 25 percent of the door.

“In the last several years, we haven’t really had any [problems],” said Celine Hartwig, assistant to the director of residence at Iowa.

“We can, in public space, define what’s hung and what’s not hung,” she said, adding that her department evaluates possible problems on a “case-by-case basis.”

The University of Northern Iowa’s residence regulations have no language concerning door decorations, and Associate Director of Residence Lynn Redington said the omission is intentional.

“It’s not the punitive ‘you take it down or this is going to happen to you,'” she said. “We do have some students that put up things that other people find offensive. We just ask our staff to talk to them. We will ask students to take things down.”

So Far, So Good

The verdict from those most affected by the policy — the residents and residence hall staff — is positive.

“Everyone has been pretty cordial,” said Kristen Alley, hall director of Linden and Fisher-Nickell Halls. “The only thing we’ve had to do is ask our residents to remove things, and they’ve been respectful about it.”

Kim Araya, hall director of Maple Hall, said of her residents, “They’ve been really responsible about expressing their freedom of speech.”

Mimi Benjamin, the coordinator of residence life for the Union Drive Association, said she has had “almost no involvement” with arguments about door decorations.

“Most people have said they think it’s a good policy. Students seem to like being creative with the exterior of their rooms,” she said.

“You just have to be smart about it,” said Jason Bahl, a sophomore pre-electrical engineering major, who said he had not decorated his door.

Asked what he would do if someone questioned his door d‚cor, Bahl said, “I’d probably take it down if it was offensive to somebody.”

Chris Eager, a freshman in chemical engineering, agreed. “I’d take it down for sure,” he said.

“I think the policy’s good now. To outlaw everything, that punishes students who just want to hang things up that aren’t offensive. I’m glad they brought [the policy] back,” he said.

Another student said she would take her decorations down “out of respect” for others.

“I think if [the decorations] offend someone, they have the right to ask for them to be removed,” said Jamie Haberl, a sophomore in liberal arts and sciences..

Scott Ingersoll, a sophomore in civil engineering, said he is glad to be able to spice up his door, which is adorned with an alien head, a Busch Light carton and country music bumper stickers.

“It would look so blah in the residence halls without it,” he said.

One former resident remembered the acrimonious fight in 1992 that sparked the ban, when two white residents of Davidson House in Helser Hall harassed an African-American neighbor.

“It was pretty uncomfortable living across from those guys,” said Wade Rodman of the antagonists, who directed “very racist statements” and door decorations at his roommate, David Mosby.

After the appearance of a swastika and a Rebel flag, and other materials that Rodman described as “mean, vicious things, mostly promoting violence,” Mosby retaliated with a picture of Malcolm X. However, it only made the situation worse: in response, the two men posted a picture of the famous black agitator with a gun to his head.

“They were going to try to get [Mosby] out any way they could,” Rodman said.

After one semester, Rodman and Mosby moved out to avoid more conflict.

Remembering the bitter disputes, Rodman sounded a hopeful note for the new policy.

“It’s not a good environment to live in if you feel threatened,” he said. “I just hope that the system works. I’ve seen what happens, and it can get nasty pretty fast.”