In the past few weeks I have observed, by way of your homepage, that Dean Kathy MacKay has sought to “discipline” the “organizers” of the September 29th Movement.

Administrators would have you, and the Daily’s reporters, believe that the “time, manner, place” restriction is in stone because of a long-standing university policy that refuses to relinquish control.

Quite frankly, I question the university’s right to deny in this case because the location of the town-meeting seems to have been relevant to a fundamental aspect of the movement’s thesis: that administrators need to listen.

Relegating the movement to a designated free speech area away from Beardshear is anti-thetic to this component, in my opinion and in the opinion of many who now support the movement because of the capricious administration of the disciplinary system.

I refer now to the Interassociational Task Force Joint Statement on Student Rights and Freedoms, as endorsed by the American Association of University Professors and the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. In a letter of protest, I urged Kathleen McKay to reconsider her intention to “discipline” the movement because of this statement in the document: “The institutional control of campus facilities shall not be used as a device for censorship.”

Because McKay has revealed her true intent — to punitively discipline “organizers” over “participants” —she has revealed that such discipline is not a response to “noise” or “disruption” or “traffic flow,” but a response to “organization.” That response is seemingly unrehabilitative and suspiciously retributive.

I was later dismayed to learn that McKay further intended to make disciplinary records available to potential graduate schools and employers, which, again, is condemned by the document in question — also seemingly illegal since the Department of Education has classified such records as educational documents to be released with the express consent of the subjects of those records.

The Joint Statement goes on to encourage those members of NASPA and AAUP to separate educational and disciplinary records, to refrain from keeping political information on file, and to destroy non-current records of disciplinary action.

Dean McKay seems intent on doing none of those things. Instead, she is apparently bent on deterring students from the constitutionally guaranteed right to assemble and associate with one another via intimidation based on “blacklisting.” I don’t believe, as she has exaggerated, that this event or any other like it will have life-long, negative implications.

The justification for the broken-down disciplinary system has always been to further educate, not punish. It has been unable to accomplish this with criminal violations, which should be handled in the courts instead of buried, as with a Virginia Polytechnic University rape case, or cheating, which often goes unpunished.

I guess the only good thing the disciplinary code is good for is the modern-day equivalent of McCarthyism— keeping students safe from themselves.

However, it is clear that the September 29th Movement acted as adults as evidenced by Warren Madden’s comments to that effect.

Because “rules were broken” and a “technicality” was overlooked (i.e., a permit was denied) an injustice is justified and politics is served in the name of safety and education. The only thing dangerous about September 29th is their minds.

David A. Cmelik

Iowa City, Iowa