This letter is in response to the Daily editorial on October 20, 2014 regarding the perceived notion that Iowa State University limits free speech on campus through its policies.

I am writing to clarify that we, the senators with the government of the student body, completely support the freedom of speech and would advocate for students if any such freedom is being limited.

One of the several things I disagree with in the editorial was the fact that the board found it ‘unacceptable’ for a university to have a ‘worst’ rating given by a foundation advocating for free speech. I also find it interesting that the editorial board is ashamed that our university was given a bad rating.

To clarify, a rating or a number doesn’t always completely define a person, an institution or anything in general. A university cannot fire a professor by taking the reviews on RateMyProfessor.com seriously because of his or her ‘worst’ rating, and that it is ‘unacceptable’ to have them teach because of their rating. It is very similar to judging someone based on their GPA alone. There is always something more to a person or an institution than a number.

Also, here is the other half of the story that was not entirely discussed in the editorial. This is why the GSB senators voted no on a bill that wanted to reevaluate the policies regarding the freedom of speech on campus.

The biggest concern for the senators present was not that of expanding the free speech zones, but the implications in doing so, and how it might affect the student experience on campus.

“Many students have concerns about seeing the kind of offensive characters on campus. They do not want to see that by their residence halls or classes.” said Evan Abramsky, an Inter-Residence Hall Association senator from his discussion with the IRHA parliament.

Adam Gunther, the president of the LGBTA alliance, shared his concerns with the senate that many speakers offend and make students and others within the LGBTA community uncomfortable to an extent that they don’t feel safe on campus anymore. He also shared instances where Department of Public Safety was called as a preventive measure.

“There is a clear and personal attack on someone” said GSB LAS senator Richard Hartnett. He was referring to an incident when the speakers at the free speech zone were telling him that he would go to hell and screaming that all Delta Delta Delta sorority members were promiscuous and immoral women.

Even though we are trying to empower the people sharing their opinion through campus-wide free speech zones, it takes away the other individual’s voice who does not want to hear the conversation. If they are to spread all across campus, future students may not have the option to avoid certain areas if they feel uncomfortable or offended by the discussion going on.

Therefore, the editorial board and the student body, we did not vote no on the bill because we were against free speech or free speech zones. We voted against the bill because we had student safety and experience as our priority. We felt that the existing university policy was neutral and dealt with the freedom of speech on campus in a fair way.

The existing policy allows any member of the public or of the university community to use the existing space without prior approval on first come, first served basis unless it has been reserved by someone else.

Also, no approval is necessary if anyone wishes to use outdoor spaces other than the free speech zones, if they stay at least 100 ft. away from classrooms and do so between 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. during weekdays without using amplification devices other than hand held megaphones.

These policies are fair, neutral and help maintain a healthy environment for students to study and go about their life without suppressing any freedom of speech.

We discussed and debated for a good amount of time before 27 of us voted no, six yes while two abstained.

We would hate to see students feeling harassed all across campus and appreciate the idea of having a designated high student traffic area to have such conversations for individuals and groups wanting to do so.

We essentially did not want to fix something that was not broken.