The University is considering reforming its freedom of expression policy after recent concerns about limitations have been raised.

“We are investigating and looking at the policy,” Director of Campus Life Willie Banks said in a Monday interview. “If there is a genuine concern we have to, and we saw that at Open Mic with Mike.”

Banks said he will seek input on the policy through his staff of club advisers, who work as “advocates” for student groups such as the Student Government Association and University Union. The current University policy specifies Tate and Memorial Plaza as “free speech zones” for University-affiliated groups, with a 48-hour prior approval required for other areas on campus.

However, some students feel the policy is in need of desperate reform.

“The semantics of the policy itself give students hesitation in expressing their opinion on any issue,” said Lindsey Teague of Dawgs for Free Speech.

“While the University and Willie Banks seem very pro-students, it is still too restrictive. We have a huge portion of land devoted to our campus yet an absurdly small free speech zone.”

Teague said the very idea of non-free speech zones is restrictive, and the entire campus should ideally be totally open for speech without forms.

“It is absurd to say American citizens can speak in some places and not others,” Teague said. She said the policy is an embarrassment that came as a result of Gulf War protesting.

“I think it’s baseless because we didn’t have a free speech policy until 1991. So for our long history we didn’t have one on the books,” Teague said.

However, Teague said she knows the University won’t make the entire campus a free-speech zone, so she is advocating for all green areas, such as the North Campus lawn, to be. Willie Banks said having free protests on North Campus could interfere with classes.

“We do believe in the freedom of expression for our community, but there are certain safeguards regarding time, place and manner,” Banks said. “We have to fill the educational mission of the University. We need to let people know if you are coming through North Campus during peak hours with a bull horn. Students in classes would not be able to learn.”

Teague said the problem with limiting free speech areas is that it makes dialogue avoidable.

“People do the Tate Shuffle where students dodge people with ideas. That is not a dialogue, that is not discourse, and that is not conducive to the playground of ideas,” Teague said.

“I don’t think it would affect the very few classes that actually occur on North Campus,” Teague said. “The concerns and alarms are unfounded. Students are not going to run around with bullhorns. We are talking about leaflets. We are just students with ideas we want to express.”

Brian Mink, founder of Dawgs for Free Speech agreed with Teague, but said he understands the need for some regulation.

“The Supreme Court interpretations said government entities can make speech restrictions with regard to time, place and manner, but they can’t make them overly restrictive,” Mink said. “Instead of saying you can speak anywhere on campus except at these times and certain places, the University says the opposite – you can only speak in these two areas.”

Mink said he thinks the University policy should limit speech only within a certain number of feet of classes.

He pointed to the University’s “Red Light” speech code rating on the TheFire.org, a group that evaluates speech codes.

Georgia State, University of Florida and University of South Carolina all share the University’s red rating, while nearby University of Tennessee has a “Green Light.”

Banks said the push for drastic policy change comes from misunderstanding.

“Maybe over the past year I have filled out six or seven forms,” Banks said. “People think there are a lot of hoops for a march or demonstration and there really aren’t. There is one form 48 hours in advance, which is for the protection of students.”

Legally, the University is within its right, Media Law professor Kent Middleton said in a Monday interview.

“If everyone fills out the same form the fact that you fill out the form is not a deterrent unless the University discriminates based on content, and there is no evidence of that,” Middleton said. “I think 48 hours is an unnecessarily long time, but I don’t think it is legally unreasonable.”

Banks said groups can get confused when they are denied freedom to pass out brochures in the Tate Plaza when it is already reserved.

A reservation includes the stage and the Plaza.

“If the Plaza is not reserved, anyone can get out there and talk about what they believe in. But if a student group has already reserved the area, then they can’t. They can go to Memorial Hall Plaza and speak their mind until they are blue in the face, without filling out forms.

Banks was adamant that when a group goes to reserve Tate/Memorial or petitions to protest elsewhere, group message is not a consideration.

“I don’t think there is a chilling effect in the form requirement. There are people with opposing views,” Banks said.

He cited the 600-plus campus student groups who are given equal access to reservation.

“There’s a big misconception that someone is passing judgment, and I don’t think that is the case at all,” Banks said. “It is very much a neutral standpoint.”

Some students feel it is a social, not policy change that is needed.

Morgan Fleming of Sustained Dialogue, a University group that encourages meaningful discussion on social issues, said the expression policy is not the problem, but rather how students react to the demonstrations.

“Even though some people go to Tate to express opinions on sensitive topics, sometimes that’s not how you promote dialogue,” Fleming said.

Fleming cited the dangers of groups such as Justice For All, the anti-abortion group that caused a stir in Tate Plaza two weeks ago.

“Doing what they did turned more off than on,” Fleming said. “If they did it in a slightly less inflammatory manner there would be more dialogue.”

He said open discussion would not be more prevalent if the entire campus was a free speech zone because there would be nothing to ensure the demonstrations were productive.

“I would ultimately be for more free speech areas, because people need to have that right,” Fleming said.

He said he hopes any additional space would be for student engagement, not soap-boxing.