Opinion ID: 824286
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: considerations of the academic environment

Text: It is apparently of little consequence to the majority that this case concerns an ordinance adopted by an institution of higher education. To the extent that an academic environment is at issue in this ordinance, it is far more likely that speech-related activities (both inside and outside the classroom) will be the object of disruptions than that such activities will be undermined by the prohibition against disruptions. In this way, the ordinance as written may actually serve to promote the dissemination of ideas rather than threaten them. Further, just as picketing outside courthouses52 disruptive rallies within libraries,53 and speech that disrupts the workplace54 can be constitutionally prohibited, a university can implement measures to prevent disruptions of the academic environment.55 Even state the obvious—the police are responsible for enforcing our criminal laws and, of course, even police officers are sometimes the victims of crimes. 52 See Cameron v Johnson, 390 US 611, 617; 88 S Ct 1335; 20 L Ed 2d 182 (1968) (upholding a statute that prohibited picketing that “obstructs or unreasonably interferes with ingress or egress to or from the courthouse”). 53 See Brown v Louisiana, 383 US 131, 142-143; 86 S Ct 719; 15 L Ed 2d 637 (1966) (suggesting that a state or its instrumentality may prohibit “disruption[s] of library activities” in a reasonable and nondiscriminatory manner) (emphasis added). 54 See Waters v Churchill, 511 US 661, 680-681; 114 S Ct 1878; 128 L Ed 2d 686 (1994) (explaining that speech by public employees that disrupts the workplace is unprotected, regardless of whether the speech is on a matter of public concern). 55 See Tinker, 393 US at 513 (declaring that “conduct by the student, in class or out of it, which for any reason . . . materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others is, of course, not immunized by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech”) (emphasis added). Although Tinker involved high school students, courts have applied Tinker in the university setting. For example, in 18 campus newspapers are not entitled to the same degree of free speech as the Lansing State Journal because of the particular mission of the university.56 By striking down MSU Ordinance, § 15.05, the majority is not only compromising the ability of parking Salehpour v Univ of Tennessee, 159 F3d 199, 208 (CA 6, 1998), the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, citing Tinker, held that the plaintiff’s disruption of the classroom environment at the university was unprotected. The court stated that where the expression appears to have no intellectual content or even discernable purpose, and amounts to nothing more than expression of a personal proclivity designed to disrupt the educational process, such expression is not protected and does violence to the spirit and purpose of the First Amendment. Tinker, 393 U.S. at 511. The rights afforded to students to freely express their ideas and views without fear of administrative reprisal, must be balanced against the compelling interest of the academicians to educate in an environment that is free of purposeless distractions and is conducive to teaching. Under the facts of this case, the balance clearly weighs in favor of the University. [Id. (emphasis added; citation omitted).] Furthermore, the United States Supreme Court, in recognition of its decision in Tinker, stated that [a] university differs in significant respects from public forums such as streets or parks or even municipal theaters. A university’s mission is education, and decisions of this Court have never denied a university’s authority to impose reasonable regulations compatible with that mission upon the use of its campus and facilities. [Widmar v Vincent, 454 US 263, 268 n 5; 102 S Ct 269; 70 L Ed 2d 440 (1981).] In this case, MSU has implemented a reasonable, content-neutral regulation that is consistent with its mission as an educational institution. The regulation prohibits disruptions to the normal activity of persons carrying out a service, activity, or agreement for or with MSU. 56 See Hazelwood Sch Dist v Kuhlmeier, 484 US 260, 273; 108 S Ct 562; 98 L Ed 2d 592 (1988) (“hold[ing] that educators do not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns”). 19 officials to safely respond to irate behavior, but it is also preventing MSU from regulating numerous other disruptive activities that interfere with its core academic mission. Finally, it is useful to consider the campus disruptions that MSU Ordinance, § 15.05 will no longer cover because it has been partially struck down by the majority: (1) a person running onto the field of a stadium during a sporting event, (2) a person blaring music during a lecture, (3) a person interfering with the progress or movement of an individual cleaning or maintaining a university building, (4) a person preventing the entrance of students into a classroom by physically blocking the classroom door, (5) a person shining a laser pointer during a performance or lecture, (6) a person turning the lights on and off in a classroom during an exam, (7) a person continually making noise in the library, (8) a person calling in a false bomb threat, and (9) a person pulling a fire alarm in the absence of a fire emergency. These are just a few of the countless nonexpressive campus occurrences that might throw into confusion or disorder the normal activity of a protected person. These illustrations highlight the tangible consequences of the majority’s decision.57 57 As another consequence, the majority’s decision may well invalidate several other campus prohibitions. MSU Ordinance, § 15.01 prohibits “any excessive noise or disturbance, riot, raid, or disruption . . . which obstructs the free movement of persons about the campus or the free and normal use of University buildings and facilities, or prevents or obstructs the normal operations of the University” (emphasis added); MSU Ordinance, § 15.02 provides that “[n]o person shall disrupt the normal operation of any properly authorized class, laboratory, seminar, examination, field trip, or other education activity of the University” (emphasis added); and MSU Ordinance, § 15.03 provides that “[n]o person shall disrupt the normal use of any campus building or area which has been assigned or scheduled by appropriate means for educational or extracurricular activities” (emphasis added). These ordinances not only illustrate the range of laws that might be 20