From the Editorial Staff... - Censorship: limiting student expression?

the Editorial Staff
12/9/11

One of the reasons the Missouri Baptist Convention initially decided to split with William Jewell College regarded free speech. The Convention was upset with the College’s lax policies regarding what could be presented by the College Department of Theatre as well as discussed in the Hilltop Monitor. William Jewell College officials, however, made the decision not to censor these outlets. Since then, William Jewell has made even more progress regarding free speech and performance on campus. One organization, in particular, though, is still limited regarding what it can present to students.

College Union Activities works to improve student life on campus by providing activities for students like a performance by the Second City Improv Troupe and the winter formal. However, this week, an article in the Hilltop Monitor revealed that this organization must restrict certain performers as well as content at dances. Comedians are told to keep their material to a PG-13 level, and songs played at dances must be edited and approved by Student Affairs.

These restrictions seem to go against the principles of free speech which caused the break with the Baptist Convention. Not only that, but it conveys an attitude that the College does not view its students as adults and must shelter them from anything that could be offensive. Of course, there are students who would be offended by curse words in songs, but part of being an adult is realizing that not everything is going to be sensitive to your needs. Off the Hill, people are not going to ask if you mind their cursing—most likely, they’ll simply let the bombs fly. Sheltering our students more than necessary just makes them that much more ill-prepared to meet the real world.

In addition to preparing students for the disregard most of the population will have towards their preferences, lessening censorship on the Hill will allow students to make decisions for themselves. Whether it is an uncensored song or an off-color comedy bit, students should be given the opportunity to choose whether or not they want to listen. Just because content has a less than favorable status (according to current standards) does not mean that students will gravitate toward it if and when policies slacken. The forbidden fruit the media dangles in front of us may not look so shiny once a definitive “no” is taken away. Every decision made is a learning opportunity. Consequences can either be good or bad, so please give us the opportunity to learn by action, not by hearsay.

These actions also do not fit with the College’s attitude toward content provided by other organizations. The Hilltop Monitor and Student Senate, along with CUA, receive their funding from the student activities fee, which all students pay as part of their tuition. Senate and the Hilltop Monitor, however, are not censored in any way, though there are certainly administrators that would like to screen what the Monitor prints. Not to screen what the Monitor is doing but censor CUA is contradictory; in fact, neither should be censored in the first place.
Certainly, if students indicated that they appreciated this action by Student Affairs, then it may be justified. Yet, the general feeling is that more students would rather see such events uncensored. Protecting the general “culture” of William Jewell is admirable and should be done to ensure that the institution continues to adapt to its ever-changing student body. All the Monitor staff asks is that student input on the matter be considered crucial to the decisions made. Society changes, standards change, but what never changes is the need to consider the opinions of others if actions are to be done for the greatest good.