Pit bans similar to 1960’s-era restrictions

In 1963, surreptitiously, the North Carolina General Assembly passed an “Act to Regulate Visiting Speakers.”

The law came to be called the “Speaker Ban.” It prohibited any person who was a known member of the Communist Party or who had before pleaded the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution from speaking at state colleges and universities.

After opposition from the UNC Board of Trustees, the law was amended. Now the state no longer had the power to censor and the right to ban speakers lay with the University. Activist students coined a term for this subtler, more insidious prescription — they called it the “Little Speaker Ban.”

Today, in the United States and at UNC, we are not regularly called upon to defend that most basic constitutional and democratic right to freedom of expression.

But while we were sleeping, the “Speaker Ban” returned to UNC. Or, more precisely, something like the “Little Speaker Ban.”

On the first day of classes this semester, an officer from the Department of Public Safety forced three Christian evangelists to leave the Pit in response to complaints from the pastor of Chi Alpha Christian Fellowship that they were being “bothersome.”

Don Luse, the director of the Union, said the Pit is a “reservable space for student and faculty groups.”  According to the Union’s policy, two groups may reserve the Pit from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. 

The evangelists were not a student or faculty group and so could not reserve either of the Pit’s imaginary “two spaces.” On that day, both spaces had been reserved. Thus, the preachers were ejected.

This incident was only the most recent in a string of Pit evictions justified by the “two spaces” policy. Last fall, members of Soulwinners Ministries International were forced out by security when their controversial arguments became too impassioned. 

In March of 2007, Gary Birdsong, our beloved (and hated) Pit Preacher, was escorted off campus after refusing to vacate one of the “two spaces” in the Pit. In an almost comically draconian act, Gary was also banned from the Pit for two years.

Broadly considered, the Union’s policy is reasonable: University groups should be able to reserve spaces in the Pit.

But in practice, the policy has provided a pretext for suppressing free speech.  And its strict enforcement has caused serious damage to the Pit’s dynamism and vitality.

The policy essentially grants no rights to anyone who has not been officially approved by the Union as a student or faculty group.  Furthermore, even for these groups, the Pit must be reserved in advance.  Spontaneous speech is simply not allowed.

And don’t be too loud, either: “Amplified sound is prohibited” in the Pit, according to the text of the policy.  Also, make sure the volume on your stereo does not “exceed that of common conversation.” You can hang a banner, but only if you comply with seven conditions.

Don’t these restrictions seem just a bit excessive? The Pit should be the hub of free speech on this campus.  And to the extent that we are regulating away its liberal bustle and exchange, we are draining its essence.

In 1966, in response to the “Little Speaker Ban,” more than 1,000 UNC students marched down Franklin to deliver a statement of principle to President Bill Friday.

What will our statement be?