Editor's Note: Why Court?
Forward Article to a Friend
Print Article
On the front page of the last issue, The Review reprinted a letter sent by our attorney to the administration of Stanford. Our lawyer, Rob Corry, stipulated that the University’s current policy on door-to-door distribution violates the first amendment rights of students. He asked for the University to change the policy, negotiate, or face legal consequences. Without compliance by Stanford, the possibility of taking this case to court is very real. Accordingly, I think it is necessary for me to explain why The Review plans to litigate against its own University, if need be.
The delivery of Corry’s letter represents the culmination of much effort from within The Review to get our ideas to the student body. It all started after students passed an advisory referendum on the issue in last year’s election. The success of the referendum demonstrated that most students desire door-to-door distribution. Although the issue of door-to-door distribution had been important for The Review before the referendum, the student support provided enough extra motivation to take action.
Indeed, action was taken. Several editorials and news stories were written on the subject. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) was contacted, and strategy meetings were convened. Meanwhile, the Associated Students of Stanford University (ASSU) Senate passed a bill calling for a change in the policy and met with Resident Fellows (RFs, the faculty members living in dormitories) and asked them to put their door-to-door policy up for vote among their residents. Few RFs responded, and the policy remained the same. Many individual RFs continued to arbitrarily prohibit door-to-door distribution of publications in their dormitories.
At that state, The Review began investigating more ambitious solutions. Research had shown that similar publications had countered similar policies by simply ignoring them. The choice was made, by a commission from within The Review, to distribute issue 5 of the last volume door-to-door, despite the policy. We considered the distribution an act of “civil disobedience.” Several residence staffs objected to our protest and reported our actions to Residential Education (ResEd). A complaint was filed, and we are still weathering the Organization Conduct Board process that resulted. Sanctions will likely result.
Things then became serious. We were indicted by the University for violating, along with the door-to-door policy, the Fundamental Standard. Meanwhile, several other circulars, including campaign literature for Lyndon LaRouche, continued to distribute door-to-door without consequence. We saw the University’s subjective enforcement of the policy as a clear case of censorship. We contacted attorney Rob Corry, who successfully litigated against Stanford in 1994 over an interpretation of the Fundamental Standard that placed restrictions on speech. Corry recognized that we had a good case, and we began discussing how to proceed.
Meanwhile, members of The Review contacted Director or Residential Education Jane Camarillo. We were saddened and surprised that Camarillo refused to meet with us, as she is the person in charge of establishing ResEd policies—such as door-to-door distribution. We instead met with one of the Assistant Directors, Josh Schiller. Unfortunately, Schiller did not have authority over the policy, and could only communicate our concerns to Camarillo. A dialogue could not be established.
As we saw it, we were left with no choice but to use the “legal option.” The administrator in-charge of the distribution policy would not communicate with us. Many RFs refused to put their policies up for vote, and The Review was facing possible sanctions. To give the University a chance to avoid going to court over this issue, we sent a letter to President Hennessy, Vice Provost of Student Affairs Greg Boardman, and the University General Counsel to rescind the current policy or consider a compromise. As Corry aptly stated in his letter, “this letter is Stanford’s chance to avoid once again being on the wrong side of free speech.” We are still waiting for a response from the University.
So what separates our case from those litigated by John Edwards and similar trial lawyers? Unlike such cases, we are not exploiting the judicial system for personal gain. We are not suing for damages. We will not, by the nature of our case, gain wealth by suing Stanford. We are fighting for the protection of our most fundamental rights—not for a violation of some abstract provision.
Our cause, ultimately, is for the sake of the University, not The Review. We believe an open door-to-door distribution policy is necessary for the preservation of an intellectual dialogue on-campus. A legal battle could last years—well beyond the tenure of many Review staff members. We want to change the policy for the benefit of future Stanford students. We envision a Stanford, sometime in the future, where students can freely disseminate their hard work and creative ideas to their peers. Let’s hope that we can realize this dream sooner than later.
I anxiously await Stanford’s response to Corry’s letter. I sincerely hope that the University decides to save its resources by avoiding a costly legal battle and recognizing and respecting the needs and desires of its students.
Regards,
Ryan Tracey
Editor-in-Chief
