It wasn’t an unusual request. Nothing like it had been denied before. The same student group had got it in previous years. This year, though, when Students for Life at Miami University’s Hamilton, Ohio, regional campus, applied to put up a pro-life display, the school told her no — not unless they also put up warning signs around campus.

On November 29, the Alliance Defending Freedom filed suit in federal court to support the group’s free speech rights on campus. On December 7 The Stream met with Students for Life local chapter president Ellen Whitman on campus to learn more. Her ADF attorney, Travis Barham, joined by phone.

Ellen Wittman comes across as bright, confident and well assured of herself and her position. She explained her strength as simply coming from knowing the Constitution is on her side.

Restricted Speech

The display was to be a field of 200 crosses on the main campus quad, a “Cemetery of the Innocents” representing lives lost to abortion. Campus officials told them they had to post a note around campus saying: “Students for Life is displaying its annual cross event. Please contact Ellen Whitman if you have questions.” That would “shut down our speech and made us send a message we didn’t want to send,” Wittman said. 

“Ultimately,” she pointed out, “that would not only deter people from [the display]. It would also point out who was behind it. Really, the only permit we need to speak on campus is the First Amendment. We don’t need the university to even be involved that way.”

Selective Enforcement, Compelled Speech

Miami University has an existing policy by which they claim the right to make this requirement. It has never been implemented for any group before this one, however. Selective enforcement “is one of the many problems with these policies,” according to Barham.

He added, “The university officials were trying to compel Ellen and her friends to issue a government-mandated message. … The First Amendment is very clear that universities cannot compel speech, especially when that speech directly contradicts the purpose of the speaker. They cannot force a student to put up a warning-sign message — or any message — as a condition for allowing them to speak on campus.”

Reactions on Campus

Students for Life members were “upset,” said Wittman, “knowing we were being singled out and our rights violated.” There are some 200 members on the group’s roster, with about 20 of them regularly active in meetings and events.

Other students’ reactions on campus have been “pretty friendly.” The Stream asked whether it felt like a case of pressure against her Christian faith. “Ultimately it’s more of a constitutional thing for me than a faith thing. Because this case is about free speech, it’s not necessarily about whether it’s the pro-life issue or the abortion issue. It’s about free speech, which is one of your rights.”

A Nationwide Issue

Wittman sees this as another example of free speech being “clearly under attack on campuses nationwide. … I think it’s everywhere. It needs to be addressed. I’m glad we’re able to come out and take a stand for free speech and send that message not only to the campus community here at Miami but nationwide. Our rights are being violated and we need to do something about it.”

“I think that awareness itself is going to strengthen the free speech movement,” she said. “A lot of students might not necessarily know that universities have these policies. They’re kind of tucked away, and only implemented when the administration sees fit. Exposition and awareness to the campus community is only going to help, because all speech should be allowed on campus, no matter the viewpoint.”

Barham added there is strength to be found under the protections of the law. He noted that Alliance Defending Freedom has been defending students’ free speech rights for years.

“Offensive” Speech Is Constitutionally Protected

He also explained that some people thought the speech Ellen and her friends wanted to partake in “offensive.”  

“This case illustrates the absurd consequences of that approach,” he said. “When you have something as innocuous as a display of crosses, and when additional restrictions are put on it that aren’t placed on any other student speech on campus, it shows the absurd consequences.”

The Supreme Court has repeatedly protected speech considered “offensive,” he noted. “Out of a multitude of voices truth will arise. The best antidote to speech we don’t like is more speech, not less,” said Barham.

“What is deemed ‘hate speech’ these days is a very subjective term,” added Wittman. “You can’t really limit it without completely limiting the First Amendment.”

“One of the Cornerstones of Higher Education”

“I think that ultimately we’re hoping to get a change in policy so that all students on campus can speak freely.”

The suit was filed on November 29. What happens with it next is in the university’s court to decide. What happens then depends on whether the university soon recognizes the merits of the students’ position.

“It certainly feels very discriminatory,” Wittman said. “The Constitution is the only permit we need to speak on campus. So with the fact that our speech is being conditioned, and our rights are being violated, obviously I feel very personally affected. Obviously Students for Life is affected by it as well.

“I think that ultimately we’re hoping to get a change in policy so that all students on campus can speak freely. That’s what we want. Miami University needs to encourage free speech. It’s one of the cornerstones of higher education.”