The university’s policy regarding tabling in the Campus Center remain uncertain to some students after an incident at the ACU for Life table that led to a petition calling for the protection of free speech on campus.

The issue stems from an Oct. 13 incident in which staff members in the Advising Center confronted students at the ACU for Life table in the Campus Center over the content of their signage. First, John Mark Moudy, assistant director of student services, then Lyndi Felan, dean for retention and student success, approached the ACU For Life table and told students there, including organization president Madelyne Arrowood, to remove a sign that read, “Abortion is murder. Dissagre? [sic] Let’s talk.”

At the time, Felan called the sign “hate speech” and “inappropriate language” and needed to be removed. After the confrontation, Arrowood eventually changed the wording on the sign to “Abortion kills an innocent life. Disagree, Let’s talk.”

ACU For Life displayed a sign on its table in the campus center. The sign at the top is the original sign from the controversy, and the sign below includes the changes made after a discussion with administration. (Photo courtesy of ACU For Life)

Videos of the interactions recorded by students in ACU for Life were posted later in the day on the Facebook group ACU Open Forum.

In the days after, in addition to the attention on the Facebook group, the incident has drawn local and national coverage, including reporting on conservative news site Campus Reform and pro-life website LifeNews.

After the conversation, ACU For Life received an email from Ryan Richardson, vice president for student life, explaining that although there are no official rules regarding tabling, the tables are meant to promote an organization’s events and activities.

According to Richardson’s email, “It is not appropriate for tabling to be used in ways, through signage or personal engagement, that invite confrontation or debate.”

After receiving the email, the officers of ACU for Life met with officers from College Republicans and Turning Point to discuss their concerns about the policy.

In response, Turning Point chapter president Cole Edgar started a petition calling for free speech on campus, receiving over 700 signatures. Turning Point also regularly sets up a table in the Campus Center where members debate political issues with students and hand out posters, pins and flyers about what they believe.

“We believe that we’re not disrupting anyone,” said Edgar, freshman kinesiology major from Prosper. “We’re not calling anyone over. We’re not being loud. We’re just giving people the option if they want to come and discuss with us.”

Edgar said the university on Oct. 23 clarified  that it will not be implementing a policy change on tabling in the Campus Center. Students in Turning Point and ACU For Life said they will continue tabling as usual.

The Role of the Campus Center

Tamara Long, vice president for enrollment and student engagement, said Felan regretted labeling the sign as “hate speech” but still believed the sign to be unprofessional. Long agreed with Felan and said the Campus Center should not be used to draw people into debates.

“The purpose of the tables were to tell people about what’s going on in your groups, to try to recruit people to be a part of your organization and to give out information,” Long said. “If you want to have conversations, cool. Tell people about what you are doing. Talk to them. There is nothing wrong with that. But let’s not accost people with what our cause is and ask them to challenge us back.”

She also clarified that the university supports ACU for Life’s pro-life message.

Arrowood, senior management major from Gilbert, Arizona, said she was concerned when she was asked to take the sign down.

“There is not a lot of places on campus where my members can safely invite people into conversations,” Arrowood said. “I was just sort of concerned that if we didn’t have the Campus Center anymore, that we wouldn’t be able to start conversation about controversial things on campus.”

Although Long and Edgar said the university does not plan to put an official policy in place, Arrowood said over text that the website to reserve tables has indeed changed.

Arrowood said that the word “demonstrate” was removed and an extra paragraph was added describing the purpose of tabling: “The McGlothlin Campus Center is intended to be a welcoming and professional space for the students, the ACU community and guests. Activities that take place in this space should be in keeping with that intent and are subject to staff approval.”

Free Speech Challenges

Tyson Langhofer is the senior counsel and director for the national Center for Academic Freedom at the Alliance Defending Freedom, an organization that protects the rights of students and faculty at public universities from First Amendment violations.

Although the university has maintained that it does not intend to impose new rules regarding tabling, Langhofer said it would be within its rights to do so because ACU is a private institution.

“The First Amendment only applies to the government,” Langhofer said. “It allows, on the flip side, private institutions to create an institution for a specific purpose, and they have the right to enact policies that they believe are consistent with that purpose.”

Long said the university has never told a student group to take down tables; however, this is not the first time the it has asked a group to remove something from their table.

“We have asked student groups to remove things,” she said. “When the group Voice wanted to have a pride flag out, we asked them to remove it.”

Long said she hears people claim to want free speech on campus, but she argued that people would not want it if they fully understood its implications.

“The Campus Center is not designed to be a space for the marketplace of everyone’s ideas and thoughts,” Long said. “I believe that debate is so important for students. I believe that debate deepens what we believe. I think it helps challenge what we believe. I think off the cuff unmanaged spontaneous debate is not a helpful part of most communities. It typically is unbridled. It leads to chaotic discourse, not civilized discourse.”