Related Links:

Other Stories in Opinions:

Adopted in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment ensures that all Americans are entitled to freedom of expression, including both the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press. Throughout history, the ability to express one’s own thoughts was quelled by sedition laws like the Espionage Act, Sedition Act, and Smith Act, all of which provided punishment for speaking out against the government either through print, words, or a plan to overthrow the government. While these limitations no longer exist in America today, freedom of expression is still a widely discussed issue. Most debates arise from the question, “how far can you go under First Amendment protection?”

College campuses are involved in this debate, particularly The College of New Jersey. This campus has been plagued with debates concerning the First Amendment as preachers speak their minds, school newspapers become sabotaged and speakers pay to have their message heard. While some students protest that the First Amendment should not defend these events, the administration at The College has maintained that they must promote the freedom of expression by allowing everyone to be heard.

First Amendment problems on this campus date back to the ‘80s, and probably before then as well. In November of 1982, Evangelist Jed Smock was permitted to preach his teachings on the campus of Trenton State College, the former name of The College of New Jersey. The First Amendment protected his ability to preach on campus whenever he wanted. Lt. Thomas R. Hagaman of TSC police was quoted in a Nov. 2 article in TSC’s student newspaper, The Signal, “The First Amendment serves as a ‘broad umbrella to protect an individual’s right to speak.’ The law assumes that society will be able to judge a fool when it sees one.” Smock’s purpose was to save souls and not to offend. He spoke about his “drug crazed rock ‘n’ roll years,” in what became known among students as the “Jed Smock Story.” Although his approach was deemed to be offensive, Smock was quoted, “It’s similar to a parent’s discipline toward its child. It is for their own good.” Some students viewed him as manipulative and were not advocates of his right to freedom of expression provided by the First Amendment. Yet Smock did not disobey state law and was permitted to continue preaching as protected by the First Amendment.

Khalid Abdul Muhammad (Nation of Islam) speaks at TSC

Perhaps the most controversial First Amendment debate on campus occurred in 1994 with a speech by Nation of Islam speaker, Khalid Abdul Muhammad. Muhammad, who was criticized for his “vile” speech delivered at Kean College, in which he remarked negatively about Jews, whites, homosexuals and Pope John Paul II, was also contracted to speak about Marcus Garvey at TSC as part of a Black History Month event. Garvey started the “Back-to-Africa” movement and was the founder of the Universal Negro Improvement Association. Chancellor of High Education, Edward Goldberg, criticized the TSC administration for permitting such a speaker to be heard at a state-funded school. Michael Burton, who headed the African-American History Month Committee, was quoted in a Jan. 25, 1994 article that appeared in The Trenton Times, “the group is not endorsing Muhammad or the Nation of Islam, but ‘he has something to say and we want to hear it’… If people feel that what he has to say has no validity, then let’s have an intelligent conversation about it, and not disregard the message just because we don’t agree with it.” In saying this, Burton was supporting Muhammad’s First Amendment right. Although the students, faculty, and TSC community may not like Muhammad’s message, he had a right to be heard regardless of whether others agreed with him.

While many were disgraced by the idea of having Muhammad on campus, Governor Christie Whitman was quoted in another Trenton Times article as saying, “that while the constitution guarantees free speech, ‘there is absolutely no tolerance in this state for the kind of prejudice that is being advocated, and the bias inherent with it… We don’t tolerate it; there is no place for it. But I will defend anyone’s right to free speech.’”

In a three-page letter, TSC President Harold W. Eickhoff defended Muhammad’s freedom of speech. The Trenton Times reported, “Eickhoff said the controversial invitation to Muhammad presents a dilemma to the school because when limitations are placed on free speech, ‘we begin to erode the principle itself.’” He also stated, “If the speaker has the right to speak, the listener has the duty to respond to assault on civil relationships by speaking out and taking a firm stand against such assaults… That is a responsibility that cannot be ignored, especially in an institution of higher education.” Therefore, in light of the free exchange of ideas, Muhammad was legally permitted to speak and a college atmosphere was deemed the most appropriate place.

TSC Students React

Students’ reactions to the event were mixed, though. Some thought it was a good thing. Angela Davis was quoted in a Trenton Times article, “A Caucasian female in my class said she thought she would leave angry, but she said he was telling the truth. He opened people up.” Yet other students viewed it as a nightmare. Melissa Demers was quoted in the same article, “It unnecessarily put students in danger… It promotes ignorance. It promotes anger. We shouldn’t be hearing a speech from someone who promotes hate.” President Eickhoff did say, as reported in a Trenton Times article, “It is naïve to describe the content as mild,” yet he was quoted to have said, “What we heard… was a strong emotional appeal to address injustice, but what was clear to me is that he would address injustice by fermenting hate.” Yet it was necessary for Muhammad to be heard on campus, regardless of his ignorant message, due to his right to the freedom of expression.

Religious Preacher Stephen White Causes Chaos at TCNJ

The most recent First Amendment case on campus occurred just this year. Traveling evangelist, Stephen White, incited a violent response from students as he gave a religious sermon on TCNJ’s campus that damned most everyone to hell. Students threw stones and mulch in his face, poured maple syrup on him and one physically assaulted him. White had been given permission to speak at the college for three afternoons at the Brower Student Center facing the Social Sciences Building and Green Hall, the busiest walkway on campus.

The College’s spokesman, Jesse Rosenblum, was quoted in a Trenton Times article, “As a public institution, free speech is very protected. To prohibit speech, you have to present a clear and present imminent danger… Even though students may not agree with someone, they don’t have to listen. The way to combat speech is more speech, not violence.” President R. Barbara Gitenstein, president of The College, empathized with students who found White’s speech disturbing. She was quoted in the same article, “Some opinions given are reprehensible and students get upset. But it is very important to an intellectual community and to American democracy that we value the freedom of speech.” However, the state college was only upholding its policy of allowing free speech on its campus.

To prevent disturbances for classrooms located near the student center, White was moved to the parking lot side of the student center for further days of preaching, where the crowd was much smaller. Gitenstein and other college officials continued to support the importance of the First Amendment as the conflict began to attract attention from the press. She was quoted in another Trenton Times article, “If there is no evidence of immediate threats to individuals or personal property, we have no grounds to deny anyone the right to speak at our public institution…. Some speakers help students develop the best way to act and respond to hate-filled comments. In this case, I think the college’s students are still in a very emotional state following Sept. 11, having dealt with some very complex and tough issues. They felt how unifying it was to come together as a campus and now hearing something totally opposite totally threw some off.”

Despite student reactions from White’s speech, whatever the cause, he had a legal right to speak on the campus. Regardless of the violence directed towards him—one student was arrested for assaulting the preacher—White never used physical violence towards any of the students in return. Therefore, he did not pose a real danger to the well being of the students.

President Gitenstein Reflects

Following White’s presence on campus, Gitenstein submitted a statement to the newspapers and students. In this statement, she referenced a speech she gave at the 2002 tribute to the victims and families of the Sept. 11 tragedy, which emphasized three commitments: “concern for our fellow man, citizenship in its most sophisticated and demanding sense, and education into the complexity of the full world in which we live.” These words obviously related to the military situation in Iraq yet they also related to the preaching of White. However, Gitenstein reinforced that controversial speakers are permitted to speak on campus as mandated by the First Amendment. She discussed how speakers such as White are either invited by an organization, as was the case with Muhammad, or registered to speak. In cases where a speaker is invited by an organization, the rationale for the invitation can easily be obtained. However, in relation to speakers who register to speak, Gitenstein proposed that the policy be changed to reflect an investigation into the content of the speech and whether it was appropriate for this person to speak on campus. Although this policy will ensure that the campus never allows unqualified messages to spread among campus as a result of registered preachers or speakers, this policy would not have prevented White from preaching.

Gitenstein wrote to the students and community, “As president of a public institution of higher education, I had a legal responsibility to ensure that First Amendment rights are protected… We have no higher purpose in institutions of higher education in America than to promote the values that have made this country great. White’s words were inflammatory, particularly at such an emotional and difficult time in our country… This is not the time to allow ourselves to hear only what feels comfortable… We must encourage all community members to speak for themselves, to be able to hear an unacceptable viewpoint and respond.”

While White did not represent the values of TCNJ or the nation, he had a right to voice his opinions. While I encountered many students who felt that Gitenstein should have prevented White’s hateful speech, I agreed with Gitenstein’s position and was enraged that students, who depend on the First Amendment, would criticize an administrator for enforcing the freedom of expression. Many of the same people who criticize the president of our nation time and time again also opposed White’s presence at The College. Without the First Amendment and freedom of expression, sedition laws would probably still exist, preventing those same students from speaking out against our government. Our community might not have liked what White said, but Republicans might not like what Democrats have to say, and creationists might not like what evolutionists have to say. However, the First Amendment protects the messages of all people and every American will depend on this law at one time or another whether in daily conversation or in the public forum.

Reflections on First Amendment Rights

As Americans, we are built on the doctrine of freedom. Although we did not always have the freedom of speech, it is a right we have earned. Not permitting someone to speak because we don’t like what they have to say would serve as an injustice to the advancement this nation has undergone through the years to ensure that the freedom of Americans is protected. True, Muhammad, White, and Smock all spoke of controversial topics and voiced the opinions of the minority rather than the majority; yet they have as much of a right to be heard as we have the right to criticize the government for allowing such a right.

Unfortunately, we—as Americans—will most likely never reach a common ground surrounding what can be heard and what should not be heard. Even professionals in the media industry have different feelings about rights granted by the First Amendment. I wanted to know how more professionals felt about the First Amendment so I posted a query for professionals to respond to concerning their feelings about the freedom of expression and the press. Scott Sobel, a former journalist and current public relations executive dealing with the media, wrote to me, “The First Amendment means: a way for truth to triumph over special interests; a declaration by our government that it wants its citizens to know there is support for unfiltered information; and a check and balance in place that allows a free press to question, investigate and report information that is the basis for free thinking and actions.”

Yet I think Dan Dement, a public relations professional, sums it all up. He wrote, “The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was the catalyst—and remains the litmus test—for defining a truly free society. Siding with a former media law professor of mine from college, who staunchly supports the original intent of the Amendment’s authors, I get incensed whenever our lawmakers dictate their personal or political interests over the greater unalienable rights of human kind—what part of ‘Congress shall make no law,’ don’t they understand? You may despise flag burning. You may not approve of today’s media practices. And you may support all efforts to make our world a politically correct utopia. But if we continue to allow erosion of our First Amendment rights, we all may find ourselves severely deteriorating our Forefathers’ hopes that America would forever remain a shining example of freedom for all the world to follow.” How do you feel about the First Amendment? Post your responses on the unbound forum and let your voice be heard.