2012 13 Report On Speech and Expression of Student Organizations

Report on Speech and Expression of Student Organizations
at Fordham University
As presented to
The Rose Hill Student Life Council
March 20, 2013
1
Report on Speech and Expression of Student Organizations at Fordham University
This report was collectively generated by the following individuals:
Aileen Reynolds (FCRH 2014), USG Kara Kratcha (FCRH 2015), The Ampersand
Ashley Davis (FCRH 2013) Liz O’Malley (FCRH 2014), the paper
Cori Ring-Martinez (FCRH 2013), PSJ Matt Hurley (FCRH 2014), Rodrigue’s Coffee House
Donald Borenstein (FCRH 2013), USG Peter Lacerenza (FCRH 2015), the paper
Drew Rotunno (FCRH 2014), FET Rachel Dougherty (FCRH 2015)
Gibson Merrick (FCRH 2014), the paper Stephen Erdman (FCRH 2013), USG
We would like to acknowledge the following members of the Fordham Community for their input
into the discussions that led to this report:
Alana Morales (FCRH 2014) Kristin Guerin (FCRH 2012)

Anthony Gatti (FCRH 2014) Henry Bartholomay (FCRH 2014)
Caitlin Nosal (FCRH 2013) Leslie Feigenbaum (FCRH 2013)
Catherine Nwachukwu (FCRH 2013) Marisa Carroll (FCRH 2013)
Chris Cepeda (FCRH 2013) Meg Farmer (FCRH 2013)
Gina Meltzer (FCRH 2013) Patrick McCarren (GSB 2014)
Jillian Abballe (FCRH 2013) Paul Caruselle (GSB 2013)
Kaitlyn Flanagan (FCRH 2015) Rachel Jones (FCRH 2012)
Kevin Webster (FCRH 2014) Stephanie Pennacchia (FCRH 2012)
Christopher Rodgers, Assistant Vice President and Dean of Students at Rose Hill
Alanna Nolan, Assistant Dean of Student Leadership and Community Development
Staff members of the Office of Student Leadership and Community Development
The many other students who contributed information that helped to shape this report
The United Student Government at Rose Hill voted unanimously in favor of supporting the findings and
recommendations of this report on Thursday, March 21st, 2013.
2
Table of Contents
I. Introduction...........................................................................................................................4
II. Methodology.........................................................................................................................5
III. Executive Summary............................................................................................................6
IV. Analysis/Recommendations
A. The Autonomy of Student Groups................................................................................7
B. Fordham’s Jesuit and Catholic Identity..........................................................................8
C. Posting Materials..........................................................................................................9
D. Student-Organized Programs......................................................................................12
E. Offensive and Hate Speech.........................................................................................14
F. Appeals Process..........................................................................................................15
G. Closely Related Concerns............................................................................................16
V. Conclusion...........................................................................................................................17
VI. Appendix
A. Comments and Additional Information from Rose Hill Student Life.............................18
B. Testimonials...............................................................................................................20
C. Fordham University Mission Statement.......................................................................36
D. “University Statement on Ann Coulter Appearance”....................................................36
E. Peer and Aspirant Research on Posting Policies...........................................................37
F. Peer and Aspirant Research on Bias and Hate Speech Policies......................................44
3
I. Introduction
In November 2012, a diverse group of Fordham students began meeting to discuss the culture of
speech and expression at Fordham’s Rose Hill campus, inspired by the well-publicized November
9th statement that President Joseph M. McShane, S.J. issued regarding the College Republicans’
invitation to Ann Coulter to speak at Fordham. The statement venerated our University’s
commitment to academic freedom and championed its ability to fearlessly engage with “repugnant
speech” and various forms of discourse. Fr. McShane’s statement reads, in part:
“...Student groups are allowed, and encouraged, to invite speakers who represent
diverse, and sometimes unpopular, points of view, in keeping with the canons of academic
freedom. Accordingly, the University will not block the College Republicans from hosting
their speaker of choice on campus...
Still, to prohibit Ms. Coulter from speaking at Fordham would be to do greater
violence to the academy, and to the Jesuit tradition of fearless and robust engagement.
Preventing Ms. Coulter from speaking would counter one wrong with another. The old saw
goes that the answer to bad speech is more speech. This is especially true at a university,
and I fully expect our students, faculty, alumni, parents, and staff to voice their opposition,
civilly and respectfully, and forcefully.
The College Republicans have unwittingly provided Fordham with a test of its
character: do we abandon our ideals in the face of repugnant speech and seek to stifle Ms.
Coulter’s (and the student organizers’) opinions, or do we use her appearance as an
opportunity to prove that our ideas are better and our faith in the academy—and one
another—stronger? We have chosen the latter course, confident in our community, and in
the power of decency and reason to overcome hatred and prejudice.”1
Academic freedom. Fearless engagement. Reason. We agree that these are characteristics that define
Fordham’s Jesuit tradition, the lifeblood of our institution. In our eyes, Fr. McShane’s statement was
a call to action for the Fordham community to maintain its commitment to a culture of intellectual
discourse.
Beginning in January 2013, United Student Government at Rose Hill and members of the student
body sought to better understand how this commitment can best be upheld. The following report
represents the results of their collective efforts to assess the ability of student groups to freely host
events, advertise, or otherwise contribute to the intellectual vibrancy of student life at Fordham.
1
Please see Appendix D for the full statement
4
II. Methodology
The findings and recommendations included in this report resulted from an examination of student
testimonials, official Fordham policies as stated in the Rose Hill Student Handbook, the policies of
other academic institutions, the Fordham mission statement, the statement Fr. McShane provided in
response to the planned Ann Coulter event, and conversations with students and administrators.
We officially collected student testimonials from January 10th to February 14th, 2013. During this
time, we received more than twenty testimonials from both current and former Fordham students.
We also continued to receive testimonials after February 14th. To collect testimonials, we emailed
executive board members of several official Fordham student organizations with a message
explaining our objectives and the information we were seeking.2 Some student groups received only
a subset of the whole message. Typically, we contacted a specific group because we had a prior
understanding that it had encountered some sort of administrative resistance to at least one of its
proposed programs.
We only contacted student groups that are eligible to receive funding from the student activities fee
(therefore excluding groups such as the Residence Halls Association, Commuting Students
Association, Rose Hill Society, and others). As a result, the bulk of the preceding analysis concerns
student groups’ experiences with the Office of Student Leadership and Community Development
(OSL&CD). OSL&CD advises the United Student Government Budget Committee in distributing
the student activities fund and is responsible for overseeing the majority of student-run programs.
While this report also touches upon the broader Division of Student Affairs and Fordham
University as a whole, it does not investigate student groups’ experiences with other specific areas of
the University such as Residential Life, club advisors, the University Library, academic departments,
employment supervisors, or others.
The majority of student groups that responded provided written testimonials. Others opted to speak
with one of us in person. While nearly all testimonials we received shaped this report in some way,
we only directly refer to thirteen of them in this report, which we have included in Appendix B. We
have excluded from this report those testimonials that lacked adequate detail or were submitted
anonymously. Additionally, a few student groups indicated that they encountered an unpleasant
experience with administrators but were uncomfortable with providing a testimonial because they
did not want to solicit any administrative backlash.
Understanding that the testimonials, by their very nature, are subjective accounts of incidents that
have occurred as long as three years ago, we sought to discuss the information we received from
students with Dean Alanna Nolan, Assistant Dean of Student Leadership and Community
Development and Dean Christopher Rodgers, Assistant Vice President and Dean of Students at
Rose Hill. These conversations helped provide necessary context and clarification for the situations
2
The full text of this message can be found in Appendix B.
5
described in several testimonials. We also provided the opportunity for the Division of Student
Affairs to provide written commentary to be included in this report.3
To gather further perspective on the situations students experience at Fordham, we examined the
policies related to student-organized events and student expression at other academic institutions.
We focused this research on Fordham’s peer and aspirant schools, which include Northeastern
University, George Washington University, Villanova University, Syracuse University, and Boston
University as peers and Northwestern University, the University of Notre Dame, Boston College,
New York University, and Georgetown University as aspirants. We also reviewed the policies of
other Jesuit institutions such as Creighton University.
III. Executive Summary
This document highlights a number of concerns about the existing state of student speech and
expression at Fordham, but it also provides insights into potential remedies. Some of the issues we
identify are structural, while others are perceptual, and nearly all of them can be improved with
increased communication between students and administrators. We strongly affirm a number of
aspects of Fordham’s current policies, including those numerous policies granting students the right
to freely possess and advocate even controversial or unpopular ideas, and the multiple policies
formalizing the difference between student speech and speech endorsed by the university. We
believe that these policy statements grant students significant freedom to engage in speech that the
University and its administrators may find objectionable. We also take as our inspiration the aspects
of the University Mission and of Fr. McShane’s statement which advocate fearless and robust
engagement with a diversity of ideas different from one’s own.
We believe that any appeal to the University’s Jesuit or Catholic identity in the context of
questioning student speech should be thoroughly considered and explained, to prevent
misconceptions about our institutional identity, and in light of the significant freedom granted to
students to advocate views different from those of the University. Thus we believe that it is critical
for students to be able to engage in meaningful discussion about controversial topics. Performances,
publications and other event types, in addition to talks and discussions, have the ability to address
these important and sensitive issues in unique ways and to elicit broader conversations in the
Fordham community. Therefore, while we affirm the University’s desire to limit hateful or offensive
speech, we argue that if speech is to be limited or discouraged, a clear case should be made
demonstrating how said speech is “grossly offensive” in its treatment of an issue.
Finally, we offer a number of structural suggestions for policy change. These include specific
revisions to the University’s posting policy and proposed enhancements to club leader training. We
also advocate for the creation of a formal appeals process to facilitate communication between
OSL&CD and students. This process would keep communication going forward by implementing
3
This commentary can be found in Appendices A and B.
6
timeframes, and it would promote clarity and understanding by outlining in detail both the process
and the current status of a student request. We believe that the process is critical for addressing
many negative student sentiments related to perceived censorship and “stalling” on the part of
administrators. These policy recommendations could serve as first steps to improving relationships
between student groups and administrators, contributing to a healthier university community.
IV. Analysis and Recommendations
A. The Autonomy of Student Groups
All of the testimonials included in this report come from student leaders’ accounts of the
interactions between administrators and registered student groups, or “official clubs,” at Fordham.
As per USG’s Club Registration Packet, each official club constitution states that the organization
“realizes the responsibilities it assumes as set forth in its purpose and that it will abide by the
Constitution of the United Student Government and the University policies and regulations as stated
in the Student Handbook” and distinguishes that the organization’s “views do not necessarily
represent those of Fordham University.”4
As official clubs are to accept the responsibility of following the Student Handbook, we affirm the
following clause in the Club Rights, Responsibilities, and Requirements section of said Handbook:
“Registration of a student group in no way implies that the University necessarily endorses
positions or points of view espoused privately or publicly by members of the organization.
All clubs are responsible to publicly make this fact known, and that they do nothing that will
cause this fact to come into question or compromise.”5
which is also supported through this clause in the Demonstration Policy of the Student Handbook:
“Each member of the University has a right to freely express his or her positions and to
work for their acceptance whether he/she assents to or dissents from existing situations in
the University or society.”6
and this clause in the Speakers Policy of the Student Handbook:
“Obviously, and in all events, the use of the University forum shall not imply acceptance or
endorsement by the University of the views expressed.”7
4
http://usgrh.org/committees/operations-committee/new-club-registration-process/
5
http://www.fordham.edu/student_affairs/deans_of_students_an/student_handbooks/rose_hill_st
udent_ha/division_of_student_/club_rights_responsi_70788.asp
6
udent_ha/university_regulatio/demonstration_policy_70893.asp
7
These statements articulate the University’s stance on student organizations and their programming
as being distinctly separate from the University itself, an underlying concept that informs the
viewpoints we embrace throughout this report. We urge Fordham administration to more
thoroughly consider this distinction between student programming and University endorsement
when making decisions within the scope of Student Affairs, as the policy clauses above suggest. In
accordance with these clauses, no student-proposed program or posting should be denied, altered,
or modified on the pretense of it not aligning with the viewpoints or objectives of the University.
Greater administrative confidence in these policies would likely resolve the majority of student
grievances included in the testimonials we collected. We also encourage student organizations that
propose content which may not align with the viewpoints of the University to be prepared to fully
elaborate upon the benefit of the discourse which could result if their proposals are approved.
B. Fordham’s Jesuit and Catholic Identity
Fordham frequently refers to its Jesuit and Catholic mission as a defining aspect of its students’ four
years at Fordham. We agree that Fordham’s identity should shape the culture on campus. The Jesuit
tenets and Catholic tradition enhance the Fordham experience by influencing the core curriculum,
service learning offerings, spiritual development programs, and many other aspects of the
University.
However, we are concerned that the Jesuit and Catholic mission is often used as a reason to deem
the content of student-organized programs or posting materials questionable. Testimonials V, VI,
and VII explicitly state that administrators referred to Fordham’s Jesuit and Catholic identity as a
reason why the content of a posting or event was denied, modified, or advised against. Additionally,
we infer that Fordham’s Jesuit and Catholic identity was, at least in part, the reason why student
groups’ programs or postings described in testimonials I, II, VIII, X, XI, and XIII met
administrative resistance. It is important to note that the content deemed questionable in these
testimonials in some way engages with or represents issues of sexuality, gender, and/or sexual
orientation.
We believe that Fordham presents its Jesuit and Catholic tradition as one that embraces regular
engagement with and intellectual discourse on controversial topics; yet, the use of our University’s
identity to justify the rejection or modification of student-proposed content negates the very basis of
this notion. Likewise, it contradicts the policies we refer to in section IV.A that we believe protect
student groups’ abilities to engage in speech and expression that may be viewed as incompatible with
Fordham’s mission. It is our opinion that a vague sense of the resistance student groups sometimes
face due to OSL&CD’s interpretation of the Jesuit and Catholic tradition is often one of the most
7
udent_ha/university_regulatio/speakers_policy_70941.asp
8
salient manifestations of Fordham’s identity in the eyes of student leaders. This perception of the
University’s mission likely detracts from its other valued objectives.
Therefore, we believe that it is important for administrators to carefully weigh the implications of
using the Jesuit and Catholic tradition to characterize student programs or postings as questionable.
If administrators nonetheless feel that it is necessary to invoke Fordham’s mission when determining
the appropriateness of a program’s or posting’s content, we recommend that they clearly articulate
to the student group why they have come to such a conclusion. By explaining the specific objection
raised based on the mission, administrators can prevent the idea that the University Mission is just a
vague “no.” This explanation can then serve as a foundation for continued discourse on the
situation if the student group opts to utilize the appeals process we propose in section IV.F of this
document.
C. Posting Materials
Regarding the posting of advertisements, fliers, and other materials, the Rose Hill Student
Handbook currently states:
“Clubs, organizations, and University departments may post their materials in any
designated area only after it has been stamped ‘Approved for Posting: Office of Student
Leadership and Community Development. Date of removal will be one day after activity is
to occur or the Monday following a weekend event’…”8
The Community Posting Board, located above the stairwell that leads to the lower level of the
McGinley Center, is currently exempt from this policy. Members of the Fordham community are
able to post fliers on this bulletin board without prior approval, provided that they include their
contact information on the back of the posted materials. Outside of this board, all other venues
require posting approval and a stamp from OSL&CD.
We believe that Fordham’s posting policy has several important merits. By design, the policy
effectively manages space at popular posting areas, as administrators stamp each flier with an
expiration date, after which any member of the Fordham community can remove the material. The
policy also reduces inaccuracies in posting materials because it requires that a second party
(OSL&CD) review them before they are posted.
Still, as testimonials I, II, III, IV, and XII suggest, Fordham’s posting policy has generated several
difficulties for student groups, primarily the delay of approvals for posting. Conversations with
administrators and students have confirmed this analysis. We applaud OSL&CD for its recent
8
udent_ha/university_regulatio/publicity_and_postin_70928.asp
9
implementation of twice-daily, scheduled posting-approval times at 11:30 AM and 3:30 PM. This
new practice should help ensure that the majority of posting requests are processed within one
business day. However, in the event that content is called into question, it is unclear how long a
student group should expect to wait before receiving a final decision; content deemed questionable
is typically reviewed by at least one other OSL&CD staff member and sometimes the Assistant
Dean of Student Leadership and Community Development and/or the Dean of Students as well,
meaning that approval times can vary widely depending upon the scenario.
For this reason, it is usually in student groups’ best interest, and part of responsible event planning,
to seek posting approval well in advance. However, because testimonials I, II, III, IV, and XII
indicate that content OSL&CD has found questionable has not been limited to hateful or grossly
offensive speech or bias, we believe that the delays student groups encounter are sometimes
unnecessary. And while unnecessary delays are rare in comparison to the large number of timely
posting approvals granted each semester, these semi-regular situations often gain notoriety among
student leaders, contributing to negative perceptions of OSL&CD that spread beyond the students
involved in specific incidents. Because of this negative perception, students may avoid seeking
posting approval altogether, opting instead to under-advertise events or advertise in violation of
Fordham’s posting policy.
Many of the institutions we researched have posting policies very similar to Fordham’s. Some
require administrative approval before student groups can post materials. Still, other institutions
permit student groups to post in designated areas on campus without prior administrative approval.
For example, at Northwestern University, students are permitted to post in eight designated areas
without first submitting their fliers to administrators for approval. Likewise, Georgetown University
permits students to post fliers in “Red Square” as well as bulletin boards throughout campus
without prior approval. Creighton University is another Jesuit institution that does not require any
prior approval for posting by registered student organizations. At these institutions, any materials
that somehow violate university policy (i.e. contain hate speech), are dealt with by university officials
accordingly, with students and/or student groups assuming the responsibility.9
We believe that these aforementioned posting policies are beneficial for encouraging vibrant on-
campus student life. They make it easier for students to advertise programs, meaning it is more likely
that students will adequately publicize their events, especially in the case of last-minute plans. The
policies also indicate a degree of mutual trust between administrators and students, where students
are awarded the responsibility of monitoring their own postings to prevent the distribution of
offensive, hateful, or biased materials. We feel this sign of trust may help generate healthier
relationships between students and administrators here at Fordham: posting policies that require
prior approval accentuate the imbalance of power between students and administrators, whereas
9
For more information on the posting policies of these and other institutions, please see Appendix
E.
10
policies that permit posting without prior approval establish students and administrators as mutually
responsible for a healthy campus climate.
With these concerns in mind, we recommend several revisions to Fordham’s posting policy. First,
we encourage OSL&CD to ensure that the criteria it uses to flag questionable posting content be
limited to preventing hateful or grossly offensive posting. If OSL&CD is concerned that a proposed
posting material contains hateful or grossly offensive content and therefore the Office cannot
provide approval within one business day, we recommend that it adopt the following policy
proposal:
1. The staff member reviewing the posting material will email the student organization within
one business day to notify the club of the delayed approval time
2. Said staff member will consult with any other necessary administrators about the content of
the flyer
3. The student organization can expect an approved or denied flyer within one business day
after receiving the email (two business days after initially submitting its posting material)
4. Any further delays in the approval process must be conveyed to the student club via email
Additionally, we suggest that Fordham expand the areas where materials can be posted without prior
approval to include the fence surrounding Edwards Parade and bulletin boards in academic
buildings, in addition to the Community Posting Board in the McGinley Center. We agree that
preventing the posting of hateful or grossly offensive materials is necessary for cultivating a campus
climate where all members of the Fordham community feel that they can participate in intellectual
discussion and academic discourse. To help maintain this standard, we propose the following
regulations to manage the aforementioned posting areas:
1. Only registered student groups, academic departments, and divisions of the university may
post without prior approval, with the exception of the Community Posting Board, where any
member of the Fordham community may continue to post as per the bulletin board’s
current guidelines.
2. All posted materials must contain the name of the sponsoring student organization on the
front of the poster and contact email on the back.
3. Postings found in violation of the handbook will be taken down and the sponsoring student
organization will be sanctioned by both the Operations Committee and University officials,
where appropriate.
Because high levels of student traffic in the McGinley Center render its bulletin boards prime
posting locations, we suggest that the current posting policy be maintained in this area to ensure that
all posted materials are marked with an expiration date, after which they may be removed. Likewise,
students seeking to post in the Residence Halls should also need to obtain approval from OSL&CD.
11
We anticipate that if these policies are adopted many students will still seek posting approval because
students attempting to thoroughly advertise their programs will likely want to post in the McGinley
Center and Residence Halls. However, in the case of last-minute or academic-targeted postings, this
new policy would allow for efficient posting in areas other than the McGinley Center and Residence
Halls.
The following proposal is an adapted version of the current posting policy found in the Rose Hill
Student Handbook that we recommend that administrators consider:
The Office of Student Leadership and Community Development, with the United Student Government, requires that
the posting of materials conform to the following standards:
1. Each poster or flyer must contain the following information:

Name of sponsoring organization
Admission cost (if any)
Title of program or activity
Date, time, and location of activity
Poster termination date (if applicable, see 12.)
2. Posting is permitted:
a. With prior approval by OSL&CD, indicated by a stamp, in the following areas:

Bulletin board areas in McGinley Campus Center
Lowenstein Building: Posting is permitted on the elevator bank waiting areas on each floor
except (6, 7, &10). Posting cannot be on panels with buttons, emergency phones, and within
three feet of the fire panel. On the indoor Plaza Level, postings are limited to display panels and
must be contained within the dimensions of the display board. Posting is permitted on the
bulletin board on the Street Level hallway connecting McMahon Hall and the Lowenstein
Building.
Bulletin board areas provided by Residential Life in the Residence Halls
b. With or without prior approval in the following areas:
Bulletin boards in academic buildings at the Rose Hill Campus.
The Community Posting Board located in the McGinley Center
On the fence posts around Edwards Parade and Alpha House.
(Note: Posting is not permitted on the metal bars around Edwards Parade.)
D. Student-Organized Programs
Student Affairs administrators often state that they have never denied a student group’s proposal to
host a speaker or lecturer on campus because of the content of the proposed event.10 We believe
10
Please see Appendix A for additional commentary from Student Affairs on this issue.
12
that this assertion is accurate, as no testimonial we received indicated otherwise. It is important that
student groups recognize this generally protected freedom to host speakers. Clubs must avoid self-
censoring based on the misconception that administrators have denied speakers in the past.
Still, all of the testimonials indicate that administrators have modified, advised against, delayed
approvals for, or altogether denied permissions for programs that assume formats different from a
speaker, lecturer, or panel presentation. As the broad range of topics studied in our liberal arts
curriculum demonstrates, academic discussion and content can assume many diverse forms.
Publications, fliers, theater, song, dance, comedy, film screenings, etc. are all forms of expression
that can have academic value and contribute to the intellectual atmosphere at Fordham. Both the
content (e.g., song, word, image, idea) and the means of expression are part of the program and can
carry significant meaning that is often difficult to quantify. Censoring or censuring these kinds of
events risk limiting students’ ability to creatively engage with important topics and potentially stifle
opportunities for intellectual discourse.
We fully acknowledge that it can be useful for OSL&CD to dialogue with students about the
materials they want to present to the Fordham community to address issues of potential
insensitivity. We also understand that there is no overarching approval process for the content of all
events that student groups may propose; rather, only program content that OSL&CD staff members
believe may be questionable undergoes more thorough review by other Student Affairs
administrators.
This being said, we believe it is important for administrators to clearly convey to students when
discussions on program content are meant to advise upon, rather than to approve or deny, an aspect
of an event. Likewise, it is important for student groups to maintain a dialogue with administrators if
they disagree with the advice they are given, rather than treat this advice as a form of University
censorship.
We embrace the recommendation of Dean Alanna Nolan, Assistant Dean of Student Leadership
and Community Development, to incorporate a discussion of this communication between students
and administrators regarding event content in club leader trainings that occur every year. 11 We
believe that this intentional conversation will help inform students of their ability to disagree with or
reject OSL&CD’s advice or to appeal any final decisions that OSL&CD may make. We further
suggest that club leader training also include an overview of the appeals process we outline in
section IV.F of this report. We believe that these recommendations are particularly important
because, as previously explained in section IV.C of this report, isolated negative interactions between
student groups and OSL&CD greatly contribute to broader negative perceptions of the Office
among student leaders.
11
Please see Appendix A for the full text of Dean Nolan’s statement.
13
E. Offensive and Hate Speech
We understand that many important forms of speech engage with controversial material and the
boundaries between speech about hateful topics and speech that is itself hateful can be difficult to
discern, particularly in performances. We also understand that many of these hateful topics can be
difficult to discuss. It is with these concerns in mind that we address the following section of the
Speakers Policy from the Student Handbook:
“Moreover, expression that is indecent or is grossly obscene or grossly offensive on matters such as
race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or sexual preference is inconsistent with accepted norms of conduct
at the University.”12
We support the goal of this clause to limit hostile expression that may marginalize members of the
Fordham community and effectively stifle intellectual discourse. Still, we suggest that administrators
make careful and thorough consideration of materials with potentially “grossly offensive” or
“grossly obscene” content before deciding to limit the scope or nature of an event. We believe it
would be disadvantageous to categorize all performances, comic acts, etc. dealing with grossly
offensive issues (e.g. racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc.) as grossly offensive themselves.
In general terms, discussion can address sensitive and potentially offensive issues in abstract, logical
ways, whereas performances can connect with their audiences on emotional and personal levels.
Testimonial XII offers an example of how administrators’ concerns about content can lead to the
potentially unnecessary modification of an event. In making the distinction between “obscene”
and/or “offensive” content, it is useful to ask “who is the target?” and “what is the message?” of a
particular work. We believe it is possible to use humor, performance, and the arts as ways of
addressing serious issues and drawing attention to injustice. For example, a joke about a particular
group of people would be offensive if it targeted them and derived its ‘humor’ at their expense.
However, a joke that derives its humor from the mockery of bias would not be considered offensive,
because it has the potential to highlight the injustice of bias and discrimination. Related examples of
administrators’ concerns about potentially “offensive” or “obscene” content exist in Testimonials II,
VIII, X, XI, and XIII.
While we admire the University’s attempts to minimize hate speech on campus, administrators must
be cautious in restricting content because it is “obscene” and/or “offensive,” precisely because what
these classifications constitute is vague and subjective. While permitting potentially questionable
content may offend some members of the Fordham community, it also provides students with the
opportunity to engage meaningfully regarding the values of our community and the issues raised by
the content. When students believe that content dealing with sensitive issues will not be allowed or
fear that it will be delayed indefinitely in OSL&CD review, the Fordham community loses its ability
12
http://www.fordham.edu/student_affairs/deans_of_students_an/student_handbooks/rose_hill_s
tudent_ha/university_regulatio/speakers_policy_70941.asp
14
to seriously and widely engage with important issues. Examples of this self-censorship effect can be
seen in testimonials I, IV, V, VI, VIII, XI, and XII, where student groups indicate that they have
either chosen not to submit content that might elicit extended review or where they have altered
their content to avoid receiving continued resistance from OSL&CD.
F. Appeals Process
Currently, as the collected testimonials suggest, when a student effort is denied or discouraged by a
member of OSL&CD, the students are often compliant. Although a student or student group may
feel their denial was unfair, it appears that many students opt to abandon their original intention for
fear of upsetting any administrators or potentially putting their organization at risk. They may also
believe that they have received the final word on their proposal during an initial interaction with
OSL&CD.
We believe that the current state of self-censorship and the lack of communication between student
groups and OSL&CD benefit neither the students nor administrators involved. Therefore, we
propose instituting the following appeals process in the event that a student request is denied,
altered, or discouraged. This proposal aims to encourage “fearless and robust engagement” within
Fordham’s community as well as improve students’ perception of OSL&CD.
1. A student group proposes a posting or program to an OSL&CD representative, usually the

Assistant Director for Student Organizations and Programming and/or the Office Manager,
and is met with resistance
a. The student group is informed of its rights and the means to pursue an appeal in
conjunction with the communication of OSL&CD’s decision on their proposal.
2. The student group has the option of meeting with the House Committee, an organ of USG.
The House Committee is composed of student leaders and chaired by USG’s Vice President
of Student Life. The purpose of the House Committee, within this appeals process, is to
hear and contemplate the appeal from the student group. If appropriate, the House
Committee may vote in support of this appeal. The purpose of the House Committee’s
support would be to provide a third-party opinion of the program or posting and to
demonstrate student support for the student group’s efforts. This entire step is optional and
up to the discretion of the student group pursuing the appeal.
3. When a student group would like to appeal a decision, it must set up a meeting with the
Assistant Dean for Student Leadership and Community Development via the Office
Manager of OSL&CD. The Assistant Dean will meet with the student(s) within one business
day to ensure a timely progression of the appeals process.
4. In the meeting with the Assistant Dean for Student Leadership and Community
Development, the student group will present its original proposal as well as an explanation
of why they are appealing the original decision.
a. This conversation will exist solely between the Assistant Dean and the students
involved.
15
b. If the House Committee has voted to support the appeal, the VP of Student Life
may submit a statement of support to the Assistant Dean no later than the day of the
meeting. It is the VP of Student Life’s responsibility to communicate such support.
5. The Assistant Dean for Student Leadership and Community Development has at most one
business day following the meeting to make a decision on the appeal.
a. If the appeal is passed, the original decision is overridden and the student group’s
effort may proceed as proposed.
b. If the appeal is denied, students are able to submit a second appeal. This would
involve the same process, except the Assistant Dean for Student Leadership and
Community Development is replaced with the Dean of Students.
c. If, after the second appeals process, the Dean of Students denies the appeal, this will
be recognized as the position of the University. If students are still unhappy with the
decision, it is the responsibility of the student group, the student governments, and
the Fordham Community to publicly organize around this issue.
The timeline of this appeals process is critical to its success. If the appeals process takes so long that
the proposed date has passed, then it will not address the issues brought up in the testimonials, and
the time of the students and administrators involved will have been wasted. Additionally, since many
student proposals require significant advanced preparation (organizing, advertising, practicing, etc.),
it is important for students to have a response as quickly as possible.
G. Closely Related Concerns
The research that went into this document has highlighted a number of closely related issues that
were beyond the scope of our investigation. We believe that these issues are very important for the
Fordham community to address going forward, and we hope that our brief commentary here will
begin these discussions.
1. Student Employees
Although much of student employment is beyond OSL&CD, it is clear that if a student had
concerns about their employment status, it could have a chilling effect on speech. We believe
that all students should be able to express their opinions without fear of reprisal from the
University. Students should be viewed as University representatives only when they are behind
a Fordham desk or in a Fordham uniform. The University should understand that students can
“wear different hats” (of an employee and of an individual) appropriately. A Fordham R.A.
should not feel the need to remain anonymous when he or she criticizes aspects of Fordham,
as was the case with one of the testimonials we received.13 The University should not be able
to terminate employment, reduce or change someone’s hours or hourly rate, or otherwise alter
13
While this testimonial has not been included in this report, it was recently printed in an addition of
the paper.
16
a student employee’s work conditions in retaliation to their speech during their non-work
hours.
2. Depictions of Alcohol
Insofar as alcohol is legal for students over 21 to consume and even possess in their residence
halls (as long as their roommates are also over 21), and given that it is even provided to
students by the university on a number of occasions throughout the academic year, we find no
reason to restrict content depicting or referencing the legal sale and consumption of alcohol.
We are aware of and sensitive to the unfortunate realities of underage drinking, excessive
drinking, and alcohol abuse. However, we do not believe that restricting content referencing or
depicting alcohol (such as the case in Testimonial III) will have any appreciable effect on these
issues. Information about alcohol is widely available to students outside of materials from
student groups. Endorsements of illegal or dangerous alcohol consumption are understandably
objectionable, but we believe that there is no advantage to sheltering students from existence
or sale of alcohol in advertisements or creative content on campus.
V. Conclusion
We have identified three general areas of primary concern in this report. First, we identify a number
of explicit and robust policy and mission statements, and statements from our university president,
Fr. McShane, in support of students’ rights to speak on issues that are controversial or at odds with
the University’s stances. Second, we argue that student speech must be able to engage with
controversial and potentially offensive content in both traditional and creative ways to further and
foster dialogue within the Fordham community on many important issues. Third, we outline a
number of specific policy changes that would address communication and perception issues
between students and administrators by providing clear status and concrete timelines.
Readers are strongly encouraged to review the testimonials from student groups and administrators
in the Appendix, as they provide nuanced insight into the issues we discuss from a variety of
perspectives. We thank everyone who has contributed: without the generous contributions of the
students and administrators named at the beginning of this document, this report would not have
been possible to produce. It is our sincere hope that the contents of this report can help the
university community engage in a more productive and genuine conversation regarding the speech
and expression of student organizations at Fordham.
17
VI. Appendix
A. Comments and Additional Information from Rose Hill Student Life
Comments and Additional Information from Rose Hill Student Life

USG Free Speech “Testimonial” Document
Received: February 15, 2013
Comments: March 18, 2013
Dear President Erdman and Vice President Reynolds,
Dean Nolan and I are truly grateful for the work you have put into this fact-finding effort and
especially for the hours you have spent with us discussing this important issue. I hope the
information we have provided here is helpful in your effort to assemble an accurate picture of how
the free exchange of ideas is a key part of campus life and how we simultaneously engage
students in conversation on our traditions, values and mission. As I hope we have conveyed, we
think both of these areas are critical- and I am convinced they are anything but mutually
exclusive.
I look forward to continuing our conversation.
Sincerely,
Dean Rodgers
From Dean Nolan: The Office of Student Leadership and Community Development encourages
all students to participate in meaningful interactions and wants students to work from a sense of
purpose and intent. Whether it is a flier or a production, we will at times ask questions. Part of
our strategic planning has been to enhance student leader training and we believe the
testimonials further support the need for a more holistic approach to club leader training. Moving
toward a leadership summit model, we will be able to clarify processes as well as create
opportunities for further in-depth training sessions. This training includes a myriad of opportunities
for students to participate in workshops and gain knowledge on best practices for student
organizations, club development, effective communication, how to make the most of OrgSync,
appreciating diversity and the introduction of Heroic Leadership as our student leadership
model. In addition, we hope as a result of our dialogue surrounding free speech that students
know that they can engage staff members in further conversation if they would like to question a
decision or obtain further clarification. There may be times when students and staff may disagree
but dialogue will always be an important component of our work together.
I. Various Recent Student Club Speakers and Demonstrations

As you know from our conversations, the student life area here at Rose Hill has not once denied space,
budget funding or other resources to a speaker or a demonstration requested by a student or student
group, nor requested significant alterations to speaker content, nor done more than coordinate on
reasonable time, place and manner elements in demonstrations requested through the University’s
18
demonstration policy. In summer 2010, student life and USG worked out substantial changes to the
demonstration policy to address concerns voiced by USG and to make the process easier for students.
As USG has gone to the community to solicit testimonials related to instances of alleged censorship, we
thought your report and testimonials document would benefit from a selection of events that have gone
forward over the years. The list is not comprehensive and is based mainly on staff recollection. You will
see that many of these programs proceeded despite complaints and demands for cancellation from
various members of the community including students, faculty, administrators, parents, alumni and
outside organizations. We always listen carefully to these criticisms and requests and are quite mindful of
our mission and Jesuit Catholic traditions and values in asking questions of our student club advisees
about planned programs. Nevertheless, the following programs have proceeded and are an indication of
our commitment to the work we do with students to support the free exchange of ideas at our University.
Jonathan Alter: Newsweek/MSNBC Columnist and Journalist. Program proceeded as planned in

November 2008.
Michele Balan: performance by LGBT comic. Program proceeded as planned in November 2007.
Bronx AIDS Services: speaker discussed sexual responsibility, birth control related to disease
prevention as part of AIDS Awareness programming. Program proceeded as planned circa 1994.
Hillary Clinton: complaints received about the then senatorial candidates’ pro-choice policy stance.
Program proceeded as planned.
Howard Dean: Program proceeded as planned in November 2010.
Alina Fernandez: daughter of Fidel Castro. Program proceeded as planned in March 2008.
Norman Finkelstein: complaints received about the DePaul University academic’s views on Israel and
Palestine. Program proceeded as planned.
Steve Forbes: Program proceeded as planned in April 2010.
Serrin Foster and Other Speakers from Feminists for Life: multiple programs and speakers critical of
Catholic higher education response to pregnant students. Programs proceeded as planned.
Newt Gingrich: complaints received about the former majority leader’s views on gay rights, abortion,
etc. Program proceeded as planned.
Amy Jo Goddard: presented “Women's Workshops” and “My Own Vagina's Monologue”. Program
proceeded as planned February 2006 and Spring 2007.
Jonah Goldberg: conservative columnist. Program proceeded as planned in February 2008.
Philip Gourevitch: Program proceeded as planned in September 2008.
Heds vs. Feds: DEA versus NORML debate on legalization of marijuana. Program proceeded as
planned March 2009.
Leonard Jeffries: complaints received about the view of the ex-chair of Black Studies Department
(City College). Program proceeded as planned c. 1990.
Jamal Joseph: former Black Panther. Program proceeded in February 2006.
Jim Keady: college apparel sweatshop labor activist critical of the University’s apparel purchasing
practices. Program proceeded October 2010.
Adrian Nicole LeBlanc: author of "Random Family: Love, Drugs, Trouble and Coming of Age in the
Bronx". Program proceeded as planned in September 2007.
Ralph Nader: Program proceeded as planned in December 2009.
Michael Parenti: peace activist, journalist speaker. Program proceeded as planned in March 2009.
Karl Rove: complaints received about the former presidential aide’s policy stance on torture, the Iraq
War, the Afghanistan War, etc. Program proceeded as planned.
Bobby Seale: former Black Panther. Program proceeded as planned in February 2007.
Rev. Al Sharpton: activist, television personality. Speaker for the American Age speaker series.
Program proceeded as planned.
Wendy Shalit: author, A Return to Modesty: Discovering the Lost Virtue and Girls Gone Mild: Young
Rebels Reclaim Self-Respect and It's Not Bad to Be Good. Program proceeded as planned Fall 2007.
19
St. Barnabas Hospital “Survival Guide to Sexuality with St. Barnabas”: hospital staff informational talk
on birth control, disease prevention and hygiene. Program proceeded as planned in Fall 2007.
Michael Steele: visit to view the Berlin Wall demonstration. Program proceeded as planned in
November 2009.
Michael Sulick: complaints received about Central Intelligence Agency Clandestine Services director’s
role in the drone program. Program proceeded as planned in April 2010.
Jessica Valenti: feminist blogger and activist, author of The Purity Myth, a criticism of the virtue of
virginity. Program proceeded as planned in February 2010.
B. Testimonials
In soliciting testimonials, USG and other students sent the following message to several student
groups:
“Dear [Club Name],
USG is currently working on an initiative that examines instances when student groups face varying
forms of censorship from the Office of Student Leadership and Community Development
(OSL&CD). It is our goal to reduce censorship at Fordham and we would greatly appreciate your
help to better understand the scope and nature of this problem.
Examples of relevant incidents may include OSL&CD's delayed approval of, modification of, or
outright denial of:
● Posters or advertising materials
● Speakers
● Performers/Performances
● Music/Songs/Lyrics/Dances
● Language
● Images
● Program Content
● Other aspects of an event
I encourage you to email me with the details of any and all incidents you personally experienced or
are indirectly aware of. I would also be happy to set up a meeting with you if you would prefer to
discuss in person. We are looking for the following information:
● Semester/date of the incident

● Name of OSL&CD employee(s) with whom your club interacted
● Name and contact information (if available) of club member who is most knowledgeable of
the incident
● Description of what your club desired to do
● Description of OSL&CD's response
20
● Final Outcome
● Other relevant information
Please indicate if you are comfortable with USG making the information you provide public. Being
able to publicize and candidly discuss relevant incidents will greatly enhance our ability to advocate
for club programming freedoms; yet, we understand the potential sensitivity of some incidents and
respect any requests for you or your club to remain anonymous.
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or concerns. Thank you for your time and
assistance in bettering the Fordham community.
Sincerely,
[Student Contact Name]”
Any questions regarding the content of these testimonials should be directed to

usgrh@fordham.edu. Please do not contact the students who provided testimonials directly.
Testimonial I: FET and Urinetown Poster

Semester: Fall 2011
Summary: FET submitted a publicity poster for its production of Urinetown to OSL&CD for
approval. After a period of time, the Office notified FET that the poster had not been approved
because it was not considered appropriate.
Student Accounts:
Stephanie Pennacchia (FCRH ’12), former FET president
“The "bulge incident" is referring to the time where we had a cast member from Urinetown who was a very talented
graphic artist create our show posters. She created a cartoon man and woman (in the fashion of the "men" and
"women" drawings on public restroom doors) for the posters, and we sent these along to OSL&CD for approval
weeks before the show, mainly because I had experienced so many frustrations and delays from the office's inability to
approve posters in a timely manner in the past. The office took weeks to get back to me; essentially I felt as if staff in
the office were ignoring my calls and e-mails! When I was finally able to track down an OSL staff person, they
returned the mock-up of the poster (which has been buried under a giant pile of papers on her desk) with a circle
around the "cartoon bulge" of the man in the poster. I believe her exact words were, ‘We found the cartoon bulge on the
cartoon man to be a bit inappropriate. You need to remove that.’”
Kristen Guerin (FCRH ’12), director of Urinetown
“…The original poster was too anatomically correct for OSL. They deemed the slight bulge in the male stick figure's
outline vulgar. We had two different poster images for the show, both of which we submitted for approval over a month
21
before the production. Although one of the posters was approved, OSL did not share with us the approval (or tell us
that the second was not approved) until the day before the show went up, far too late to advertise for the show... If
OSL had simply brought this alleged vulgarity to our attention one of the several times we inquired about the status of
the posters, we could easily have altered the image (which we ultimately did do). Unfortunately, we never once sold out
the tiny house for any performance (as you know, a very unusual occurrence for FET), even though we had a huge cast
of about 20 students... I really do believe this low student turn-out was due in large part to OSL's lack of
transparency with regard to the poster approval policy.”
Relevant Images:
Comment/Suggestions from Rose Hill Student Life:
“While the overwhelming majority of fliers given to the desk staff in OSLCD are stamped for posting quite rapidly,
some are passed along to the staff if a student worker or front office staff member has a question, does not understand
something on the flier, spelling errors, etc. Most of the time, the issue is simply a mistake, missing information or an
informational question such as whether space is reserved for the program. It is also the job of the OSLCD staff to ask
questions about fliers and programs if the question is one of appropriate content to be posted around campus— there
are of course some things we would not approve being posted. In this case, we simply asked about the unexplained and
rather odd illustration choice. Without batting an eye and asking a question, the club apparently modified it and it
went out for posting. The event had a packed house, so if there was a delay, there was no discernible effect. We only
learned more than a year later that there was a concern that this somehow amounted to censorship when it appeared in
USG’s testimonials. While we don’t quite agree, we would invite anyone who wants to have further conversation on
questions like this to raise the issue with us. In this way, we can work together to address any concerns on the spot.
22
Most issues and questions are resolved very rapidly this way—this is why we have staff working with students in offices
like OSLCD and accessible to students. Our people have these very conversations on a frequent basis.”
Testimonial II: FET and Clue posters14

Semester: Fall 2009
Summary: FET submitted promotional posters for Clue to OSL&CD for approval. The posters
included game weapons and a depiction of the character Miss Scarlet. OSL&CD denied approval of
the posters because it believed they were inappropriate.
Student Account:
Stephanie Pennacchia (FCRH ’12), director of Clue
“I'll never forget when I was directing CLUE, I had what I thought was a wonderful idea to take a photo of each
character and each weapon, with "whodunit?" plastered over each image. Of course, most of the weapons - identifiable
GAME pieces - were not approved and the image of Arielle Ranalli as Miss Scarlet was also denied. When I asked
why I could not display this photo of her, a staff member at OSL told me, ‘Well, she's holding a cigarette.’ I looked at
her with confusion and stated – ‘But this is not a smoke-free campus,’ with images of me being engulfed in cigarette
smoke every time I walk out of Keating on my mind. Also, smoking is not illegal. She looked at me, panicked, and
then exclaimed, ‘Her dress is too low-cut.’”
“Unfortunately, present day staff simply do not recall this issue or interaction. However, OSLCD is responsible for
stamping fliers that are then posted on campus. Images of smoking or “low cut dresses” are not rejected when presented
on fliers as a matter of policy or practice, though it would help to actually know more about this incident or see the
flier.”
Testimonial III: Expressions Dance Alliance and Pugsley’s Advertisement

Semester: Spring 2010
Summary: OSL&CD informed the Expressions Dance Alliance that it could not use its printed
programs because a paid advertisement in the program from Pugsley’s included a clip art image of a
wine bottle.
Student Account:
Meg Farmer (FCRH ’13), Expressions Dance Alliance member
“I remember specifically having a problem in Spring 2010 when Pugsley's paid to place an ad in our program and we
couldn't use it because there was a clip art image that looked like a wine bottle. In order to use the programs that had
already been printed, we had to white-out all of the images before we gave them out at the show. I can't remember ever
14
OSLCD is now under new administrative management and staffed by new personnel since this
incident occurred.
23
having a problem with dances/songs, but we're usually really conscious of the stuff that we choose because we know
other groups have gotten in trouble in the past for music, etc. Usually if we question it at all, we decide not to do it.”
“Alcohol abuse is quite simply a gravely serious threat to student health and safety and Fordham is determined to do
what it can to send the right message on underage and irresponsible drinking. Like many colleges and universities, we
do not allow alcohol advertisements in publications and postings by clubs. Not only is there no need for these references,
but we feel they send a troubling mixed message. Unfortunately, the Expression had already printed their program.
The club itself suggested that a sticker be placed over the ad. Had we been shown the program earlier, we might have
been able to help the club sooner or help with reprinting, but we were glad a solution was offered.”
Testimonial IV: Mimes and Mummers and the Word “Gay”

Semester: Fall 2012
Summary: In the tentative program for the Mimes and Mummers’ production of The Drowsy
Chaperone, Scott Ramsey, the show’s director, was quoted saying, “directing this show has been a gay
old time.” OSL&CD requested that the Mimes and Mummer’s remove the word “gay” from its
program.
Student Account:
Stephanie Pannachia (FCRH ’12), Mimes and Mummers member
“…OSL told then Mimes president Miranda Ossolinski to remove the word "gay" from the Director's Note in the
Mimes and Mummer's program for The Drowsy Chaperone. Our director Scott Ramsey used the word in the
context of "directing this show has been a gay old time," and it was mostly used in reference to a line from one of the
songs, in which they use the phrase gay wedding to mean "a very happy wedding." She was upset (I was incensed!) but
felt that the club was already on thin-ice with OSL because of all the backlash they had received from doing the
sexually- risqué The Wild Party and from being told they could not produce Spring Awakening and went ahead
and took the word gay out of Scott's letter.”
“We take very seriously our responsibility that fliers are not gratuitously insulting to the dignity of any member of our
community. This can be tricky at a University that seeks open discussion of ideas and takes the first amendment as
seriously as ours does. Time can also be a factor. In this case, the staff member receiving the flier was not familiar with
the saying and was concerned that it might be offensive to LGBT students/members of the community. In discussing it
with the clubs, we were informed by the club that the program had go to print the same day it had been brought to the
office. We offered to get back to the club, but, to avoid delay, the group opted to simply remove the phrase. Had there
been more time, the outcome would certainly have been different, but this experience highlights the importance of
allowing time for discussion to happen and the risks of being in a rush with fliers and programs.”
Testimonial V: Mimes and Mummers and Spring Awakening
24
Semester: Spring 2011-Spring 2012
Summary: The Mimes and Mummers sought to perform Spring Awakening as their Fall 2011
musical. After several meetings with Student Affairs administrators who were concerned about the
show’s content, The Mimes and Mummers moved Spring Awakening to one of its Spring 2012
performance slots, but ultimately did not perform the show when they encountered continued
resistance from Student Affairs.
Student Account:
Caitlin Nosal (FCRH ’13), former president of Mimes and Mummers
“In the spring of 2011, The Mimes and Mummers general members (roughly 30 individuals) voted on a fall musical
for the following semester, the provocative but poignant Pulitzer Prize and Tony Award winning show: Spring
Awakening. Following the vote, I immediately sent the lineup of the entire upcoming season to Jenn Lackie at
OSL&CD with backup documentation for her approval. I also asked her to reply just in case she had questions or
concerns, because the content of Spring Awakening could potentially raise a red flag, and due to past issues with
show content, our entire executive board wanted to be completely open about our club’s intentions for the show.
The most exciting aspect of producing Spring Awakening that fall was the potentiality of Fordham University being
the first university in the nation to have performed the show since its closing on Broadway. I met with Dean Rodgers
and Jenn Lackie during finals week in Spring 2011 and presented my ideas for why Spring Awakening was an
important production for our college campus. Unfortunately, the meeting turned out to be more reflective on the Mimes
and Mummers’ past shows and content issues; I found myself discussing past production decisions I was not involved
in, defending my new leadership role and character, and fighting to showcase the stronger direction the club was taking.
After the meeting, Dean Rodgers informed the club that he needed more time to think about the production, and we
were to set up another meeting.
In the summer of 2011, I attempted to remain in communication with OSL&CD about their decision and plans for
Spring Awakening. I was even approached by the writers of the show itself about helping alter content issues, and I
passed on that information to OSL&CD administrators. However, Dean Rodgers was unable to meet with me while
I was on campus that summer.
Our executive board waited to meet with administrators again until the new semester in September, when we finally
arranged a second meeting. At this meeting, I was questioned about the club’s process for choosing the shows we
produce, why we “continued to choose such shows with difficult content that did not follow along the Catholic image of
the university,” and asked how far the club would “push the envelope” next time if we were allowed to perform Spring
Awakening. I replied by expressing Spring Awakening’s merits for discussing difficult and controversial social
issues in a unique setting, and presented the show’s multiple morals, which I believed exemplified the Jesuit tradition
perfectly. Finally, I presented the administrators with a scene-by-scene breakdown of the show, highlighted content
issues, and brainstormed compromises in order to make the scene less offensive. I absolutely understood that the
administration wanted to make sure we were not going to offend students, alumni, parents, or faculty, and I agreed; I
wanted to present a thought-provoking show that discussed important social issues. The administration replied by
25
requesting more time to discuss the issue and the club was unexpectedly forced to push Spring Awakening to the
winter musical slot.
In preparing for our third meeting with OSL&CD, I reached out to faculty members for their support. Considering
the possibly of the university denying us the ability to produce Spring Awakening, I wanted to explore the option of
receiving funding from various academic committees. A number of faculty members supported our goal but could not
supply much financial support. However, they agreed that Spring Awakening could provide a perfect outlet for a
faculty-student debate on the issues discussed in the show such as homosexuality, sex education, and abortion. Before
the next meeting, I printed out the Fordham University Mission statement, and provided line-by-line evidence that
showed how this show, as both a piece of literature and drama, supported Fordham's goals.
At the meeting, I presented the mission statement and informed Dean Rogers and Jenn Lackie that by this point in
time, Scranton University and Boston College, both Jesuit Universities, announced they would be producing Spring
Awakening with their on-campus theater groups. In return, we received re-hashed questions and concerns, and at the
end of the meeting we were told they would make a decision and respond to us shortly. After attempting to set up a
number of meetings during finals of the fall semester, Jenn Lackie informed me that they would not approve a
production of Spring Awakening. We were unable to set up a meeting with Dean Rodgers and administrators until
the new semester in which we were thanked for our hard work, communication, and honesty, but were not granted the
opportunity to produce this show.”
“Our work with the excellent Mimes and Mummers club highlights the critical role our staff play in not merely
facilitating programs and activities planned by students, but in engaging and challenging students to make thoughtful
decisions about events—to think not only about what one can do, but also about what one ought to do. Reflection and
the consideration of context are very important parts of education in the Ignatian tradition and encouraging these
practices outside the classroom are part of our mission in student life. For a number of years, our theater club has voted
to produce a set of increasingly provocative and sexually graphic dramatic and musical works. These shows pose a
number of staging and production challenges. Despite content that some have complained is antithetical to
Judeo/Christian or Catholic teaching on sexuality and after raising concerns with the group, we ultimately spent a
significant amount of time assisting the club to make these productions a success and manage the material. Upon
hearing from students outside the club that an even more explicit play had been chosen for Fall 2011, we engaged the
group in a long and ultimately helpful discussion to get a clearer sense of their interest in sexually explicit plays, to
share information on complaints received about previous productions, to agree upon solutions to the multiple
management problems that previous productions had entailed and to discuss how the challenges of staging such works
could be managed given the substantial assistance the group required from OSLCD staff. Though the club president
compellingly articulated the interest of the group in aspects of the show, the proposed Fall 2011 production of Spring
Awakening entailed a number of new and increasingly difficult staging challenges for a student club. These challenges
included scenes that called for student actors to simulate on-stage sexual intercourse, on-stage rape, on-stage individual
masturbation and on-stage group masturbation/group abuse of a child victim. While the conversation about the scenes
entailed in such a production were helpful to staff, after a great many hours of conversation, reflection and consultation
with various members of the community including student leaders, serious concerns remained. We assisted the group in
26
moving to their alternate choice and in considering the many other shows available to them. While the group clearly
disagreed with our request, we felt that the conversation was quite important and helped us understand where the club
was coming from.”
Testimonial VI: CAB and Cinevents Selections

Summary: CAB has faced inconsistency in the approval of its movie selections for its Cinevents
series. This semester, the films Silver Linings Playbook and Flight were denied approval.
The following account is a summary of a portion of an interview Stephen Erdman (FCRH ’13),
President of USG, conducted with Gina Meltzer (Gabelli ’13), President of CAB, on Friday,
February 1st, 2013.
In January of the Spring 2013 semester, CAB’s Cinevents committee met with its adviser, Jennifer Lackie, Assistant
Director for Student Organizations and programming, to review the movies it had selected for the Spring Cinevents
schedule. Ms. Lackie informed the committee that their selection of Silver Lining’s Playbook was not approved
because its inclusion of a scene with nudity does not fall in line with the Jesuit mission of the University. Gina Meltzer,
the President of CAB attempted to negotiate with Ms. Lackie. Another member of CAB argued that Silver
Lining’s Playbook should be approved because the film Flight, which also presents nudity, had already been
approved. As a result, Ms. Lackie rescinded the prior approval of Flight. As a general practice, Ms. Lackie serves as
the first level of approval for all of CAB’s events. All committees must submit information on potential performers,
concerts, movies, etc. to Ms. Lackie. Depending on the event’s proposed content and/or scale, Ms. Lackie will consult
with Alanna Nolan, Assistant Dean of Student Leadership and Community Development, on the event’s approval.
Likewise, Dean Nolan may consult with Christopher Rodgers, Assistant Vice President and Dean of Students at
Rose Hill.
“Cinevents! allows the student body to have the pleasure of viewing films that have not yet been released on DVD at
no cost on a consistent basis twice a week. The students select the films to be shown. We mutually establish a timeline
that allows for discussion and timely advertising to the community. The timeline of submission for movies typically asks
that the comprehensive list be provided in December for spring viewings. Unlike various other institutions, Fordham
does not prohibit all R- rated films from being screened on campus. If there is R-rated content, students provide a
proposal which is then reviewed on a case by case basis for further discussion. OSLCD received the proposals after the
agreed upon timeline which makes it more difficult to have discourse pertaining to the films. These two films did not
have the adequate time required to discuss further for viewing for this semester. Students were given the option to write
a proposal for next semester; OSLCD is looking forward to receiving the proposal.”
Testimonial VII: CAB and Spring Weekend Performers

Summary: Selecting a Spring Weekend artist requires an involved administrative approval process
which is not made public to students outside of CAB. This process can vary in length of time and
27
can interfere with the booking of potential artists. Artists are frequently denied because
administrators believe that they are inappropriate given Fordham’s Jesuit, Catholic identity. The
artists Wiz Kalifa, Macklemore, Dev, The Cataracs, and Sam Adams are all examples of performers
that other Jesuit schools have booked but Fordham administrators have denied in the early stages of
the approval process.
Student Account:
Patrick McCarren (GSB 2014), CAB Concert Committee Co-Chair
“While I love my position as Concert Co-Chair on CAB, the process can be frustrating at times. I find it especially
troubling that while there is a procedure for the administration to approve artists; this process is not made public.
While I do not want to exploit the administration's process and understand why this process exists, I do not
understand why the university does not own up to their own process. At times, it feels like student leaders are blamed
for not getting popular artists with suggestive lyrics while it is not the decision of the students, but rather
administration.
Another issue I have with the process is timing. Booking artists is a process that needs to be done in a timely manner
because one day an artist is available and the next day he/she is not. The artist approval process does not lend well to
the time constraints. Prior to surveying the student, my co-chair and I had to make a list of potential artists. These
artists were screened by Jenn Lackie and Dean Nolan, which took several weeks of back and forth in addition to
adding artists. After the final survey was finished, the survey was sent to students and remains out for a few weeks.
At this point, my co-chair and I started putting together packets for artists. These packets have to go through several
members of the administration including Jenn Lackie, Dean Nolan, and Dean Rogers. The issue with this is that
obviously these administrators have other work that they have to complete so the process has varied in time from several
days to several weeks. This is also tough given that Christmas Break is in the middle of the process so understandably
nothing can be approved over break.
The last point I would like to make is the reasoning behind artist approval. While I understand and agree with
Fordham's Jesuit beliefs, other Jesuit schools have featured artists that were denied from playing at Fordham. The
following is a list of artists that have played or who will be playing at Jesuit Schools that were not approved by
Fordham: Georgetown- Wiz Khalifa, The Cataracs, Dev; Fairfield- Sam Adams; Boston College- Macklemore. All
the artists were denied based on content (whether it was content related to alcohol, explicit language, etc). Macklemore,
Dev, The Cataracs, and Sam Adams were all denied at the survey stage [of the approval process].”
“Spring Weekend overall is a tradition on campus, and a signature event for the Campus Activities Board and the
University community. The Spring Weekend Concert Committee is a challenging leadership position on campus. It
requires a lot of back and forth between multiple parties. This includes the student body, the student concert committee,
administration, the concert agent, the artist management company, and the artist. When reviewing the proposed artists,
there a myriad of factors that contribute to the performance coming to fruition. These include but are not limited to:
artist availability, cost, and artist reputation. Private academic institutions will vary in the selection of artists that
28
perform on campus. We will continue to discuss future selections with the concert committee, and we look forward to the
annual enjoyment of Spring Weekend.”
Testimonial VIII: Flava’s 2011 Showcase

Summary: Following Flava’s 2011 Showcase performance, Jennifer Lackie, OSL&CD’s Assistant
Director for Student Organizations and Programming requested to meet with the group to discuss
some of OSL&CD’s concerns regarding the performance. Ms. Lackie indicated that much of the
content had been inappropriate and suggested that Flava allow OSL&CD to review mix selections
and to preview choreography in the future to determine the level of appropriateness.
Student Account:
Catherine Nwachukwu (FCRH ’13), Flava president
“[At the 2011 showcase] we danced to a part [of the song “S&M” by Rihanna] that said ‘Cause I may be bad, but
I'm perfectly good at it / Sex in the air, I don't care, I love the smell of it / Sticks and stones may break my bones /
But chains and whips excite me.’ The moves included some hair flips, body/hip rolls, etc. but nothing excessively
sexual. The boys also did a dance to “Pony” by Ginuwine which was also a bit sexual, but not excessive. [Jennifer
Lackie responded that] music needs to be sent in to be reviewed by Jen [Lackie] or Marissa [Totino], lyrics shouldn't
be needed, but if we send in at least a rough copy of the mix or just the names of the songs we are thinking about doing
choreography to, she can approve them before we learn them or put too much work into them; most of the issue is
swearing, and a little bit of content… [OSL&CD said that] we have to be more conscious of appropriateness. Mostly
they are concerned with the overall message that is being conveyed so it’s the combination of the dancing with the song,
and some moves may be appropriate to one song, but not to another, etc. [OSL&CD said] we can have them sit in on
a practice or send videos of the choreography ahead of time for approval…Programs must be approved in advance-
[OSL&CD] had a problem with the mix being called "Thats My Sh**" and the shirtless picture[s] of Mandi and
Dozie (see below).”
“We take issue with this because we’re the dancers and choreographers, not them. We don’t think it’s fair that our
creative process is being stifled, especially when the moves that we do are never actually that inappropriate. By dancing
to certain songs, we are not necessarily endorsing their themes, but rather using what is available in hip hop to make
dances that the Fordham audience will enjoy watching… After our 2011 showcase, we've been really meticulous with
editing our music and making sure our dances are appropriate enough for [OSL&CD], and so we haven't run into
trouble with them since. However, it can become a hassle when there are dances that we'd like to use for performances
but we decide not to for fear that we'll get in trouble with OSLCD.”
Relevant Images:
29
“We work hard to help Flava with its impressive dance performances, but staff have never requested our the groups’
music or choreography for pre-approval unless the group has asked to pass something by us for our advice. The posting
process will hold onto fliers with sexually explicit images so that we may ask questions of the group and consider
whether posting in public areas is appropriate. In this case, only one of a series of fliers advertising the event caused
concern and the effect on the Showcase was hard to see- the event was standing room only. Sexualized images and
content may or may not be appropriate on fliers approved to be posted around campus and the staff are responsible for
making often difficult decisions on these sorts of questions. Our first step is to talk it through with the club to see if
they have thought about the issue. Staff also remind students that productions to which children and families are
invited should be produced with the audience in mind. Our student clubs are generally very sensitive to these
considerations.”
Testimonial IX: PSJ and Afghanistan War Vigil

Semester: Fall 2011
Summary: PSJ attempted to secure approval for a vigil to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the
of U.S. military intervention in Afghanistan. PSJ did not receive a response from OSL&CD but
decided to host the event anyway. As the Vigil commenced, OSL&CD and members of security
required the 7 vigil participants to end the event.
Student Account:
Cori Ring-Martinez, PSJ member (FCRH ’13)
“I'm comfortable sharing what happened with a vigil FAWC planned to mark the 10th anniversary of the start of
the Afghanistan war fall 2011. We had used Orgsync to fill out all the necessary paperwork in the right time frame,
but as the date approached our only source of information on Orgsync was that our event approval was pending-
meaning we did not have approval for any space or to make fliers. As a group, we decided to prepare for our event in
spite of not having received approval in time, and that included making and distributing fliers in the residence halls
about an hour or so before the planned time around 7. Upon arriving at the steps of Keating with our candles and
30
anti-war signs, Jen Lackie and two members of Fordham security came to tell us to stop and leave immediately or face
disciplinary action. After 15 minutes of talking in an attempt to understand why we were being stopped (for our own
safety we were told, as well as not having secured the space prior) and also stalling, our group of 7 or so left. We had
no follow up with anyone from the administration.”
“We learned about this planned demonstration only 30 minutes beforehand when fliers without any posting stamps
appeared around campus inviting students to the event the same night. We see in the testimonial that the students
decided to proceed despite failing to secure permission to use the space. Two of our OSLCD staff met the students on
Keating Steps before the event began to explain the demonstration policy, let the organizers know that to proceed with
such an event they would have to reserve the space they sought to use and to encourage that they meet with the dean of
students to do so better understand the way students can coordinate with the University on protests and demonstrations.
Shortly thereafter, the dean met with one of the organizers and another vigil was coordinated with the University’s
assistance and went off without a hitch a few weeks later. Demonstrations arranged in coordination with the dean of
students have always been approved, but reasonable time, place and manner arrangements are made to assure that
various other scheduled activities can occur without infringement on the rights of others in the community. This is
similar, though generally more rapid and efficient, than similar demonstration ordinances adopted by municipalities.”
Testimonial X: Ramblers and “Fifty Shades of Ramblers”

Semester: Fall 2012
Summary: The Ramblers received approval for the theme of their Fall 2012 concert: “Fifty Shades
of Ramblers.” In the days leading up to their performance, OSL&CD contacted them several times
with concerns about the theme, ultimately prohibiting the group from using a video they had made,
from singing Nelly’s “Let’s Get it Hot in Here,” and from using their original choreography for
Marvin Gaye’s “Let’s Get it On.”
Student Account:
Kevin Webster, Ramblers member (FCRH ’14)
“The Ramblers decided on the theme of "Fifty Shades of Ramblers" for our fall concert. We knew that it was a little
edgy for Fordham, but we thought we would try it anyway, and we had back up themes in case it wasn't approved. We
submitted the fliers for the theme two weeks before the show, and they were approved by Cody [Arcuri, Assistant
Director for Campus Center Operations] and again by Sylvia [Heichel, OSL&CD Office Manager]. We figured
that because our promotional materials were approved, we could go ahead with the theme.
A week and a half later, two days before our show, I was contacted by Jenn Lackie [Assistant Director for Student
Organizations and Programming]. She told me that she was disappointed that we had chosen that theme and that she
hoped we would be more careful in the future. She said that the theme probably should not have been approved, and she
asked us to use caution in executing the theme. We discussed what we had planned for the show, and she cautioned
against performing some of the songs we had planned, and asked that we use extra caution in making the themed video
for the concert. A few hours later, she also spoke to Alex DeSimine, and told him the same thing. The following day
31
(the day before our concert), the director of the University Choir contacted both Jenn Lackie and our advisor, Marc
Canton and asked that we be prohibited from using the theme. He claimed that it hurt the reputation of all performing
groups at the university. We were then advised not to use the video we had made, and to remove a song (“Hot in
Here” by Nelly), and to tone down our choreography for "Let’s Get It On." Obviously, we were not very pleased, as
we had put a lot of time into the video, song, and choreography. Although our show ended up being a great success
despite the issues we had, it added a lot of unneeded stress in the crucial days leading up to our performance.”
“Staff are responsible to ask questions when they arise from a program, from fliers or other material which appears to
objectify or degrade a specific gender. In this case, despite reservations about the theme adopted by the group, a
complaint received by OSLCD about the fliers and banners and some explicit imagery and text, the event went
forward as planned. Staff did fulfill their responsibility to engage and challenge students on the choices being made and
ask that students reflect on these choices. Images of handcuffs and references to “man candy” caused us to ask whether
the group had considered the messages of the material, but the event was ultimately allowed to proceed.”
Testimonial XI: PRIDE Alliance and Use of the Word “Queer”

Semester: Spring 2011 - current
Summary: Beginning in 2011, PRIDE has faced varying levels of approval from OSL&CD as it has
attempted to use the word “queer” in programs, advertisements, its constitution, and other areas.
Currently, there is a general understanding that the word “queer” can be used in events and
advertisements, but not in club names, constitutions, or on the official Fordham website.
Student Account:
Leslie Feigenbaum (FCRH ’13), President of PRIDE
“Censorship of the word ‘queer’ in programming (which mostly includes flyer-ing, club description, and our club
constitution) began in Spring 2011 when a flyer for a ‘queer-friendly’ open-mic was held for an extended period of
time. [OSL&CD] then asked us to modify our flyer to not include the word but by then it was about 24 hours before
the event was to take place. Subsequent flyers (I’d say at least 3) were then held for at least a week (if not 2 weeks),
whether or not they included the word queer. I believe, though am not certain, that that any flyer we submitted needed
multiple levels of approval within Student Affairs, while other club’s flyers were glanced at once and instantly
approved. One flyer in Spring 2011 was for a speaker coming from ‘Queers for Economic Justice.’ This flyer, too, was
held, but approved under the understanding that the word was part of the name of the organization
…In fall 2012, the Queer Forum was set up/sponsored through an academic department for efficiency’s sake. We did
not want our flyers held only to have weeks of discussion and then not get approved. We really wanted this event to be
well attended and we couldn’t risk the time it takes to fight for our events/flyers. When time is not a factor, we prefer
to continue to try and push the word ‘queer’ through. In the end of fall 2012, the word “queer” was approved in
programming, but not as part of our constitution, on the official Fordham website, or as a club name.”
32
“We have had multiple conversations with various clubs and organizations including PRIDE related to use of the
word “queer” on flier and advertisements. It is a word which in some contexts and to a number of individuals has for
many years been offensive. Students using this term in a derogatory manner could be held responsible in a formal way
by the University as a part of its commitment to uphold the dignity of all its members and create a welcoming
community. While not everyone has decided like PRIDE to adopt the term and its more recent interpretations, the
group has always been permitted to use the word when describing invited guests and speakers such as “queer poets” and
program content such as “queer theory.” After listening carefully to PRIDE and reflecting on the wide and changing
interpretations of the term’s meaning, we have trained staff to approve fliers using the term in strictly non-derogatory
ways.”
Testimonial XII: PRIDE Alliance and Ian Harvey

Summary: PRIDE sought to host Ian Harvey, a trans comedian, at Fordham. His comedy act was
not approved, but he was permitted to share his personal story.
Student Account:
Leslie Feigenbaum (FCRH ’13), President of PRIDE
“[During the Spring 2011 semester] we also brought a trans comedian to campus named Ian Harvey. We were going
to have him do stand-up. His act was not approved because his jokes were apparently offensive (I believe the one joke
that was not approved had to do with Obama having sex with Michelle). I don’t understand why just the joke itself
wasn’t censored, but in the end, he was approved to come tell his personal story, but not to perform any portion of his
comedy routine.”
“Our staff are responsible to have a clear understanding of every program and activity put on by clubs and
organizations for the campus. In looking at YouTube video of this comedian’s standup, material was found and shared
with the club to assure they were also aware of unusually sexually explicit content. The club acknowledged that they
had not fully-researched the comedian’s act, that the material might inadvertently injure the dignity of some members of
the community and agreed to instead have the transgender comedian come to campus and speak about the performer’s
life experience. As our understanding was that this was the core intention of the presentation, we were glad that the
club agreed to this thoughtful and sensitive compromise.”
Testimonial XIII: The Vagina Monologues

Semester: Ongoing
Summary: Each spring, students perform Eve Ensler’s The Vagina Monologues. The Division of
Student Affairs will not allow student activities funds to finance the event because of its concerns
regarding the “The Little Coochi Snorcher that Could,” one of the play’s monologues. Instead, the
performance is funded through the Women’s Studies department.
Student Account:
33
Marisa Carroll (FCRH ’13), former member of Women's Empowerment
“Vagina Monologues is produced routinely by Fordham students through the Women's Studies department. This event
is not sponsored by a student club, because Student Affairs will not provide funding for the play. Student Affairs has
conveyed to student organizers that it would fund the show were the students to cut a monologue called "The Little
Coochi Snorcher That Could." Administrators allege that this monologue promotes underage drinking and statutory
rape.
Notably, it is also the only lesbian monologue in the play. Students, especially lesbian and queer students, refuse to cut
this monologue because of its powerful content and its representation of non-normative sexualities. LGBT students
have called it alienating and insulting that administrators would declare that the only queer monologue is
inappropriate.
Other students believe that the Coochi Snorcher is a MacGuffin. Administrators know students will not cut it, so
uphold that they will fund the play if it is cut to escape accusations of censorship.”
Relevant content:
“The Little Coochi Snorcher that Could,” excerpt from Eve Ensler’s The Vagina Monologues
“INTRO — THE LITTLE COOCHI SNORCHER THAT COULD
In hundreds of interviews with homeless women in the last thirteen years, only one woman was not
sexually abused as a little girl or raped as a young woman. For most of these women, “home” is a
very scary place, a place they have fled. The shelters are ironically the first places many of them ever
find safety, protection, or comfort. This is a woman’s story as she told it. What isn’t in the story is
the fact that this woman met another woman in a shelter, and they fell in love, and through their
love, they both got out of the shelter system.
THE LITTLE COOCHI SNORCHER THAT COULD

(*Southern, woman of color)
Memory: December 1965, five years old.

My mama tells me in a scary, loud, life-threatening voice to stop scratching my Coochi Snorcher. I
become terrified that I’ve scratched it off down there. I do not touch myself again, even in the bath.
I am afraid of the water getting in and filling me up so I explode. I put Band-Aids over my Coochie
to cover the hole, but they fall off in the water. I imagine a stopper, a bathtub plug up there to
prevent things from entering me. I sleep with three pairs of happy heart-patterned cotton
underpants underneath my snap-up pajamas. I still want to touch myself sometimes, but I don’t.
Memory: seven years old.

Edgar Montane, who is ten, gets angry at me and punches me with all his might between my legs. It
feels like he breaks my entire self. I limp home. I can’t pee. My mama asks me what’s wrong with my
34
Coochi Snorcher, and when I tell her what Edgar did to me she yells at me and says never to let
anyone touch me down there again. I try to explain that he didn’t touch it, Mama, he punched it.
Memory: nine years old.

I play on the bed, bouncing and falling, and impale my Coochi Snorcher on the bedpost. I make
highpitched screamy noises that come straight from my Coochi Snorcher’s mouth. I get taken to the
hospital and they sew it up down there from where it’s been torn apart.
Memory: ten years old.

I’m at my father’s house and he’s having a party upstairs. Everyone’s drinking. I’m playing alone in
the basement and I’m trying on my new cotton white bra and panties that my father’s girlfriend gave
me. Suddenly my father’s best friend, this big man Alfred, comes up from behind and pulls my new
underpants down and sticks his big hard penis into my Coochi Snorcher. I scream. I kick. I try to
fight him off, but he already gets it in. My father’s there then and he has a gun and there’s a loud
horrible noise and then there’s blood all over Alfred and me, lots of blood. I’m sure my Coochi
Snorcher is finally falling out. Alfred is paralyzed for life and my mama doesn’t let me see my father
for seven years.
Memory: thirteen years old.

My Coochi Snorcher is a very bad place, a place of pain, nastiness, punching, invasion and blood.
It’s a site for mishaps. It’s a bad-luck zone. I imagine a freeway between my legs and I am traveling,
going far away from here.
Memory: sixteen years old.

There’s this gorgeous 24-year-old woman in our neighborhood and I stare at her all the time. One
day she invites me into her car. She asks me if I like to kiss boys, and I tell her I do not like that.
Then she says she wants to show me something, and she leans over and kisses me so softly on the
lips with her lips and then puts her tongue in my mouth. Wow. She asks me if I want to come over
to her house, and then she kisses me again and tells me to relax, to feel it, to let our tongues feel it.
She asks my mama if I can spend the night and my mother’s delighted that such a beautiful,
successful woman has taken an interest in me. I’m scared and I can’t wait. Her apartment’s fantastic.
She’s got it hooked up. It’s the seventies, the beads, the fluffy pillows, the mood lights. I decide right
there that I want to be a secretary like her when I grow up. She makes a vodka for herself and then
she asks what I want to drink. I say the same as she’s drinking and she says she doesn’t think my
mama would like me drinking vodka. I say she probably wouldn’t like me kissing girls either, and the
pretty lady makes me a drink. Then she changes into this chocolate satin teddy. She’s so beautiful. I
always thought bulldaggers were ugly. I say “You look great,” and she says, “So do you.” I say “But I
only have this white cotton bra and underpants.” Then she dresses me, slowly, in another satin
teddy. It’s lavender like the first soft days of spring. The alcohol has gone to my head and I’m loose
and ready. There’s a picture over her bed of a naked Black woman with a huge Afro. She gently and
slowly lays me out on the bed and just our bodies rubbing makes me come. Then she does
everything to me and my Coochi Snorcher that I always thought was nasty before, and wow. I’m so
35
hot, so wild. She says, “Your vagina, untouched by man, smells so nice, so fresh, wish I could keep it
that way forever.” I get crazy wild and then the phone rings and of course it’s my mama. I’m sure
she knows; she catches me at everything. I’m breathing so heavy and I try to act normal when I get
on the phone and she asks me, “What’s wrong with you, have you been running?” I say “No, Mama,
exercising.” Then she tells the beautiful secretary to make sure I’m not around boys and the lady
tells her, “Trust me, there’s no boys around here.” Afterwards the gorgeous lady teaches me
everything about my Coochi Snorcher. She makes me play with myself in front of her and she
teaches me all the different ways to give myself pleasure. She’s very thorough. She tells me to always
know how to give myself pleasure so I’ll never need to rely on a man. In the morning I am worried
that I’ve become a butch because I’m so in love with her. She laughs, but I never see her again. I
realize later she was my surprising, unexpected and politically incorrect salvation. She transformed
my sorry-ass Coochi Snorcher and raised it into a kind of heaven.”
“Again, our recollection of the many meetings we have had with PSJ’s Women’s Empowerment subcommittee over the
years to discuss V-Day may be somewhat different than what is contained in this testimonial as the author was not
present for any of dozens of conversations with the group and various meetings often included different members each
time. Academic affairs funds this production as student affairs remains concerned with one monologue celebrating
alcohol-facilitated sexual relations between an adult and an underage person. We invite students to come and discuss
the issue with us. Our understanding is that the organization handling the granting of permission for performances of
the play has approved the removal of this monologue at various institutions with similar concerns and we have
encouraged organizers to consider this option if they would like club funding to support the program. However,
academic affairs funding appears to have been sufficient to support the program annually for at least the past 8 years.”
C. Fordham University Mission Statement
“Fordham University, the Jesuit University of New York, is committed to the discovery of Wisdom
and the transmission of Learning, through research and through undergraduate, graduate and
professional education of the highest quality. Guided by its Catholic and Jesuit traditions, Fordham
fosters the intellectual, moral and religious development of its students and prepares them for
leadership in a global society.”
To view additional text related to the University Mission Statement, please visit:
http://www.fordham.edu/discover_fordham/mission_26603.asp
D. “University Statement on Ann Coulter Appearance,” President Joseph McShane, S.J., November 9th, 2012
“The College Republicans, a student club at Fordham University, have

invited Ann Coulter to speak on campus on November 29. The event is
funded through student activity fees and is not open to the public nor the
36
media. Student groups are allowed, and encouraged, to invite speakers who
represent diverse, and sometimes unpopular, points of view, in keeping with
the canons of academic freedom. Accordingly, the University will not block
the College Republicans from hosting their speaker of choice on campus.
To say that I am disappointed with the judgment and maturity of the
College Republicans, however, would be a tremendous understatement.
There are many people who can speak to the conservative point of view with
integrity and conviction, but Ms. Coulter is not among them. Her rhetoric is
often hateful and needlessly provocative—more heat than light—and her
message is aimed squarely at the darker side of our nature.
As members of a Jesuit institution, we are called upon to deal with
one another with civility and compassion, not to sling mud and impugn the
motives of those with whom we disagree or to engage in racial or social
stereotyping. In the wake of several bias incidents last spring, I told the
University community that I hold out great contempt for anyone who would
intentionally inflict pain on another human being because of their race,
gender, sexual orientation, or creed.
‘Disgust’ was the word I used to sum up my feelings about those incidents.
Hate speech, name-calling, and incivility are completely at odds with the
Jesuit ideals that have always guided and animated Fordham.
Still, to prohibit Ms. Coulter from speaking at Fordham would be to
do greater violence to the academy, and to the Jesuit tradition of fearless and
robust engagement. Preventing Ms. Coulter from speaking would counter
one wrong with another. The old saw goes that the answer to bad speech is
more speech. This is especially true at a university, and I fully expect our
students, faculty, alumni, parents, and staff to voice their opposition, civilly
and respectfully, and forcefully.
The College Republicans have unwittingly provided Fordham with a test of
its character: do we abandon our ideals in the face of repugnant speech and
seek to stifle Ms. Coulter’s (and the student organizers’) opinions, or do we
use her appearance as an opportunity to prove that our ideas are better and
our faith in the academy—and one another—stronger? We have chosen the
latter course, confident in our community, and in the power of decency and
reason to overcome hatred and prejudice.”
E. Peer and Aspirant Research on Posting Policies
School Posting Policy

Northeastern Students can be punished for a poster advertising an event with alcohol
37
being served (level IV), or unauthorized use of the University's logo or
name (level II).
Villanova With respect to informing the University community of various lectures

and programs by means of posters or flyers, the following criteria have
been established:
1. Posters announcing an approved University or student group sponsored
event will be approved provided the criteria set forth in this policy are met.
2. All posters must be sponsored by a recognized University office or
student group, whose name will appear on the poster.
3. Posters that speak to issues contrary to the teachings of the Church may
be posted, if the poster encourages intellectual discussion and unfettered
inquiry of the issues.4. Poster approval does not imply University
endorsement. Posters will be stamped by the office responsible for the
student group. Campus Ministry, Office of Fraternity and Sorority Life,
Peace & Justice Education, Residence Life and Student Development may
all stamp posters with their own stamps.
Other University departments and offices, as well as non-student group
posters will receive approval through the Office of Student Development.
Approval stamps must include the notation “Approved for Posting -
Approval Does Not Imply University Endorsement.”
5. Posters will not be approved if any of the following apply:
a. The message asserts or implies official University approval of any
viewpoints
expressed.
b. The message offends community standards of good taste (vague)
c. The message contains language or symbols which are abusive or
demeaning to specific social groups.
d. The message denies respect for the dignity of individuals.
e. The message appears libelous.
f. The message encourages the sale or use of alcohol or promotes
establishments selling alcohol.
g. The message promotes or facilitates any aspect of substance abuse.
h. The message encourages or seeks to incite specific illegal acts.
i. The message promotes goods or services sold for personal profit or
which are sold by off campus persons or companies who are not
sponsored by a University office or recognized student group.
j. The message promotes non-campus related activities of commercial
sponsors. (Posters promoting activities and events of other non-profit
institutions and organizations may be approved in limited numbers
provided they do not violate the other criteria listed here.)
6. In the unusual circumstance of an appeal for permission to post, the
student group will appeal to the Poster Policy Committee. The committee
will be convened by the Vice President for Student Life for deliberation. A
recommendation will be made to the Associate Vice President for Student
Life for final adjudication. The committee will consist of the Associate
38
Vice President for Student Life, Director of Peace and Justice Education,
Director of Student Development, faculty member named by the American
Association of University Professors, the Student Government President,
and the editor of the Villanovan.
Syracuse Policy Statement

Only general purpose bulletin boards may be used for posting. Posters or
flyers may not be placed on interior or exterior walls, floors, doors,
windows, sidewalks, statues or public art.
Using masking tape, paste, glue, spray adhesives, nails, heavy-gauge staples,
or other metal fasteners for posting is prohibited. Other prohibited
behavior includes: posting messages or symbols on grassy areas, hanging
banners on external surfaces without first obtaining permission and causing
damage to personal or University property.
All posted information must include the name of the sponsoring
organization, department or responsible individual, as well as the date, time
and location of the program. Posted information requires approval from
the appropriate department as required by the location.
• Academic facilities: Dean’s Office or building coordinator
• Residence halls: Office of Residence Life, Suite 200, 111 Waverly Avenue,
443-3637 (additional expectations beyond those listed in the introduction
above apply)
• Dining Halls/Eateries: Office of the Director, 201 Ainsley Drive, 443-
3608
• Student Centers: Student Centers & Programming Services, 228D Schine
Student Center, 443-4240
• Exterior: Chalking and banners; recognized student organizations and
departments may request to chalk (with water soluble chalk) outside on the
Syracuse University Quad non-brick sidewalk areas. Syracuse University
Quad sidewalks are defined as the quadrangle bounded by Hendricks
Chapel, Link Hall, Carnegie Library, Hinds Hall and Huntington Beard
Crouse Hall. Recognized student organizations and departments may
request permission to hang
banners outside the Schine Student Center. Request forms for campus
chalking and use of the banner space on the Schine Student Center are
available at Student Centers & Programming Services, 228D Schine
Student Center.
Each school or college, academic facility and administrative building has
formulated procedures for posting material within its own confines. In the
event a specific posting policy by an academic or administrative facility
conflicts with the requirements set forth here, that procedure takes
precedence over these requirements.
Policy Administration
• Business and Facilities Maintenance Services
• Residence Life
• Student Centers and Programming Services
http://www.syr.edu/currentstudents/studenthandbook/
39
Boston College Posting Approval Procedure
● Flyers: Original copy must be approved before copies are made,

and then copies must be stamped. The Student Programs Office
will keep copies of the approved postings.
● Banners: Banners must be approved and stamped
Northwestern ● It is the policy of Northwestern University that only recognized

organizations of the Northwestern community are allowed to
advertise and promote their events on University property.
Furthermore, all advertisements and other forms of publicity must
clearly state the name(s) of the sponsoring student(s) and/or
organization(s). Specific procedures for publicizing events on
campus can be found on the Division of Student Affairs website
and/or in the pamphlet “Campus Publicity Policies and
Procedures,” published annually and available from the Division of
Student Affairs...
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=we
b&cd=1&ved=0CDIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.norris.n
orthwestern.edu%2Fwp-
content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F03%2Fpublicity-guide-2010-
11.pdf&ei=9qA1UZj5Lqnj0QHOs4G4CA&usg=AFQjCNGl-
ay0x8WFFW7nTtzyB_6dZbdTAg&bvm=bv.43148975,d.dmQ
Notre Dame Advertising, Posters, and Announcement of Activities

● Recognized student groups (clubs, organizations and
residence facili-ties) may use University bulletin boards to
announce activities and to advertise. All student group material
must receive a stamp from the Student Activities Office indicating
the group is registered.
● University departments are not required to have a stamp to
advertise on campus. Individuals, including students, may not
adver-tise on University bulletin boards. Students interested in
advertising items for sale may use the classified channel on Inside
ND.
● All signs and posters placed on any University bulletin boards must
not exceed 17" x 23" and must reflect good taste. All signs and
posters must clearly indicate the sponsoring group. Signs are to be
posted only on bulletin boards and are not to be attached to trees,
posts, sidewalks, or the interior or exterior walls of buildings,
includ-ing stairways and doors. The advertising of alcohol by
40
student groups is prohibited on campus. Signs and posters not in
compliance with these requirements will be removed. Student
groups in violation of this policy may lose their posting privileges.
These directives do not apply to the interior of residence hall
rooms.
● Non--University for--profit businesses are not permitted to use
University bulletin boards for promotion of products or services.
Businesses may advertise in The Observer and Scholastic.
● Requests by student groups to have table tents, banners or
infor-mation tables on campus (LaFortune Student Center, Huddle,
Dining Halls, etc.) must be processed through the Student
Activities Office.
● Advertising for events involving the use of alcohol, which directly
or indirectly refers to alcoholic beverages in any form, may not be
posted or distributed on any University property, including bulletin
boards, residence facilities, academic buildings, trees, posts or other
property on University grounds.
● Print, electronic and broadcast media funded in full or in part by
the University, by University- solicited funds or bearing University
sponsorship by use of its name, may not contain advertisements
promoting alcohol or events that have alcohol as their focus.
Georgetown Interior Flyers and Posters

Only members of the Georgetown University academic community may
hang posters or distribute handbills and pamphlets. No student
organization other than one granted access to University benefits may use
Georgetown in its name, or for any other reason except to identify the
location of an event.
All posters and flyers placed on campus inside buildings must be in
compliance with the following guidelines:
1 All materials to be posted on campus may be placed only on

unenclosed public bulletin boards or kiosks. People may place only
one flyer/poster per bulletin board to allow for ease of reading and
to give others equal opportunity to post. Flyers/posters should
never be hung where they cover up any previously posted current
materials. Departmental bulletin boards are not intended for public
announcements and may be used only by the appropriate
department or school.
2 Due to the distinct nature of some locations, specific requirements
are posted at those sites.
3 If posting in inappropriate locations results in damage to University
41
property, restitution will be required from the responsible party.
4 Interior bulletin boards exist in the following Main Campus
locations: Leavey Center, Intercultural Center, Reiss Science
Building, Walsh, New North, and Old North. Residence halls also
provide bulletin boards for general announcements.
5 Due to fire and safety codes it is illegal to post flyers in stairwells
and on doors.
Exterior (outdoor) Flyers and Posters
1 Flyers and posters may be posted at outdoor locations up to one

week before an event. The flyers and posters should be removed
immediately following the event.
2 Materials may be posted only on walls (not windows and doors)
and only in designated areas: Red Square (not on walls adjacent to
the ICC main entrance), Darnall, New South, Alumni Square, and
at the arches of Henle. Flyers and posters should be posted using
only masking tape.
3 Lampposts: Flyers/posters may be placed only within specially
defined and designed places on the posts and may not be taped to
the lampposts.
4 Flyers may not be posted on trees, benches, recycling or trash
containers, on Healy Gates (or the Gatehouses), or on the
pavement (including all sidewalks, streets, Red Square, etc.).
5 Removal of flyers: Individuals must remove their flyers/posters
following an event. Grounds staff will remove all exterior
flyers/posters every Monday before 10 a.m.
George Washington -Remember that any use of the University logo and word mark is strictly
regulated. Be sure that you are not using an unauthorized logo by checking
the Standards Guide, available on the University Graphics website
-All materials may not be displayed until 20 days before the event, and all
postings relating to an event must be removed within 48 hours of the
event’s completion. Posters advertising a series of events may stay up until
the series is completed.
-Materials may be posted only in the following approved areas: Marvin
Center posting areas (Ground Floor, H St. Stairwell, 2nd Floor Lobby, 4th
Floor), Residence Hall posting areas (Ground Floor Lobby), Academic
building bulletin boards, Ross Hall and Law School posting areas, Smith
Center posting areas, and Academic Center windows.
-No posters, flyers, or announcements may be attached to areas, such as:
trees, bathroom stalls, doors, sidewalks, benches, walkways, stairs, trash
cans, newspaper boxes, recycling bins, GW signs or statues, the Professors,
Americas, and University Gates. Posting to painted, wallpapered, plastic,
42
metal, or glass surfaces is prohibited, with the exception of the large glass
windows in Academic Center. No glue!
--Postings may not advertise personal messages or promote or emphasize
illegal activity, drug, alcohol, sexual situations, or sexual innuendos.
-Note that some University spaces have their own posting policies; many
of these are listed below but for Duques Hall and 1957 E. St., consult their
respective Academic Deans’ Offices.
-Posting policy during the Elections season will be coordinated between
the Joint Elections Committee and the Center for Student Engagement.
-Postings must not violate University and/ or District of Columbia safety
regulations, conduct codes, alcohol policies, or other applicable University
rules and regulations.
-Materials may not be displayed more than 10 days before the event, and all
postings relating to an event must be removed within 48 hours of the
event’s completion.
-Postings must prominently display the name and contact information
(name, phone number, email, and website if your organization has one) of
the sponsoring GW organization or department, an approved University
logo, the organization logo, the date of the event, and an English
translation of all information included on the posting.
-Flyers and announcements from non-University groups and organizations
are prohibited unless co-sponsored by a student organization or University
department. The name of this sponsoring organization must be clearly
displayed on posted materials.
-Posting is limited to one posting per event on any bulletin board and must
not overlay other material. The posting must be attached by masking tape,
push pins, or staples only.
-Postings advertising an event must contain correct event date, time, and
location. Event must be scheduled and approved prior to posting
advertisement.
-Only the sponsoring organization or University staff may remove postings
from authorized posting locations. Student organizations removing other
organizations’ posters for any reason will be referred to Student Judicial
Services and may be subject to loss of posting privileges on campus.
Creighton University -All references to Alcohol in posters must be pre-approved by student

activities office staff
-Poster contents must conform to student code of conduct, and, “must
avoid demeaning sexual, racial, or other discriminatory reference”
-Only can be displayed in specially designated areas marked “Campus
Posting”; poster must contain Organization name, contact information,
etc.
-Posters can be displayed for two weeks; longer requires administration to
stamp with a date
-Non university sponsored organizations or individuals require Student
Activities Office approval and proper registration of posting materials prior
to posting; no such pre-approval indicated as necessary for university
43
affiliated student or faculty organizations.
-Any postings for Sorority/Greek Life recruitment require approval from
AD of Greek Life
-Merchandise with Creighton University name/logo require pre-approval;
not indicated that this extends to postings though
F: Peer and Aspirant Research on Hate Speech, Discriminatory Harassment, and Bias policies
Creighton University -Hate speech falls under bullying policies: “Verbal Bullying-- Use of
Language to threaten or hurt. This includes... making degrading comments
about another's family, religious, social, or racial background”
http://www.creighton.edu/fileadmin/user/students/docs/2012-
13_Creighton_University_Student_Handbook.pdf p46
-Similarly, under “Respect for the Dignity of the Person”, p58: Especially
intolerable in view of the University’s commitment to respect for the
person are offenses against persons because of their race, religion,
ethnicity, disability, gender or sexual orientation. Actions or expressions
which may cause violent situations, create a clear and present danger of
violent situations, or which represent a malicious or willful attempt to
demean, degrade or harass members of the University community will not
be tolerated. Such actions include, but are not limited to, acts of violence,
physical or verbal threats, verbal harassment, slurs, degrading humor, and
written materials such as epithets, graffiti or other similar expression.
Northeastern -They're big against verbal abuse, bullying and harassment (outlined here).
University Any form of abuse (Verbal, written, graphic, or electronic), harassment, or
bullying which gets reported to the University carries a level II or III
punishment.
-Very strict Internet usage policy, which says that you can't use their
information systems or facilities to "Harass, threaten, defame, slander, or
intimidate any individual or group; Generate and/or spread intolerant or
hateful material, which in the sole judgment of the University is directed
against any individual or group, based on race, religion, national origin,
ethnicity, age, gender, marital status, sexual orientation, veteran status,
genetic makeup, or disability; Transmit or make accessible material, which
in the sole judgment of the University is offensive, violent, pornographic,
annoying, or harassing, including use of Northeastern information
systems to access and/or distribute obscene or sexually explicit material
unrelated to University-sanctioned work or bona fide scholarship."
Northwestern -It is the policy of Northwestern University not to discriminate or to

University permit discrimination against any individual on the basis of race, color,
44
religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender
expression, parental status, marital status, age, disability, citizenship,
veteran status, or genetic information in matters of admis-sions,
employment, housing, or services, or in the educational programs or
activities,
-Furthermore, Illinois law provides for criminal and civil penalties against
an individual who commits crimes against another person because of such
person’s race, color, creed, religion, ancestry, gender, sexual orientation,
physical or mental disability, or national origin (hate crimes). A bias
incident is an act of con-duct, speech, or expression to which a bias motive
is evident as a contributing factor (regardless of whether the act is
criminal). Sanctions may be imposed for students found to have committed
hate crimes and for bias incidents that involve conduct that violates laws or
University policies, specifically including the University’s Discrimination
and Harassment Policy.
Georgetown -”Expression that is indecent or is grossly obscene or grossly offensive on

University matters such as race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or sexual orientation is
inappropriate in a university community and the University will act as it
deems appropriate to educate students violating this principle.”
Boston College Defines “Bias-Related offensive conduct” as separate, non-criminal

category for discriminatory speech/actions:
“A hate crime is any traditional criminal offense that is motivated in whole
or in part by the offender's bias toward the victim's race, religion, disability,
sexual orientation, nationality, or ethnicity.
Bias-motivated offensive conduct is behavior that, whether or not criminal,
constitutes a violation of behavioral standards and policies listed in the
Student Guide and Professional Standards of Boston College, and that is
motivated in whole or in part by the offender's bias toward the victim's
race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, nationality, or ethnicity.
Students found responsible for committing bias motivated offensive
conduct or a hate crime face sanctions up to and including suspension or
dismissal from the University as well as possible arrest and criminal
action.”
Notre Dame Defines “Harassment” and “Discriminatory Harassment”:

Harassment:
-Harassment is any physical conduct that intentionally inflicts injury on the
person or property of another, or any intentional threat of such
conduct; any hostile, intentional, and persistent badgering,
45
addressed directly at another, or group of others, that is intended to
intimidate its victim(s) from any University activity; or any verbal attack,
intended to provoke the victim to immediate physical retaliation.
Discriminatory Harassment:
-Conduct, as described above, constitutes discriminatory harassment, if it is
accompanied by intentionally demeaning expressions concerning the race,
sex, religion, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, national origin, or
disability of the victim(s).
http://www3.nd.edu/~equity/discriminatory_harassment/
George Washington -N/A as of current research; most of these schools have broad harassment
University, Villanova policies, however, and it can be reasonably expected that they have been
University, NYU, & interpreted to extend to speech issues regarding discrimination. This is
Syracuse University supported by the presence of anti-discrimination laws regarding classes and
employment at all these institutions for individuals regardless of race,
ethnicity, disability, religion, or sexual orientation.
-NYU particularly clearly utilizes this harassment clause openly, as
evidenced by the incident regarding the University’s blocking of an event
focusing on Danish cartoons that depicted the Islamic Prophet
Muhammad: http://thefire.org/case/707.html
46

2012 13 Report On Speech and Expression of Student Organizations

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

2012 13 Report On Speech and Expression of Student Organizations

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Report on Speech and Expression of Student Organizations

This report was collectively generated by the following individuals:

Alana Morales (FCRH 2014) Kristin Guerin (FCRH 2012)

III. Executive Summary

IV. Analysis and Recommendations

A. The Autonomy of Student Groups

and this clause in the Speakers Policy of the Student Handbook:

B. Fordham’s Jesuit and Catholic Identity

1. Each poster or flyer must contain the following information:

a. With prior approval by OSL&CD, indicated by a stamp, in the following areas:

1. A student group proposes a posting or program to an OSL&CD representative, usually the

G. Closely Related Concerns

A. Comments and Additional Information from Rose Hill Student Life

Comments and Additional Information from Rose Hill Student Life

Dear President Erdman and Vice President Reynolds,

I look forward to continuing our conversation.

I. Various Recent Student Club Speakers and Demonstrations

Jonathan Alter: Newsweek/MSNBC Columnist and Journalist. Program proceeded as planned in

“Dear [Club Name],

● Semester/date of the incident

[Student Contact Name]”

Any questions regarding the content of these testimonials should be directed to

Testimonial I: FET and Urinetown Poster

Stephanie Pennacchia (FCRH ’12), former FET president

Kristen Guerin (FCRH ’12), director of Urinetown

Comment/Suggestions from Rose Hill Student Life:

Testimonial II: FET and Clue posters14

Stephanie Pennacchia (FCRH ’12), director of Clue

Comment/Suggestions from Rose Hill Student Life:

Testimonial III: Expressions Dance Alliance and Pugsley’s Advertisement

Meg Farmer (FCRH ’13), Expressions Dance Alliance member

Comment/Suggestions from Rose Hill Student Life:

Testimonial IV: Mimes and Mummers and the Word “Gay”

Stephanie Pannachia (FCRH ’12), Mimes and Mummers member

Comment/Suggestions from Rose Hill Student Life:

Testimonial V: Mimes and Mummers and Spring Awakening

Caitlin Nosal (FCRH ’13), former president of Mimes and Mummers

Comment/Suggestions from Rose Hill Student Life:

Testimonial VI: CAB and Cinevents Selections

Comment/Suggestions from Rose Hill Student Life:

Testimonial VII: CAB and Spring Weekend Performers

Patrick McCarren (GSB 2014), CAB Concert Committee Co-Chair

Comment/Suggestions from Rose Hill Student Life:

Testimonial VIII: Flava’s 2011 Showcase

Catherine Nwachukwu (FCRH ’13), Flava president

Testimonial IX: PSJ and Afghanistan War Vigil

Cori Ring-Martinez, PSJ member (FCRH ’13)

Comment/Suggestions from Rose Hill Student Life:

Testimonial X: Ramblers and “Fifty Shades of Ramblers”

Kevin Webster, Ramblers member (FCRH ’14)

Comment/Suggestions from Rose Hill Student Life:

Testimonial XI: PRIDE Alliance and Use of the Word “Queer”

Leslie Feigenbaum (FCRH ’13), President of PRIDE

Comment/Suggestions from Rose Hill Student Life:

Testimonial XII: PRIDE Alliance and Ian Harvey

Leslie Feigenbaum (FCRH ’13), President of PRIDE

Comment/Suggestions from Rose Hill Student Life:

Testimonial XIII: The Vagina Monologues

THE LITTLE COOCHI SNORCHER THAT COULD

Memory: December 1965, five years old.

Memory: seven years old.

Memory: nine years old.

Memory: ten years old.