Volume 124 >> Issue 3 : Tuesday, February 10, 2004

PDF of This Issue

Flag Committee Report Excerpts

The committee was chaired by Associate Dean Julie B. Norman, and included Assistant Dean Katherine G. O’Dair, Burton-Conner Housemaster Halston W. Taylor, and Gabrielle Abelard, the program manager of graduate residences. Nikki Johnson ’04 represented the Dormitory Council, Benjamin Navot ’07 represented the Undergraduate Association, and Vikas Anant G and Jennifer M. Farver G represented graduate students.

The MIT Housing Policy -- Alterations and Additions -- was reviewed for its purpose and appropriateness, particularly with respect to adornment inside or outside of a building. The policy reads, “Alterations to physical conditions of rooms and hallways (including painting, building lofts, etc.) must be approved by the House Manager. The majority of Residence Halls prohibit such alterations. Residents are not permitted to alter or add to any part of the building, structure, mechanical or electrical system.” This policy has been enforced, although reportedly inconsistently, to mean nothing may be hung outside any residence hall window. Although MIT has interpreted this policy to include hanging something outside a window, the committee felt the description of “altering or adding” was vague in this application. A more specific policy on adornment is warranted to supplement the “Additions and Alterations” policy.

Symbolic Materials and Personal Expression

The specific situation that led the Institute to a review of the housing policy was the flying of a flag outside a dorm window that resulted in a student filing a complaint raising concerns of the flying of this flag and respect issues. The complainant maintained the flag represented an unwelcoming environment. The student who hung the flag claimed he had a right of freedom of speech or expression.

Principles of the First Amendment like freedom of speech, relate to protection of individual rights from governmental interference, and do not apply directly to private institutions. Many people have an impression that students have a constitutional right to free speech at private institutions; however, most of the press regarding this issue relate to issues at public universities which are subject to very different legal standards. However, while the First Amendment and all its legal standards are not applicable as such, private universities like MIT have long standing and deeply held traditions of academic freedom and encourage the free exchange of ideas and beliefs, including ideas that others disagree with. At the same time, private universities like MIT are concerned about respecting all members of the community, and in particular, in providing remedies for words or actions that constitute improper harassment. They also distinguish between debate in the classroom and other public forums, and the fact that dormitories are the students’ homes, to which different considerations apply. An innocent communication may ultimately be potentially offensive or harassing to an individual or group.

MIT prides itself in being a very diverse and open community. We have clear policies or guidelines on personal conduct, responsibility for safety and harassment. A community member must not put their own interests above consideration of the impact their actions may have on another. Cultural sensitivity and consideration of the potential impact of un-welcomed, offensive or even intimidation on another individual/group must be considered.

It is clear that an educational institution, such as MIT, has a deeply held interest in protecting the educational atmosphere and the work or living environment for all groups while engaging in the free exchange of ideas and beliefs. While a banner or poster may express one person’s view, such communication does not allow for feedback or exchange of ideas. It is the failure to allow an exchange or response to a display/communication that damages relationships and, in some instances, may create an intimidating or offensive environment.

Housing Policies at Other Institutions ...

A review of the housing policies of twelve universities was completed. The objective was to assess policies of other institutions regarding displaying materials on the exterior of a campus residence. Seven universities prohibit students from hanging or affixing anything from the exterior of a window, ledge, wall, etc. These include Brown University, Cornell University, Harvard University, University of Pennsylvania, Princeton University, Suffolk University and Tufts University.

Three Universities had rather ambiguous policies, but specifically prohibited students from opening or removing screen windows in their dormitories. These institutions include Boston College, Boston University and the University of Massachusetts. Dartmouth College and Northeastern University have no policies addressing windows, screens or displaying signage outside a campus residence.

Literature Review and Legal Principles

... One specific case that the committee reviewed was Abramowitz vs. The Trustees of Boston University. This case, although a superior court action with limited value, discuses [sic] the unusual and limited way in which the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act (MCRA) can extend certain protections for traditional First Amendment rights into the private setting. In 1986, the Massachusetts Superior Court determined that Boston University violated student rights under the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act (MCRA) by removing specific items hanging from dorm windows. A summary of the facts in the decision include that undergraduate students, residing in Boston University housing, hung posters or banners either outside or inside their dorm windows. Boston University asked for the objects to be removed. When they were not, BU officials entered the rooms and removed the items. Boston University’s Residence License Agreement, which each student had signed, contained a policy prohibiting students from hanging objects from “windows, fire escapes, doors or other parts of the residence facility.” The Court stated Boston University had not previously enforced this policy prior to the circumstance. The Court held that with the specific facts, BU violated MCRA because, in enforcing a policy that it might have been otherwise able to enforce, it entered the rooms without permission, confiscated plaintiffs signs/posters/banners and threatened eviction. These actions, the un-welcomed entry into the rooms, were found by this judge to have constituted “threats, intimidation and coercion” under MCRA. This case has been followed by rulings, including decisions by the Supreme Judicial court, that enforcing established rules in a private setting is not in and of itself threats or intimidation, and therefore problematic under the MCRA. Thus, Abramowitz case is not that relevant to MIT’s decision how to regulate these issues. It only prevents the campus police or others from breaking down doors, as we understand they did at BU, to carry out enforcement of established rules.

Statement of Guiding Principles

The committee recognized that there are many perspectives that influence issues surrounding this housing policy and its enforcement -- the diversity of the community, free exchange of ideas, the unacceptability of harassing or intimidating behavior, and respect for the maintenance and use of our facilities.

Two principles were established that guided the recommendations of the committee:

1. Preservation of the architectural integrity of the exterior of buildings on the MIT campus complex.

2. Preservation of the cultural uniqueness of MIT residential communities.

Recommendations

The following recommendations are submitted to Dean Larry Benedict and the Housing Strategy Group:

1. No materials may be placed, affixed, hung or extended from any exterior surface of a MIT residence, including rooftops.

2. Each residence, through their house government, develop their own guidelines for materials that may be displayed within their residence.