Many students, perhaps even most, find this policy objectionable. What harm is there in writing on the sidewalk with a piece of chalk?

The walls of Lawson Hall bore messages Tuesday promoting a house party on Oak Street and a textbook Web site. It was an effective choice of advertising space, and hundreds – perhaps thousands – of students saw the messages.

While those who rake in money hawking books and having keg parties doubtlessly feel some smug satisfaction, the University takes a dim view of these activities and announced a policy to bill student organizations for the cost of cleaning up their messages. This would apply to chalk messages, fliers, signs or other materials posted anywhere on campus other than in areas specifically designated by the University.

Advertisement

Many students, perhaps even most, find this policy objectionable. What harm is there in writing on the sidewalk with a piece of chalk? Won’t the rain, or foot traffic, or some combination thereof, wear the message away in a short time? Chalk messages on the sidewalk are the least harmful of any of the practices in question. Ignore them, and they go away. They do not represent serious damage to state-supported property. If the University acts with the same speed it demonstrates in picking up cigarette butts, these messages will be gone long before anyone arrives with a power washer.

What about the content of the messages? They are usually innocuous, promoting house parties and sporting events. But what if they contained pornography? Racist slogans? Death threats? The University would then have an interest in removing them, even if the property damage were negligible.

Posting fliers on the Plexiglas of the Brush Towers overpass is another practice specifically targeted by the policy. For many students, this is a time-honored tradition of informal communication in a high-visibility area, and few people posting give any thought to the cost of the cleanup. They see the hundreds of other fliers posted and make the assumption that this is an accepted practice. It’s not a completely unreasonable assumption – students accept it without reservation. University policymakers do not.

Does the University have the right to insist students refrain from defacing the overpass with tape, even if that is contrary to the wishes of most students? Probably. Would it be wiser to seek some sort of compromise, rather than just billing students for the cost of the cleanup? Absolutely.

The University could provide an alternative high-visibility location for flyers. It is hard to envision anything like this happening without some sort of hike in student fees, even if it is inexpensively constructed and relatively low-maintenance – but it could be done.

Any compromise would require students to pursue a policy change through the usual channels – the Undergraduate Student Government, the Graduate and Professional Student Council and the Board of Trustees.

Student government elections are coming up in April. Students who feel disenfranchised by this policy should do more than just flout it or complain about it. They should get involved and propose alternatives – or be prepared to pay the price when the bills arrive.

Advertisement*