Free speech at a private university is a tricky subject.

“Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the people peaceably to assemble,” states a portion of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. But Indiana Wesleyan University, as a private institution with its own legislative bodies, retains some level of discretion regarding what it will allow to be said on its campus.

In a failed attempt at a complete sentence, Page 26 of the 2011/2012 student handbook states, “Obstructing or disrupting the teaching and/or learning process in any campus classroom, building, or meeting area, or any University-sponsored activity, pedestrian or vehicular traffic, classes, lectures or meetings, obstructing or restricting another person’s freedom of movement or normal functioning, or inciting, aiding, or encouraging other persons to do so.”

The suggestion is, of course, that these things are not permitted. But, in my mind, the regulation leaves more question marks than periods. What precisely does it take to disrupt pedestrian traffic? Would a peaceful protest of picketers in the Barnes Student Center – like the Nov. 2, 2011 “Occupy Wildcat” event – be interpreted as a violation of this clause in the student handbook? I sure hope not.

Likewise, Page 18 says, “Demeaning gestures, intimidation, threats or physical altercations directed toward another person are not permitted.”

Threatening someone with physical harm or actually carrying out said harm is an understandable thing to prohibit. But what exactly is a demeaning gesture? I presume that flipping someone off falls into this category. But what about aggressively shaking a fist at someone, giving someone a thumbs down or placing your index finger into a circle formed by the opposing index finger and thumb? Those are all demeaning gestures, some of which should, I believe, be preserved for the sake of freedom of expression.

Pages 47-48 organize hypothetical violations into two tiers: level one and level two. Verbal altercation or disrespect to university personnel, including resident assistants, desk workers and “Hall Council,” constitutes a level one violation. The list of more severe level two violations includes actions that are considered threatening and/or intimidating. Speaking from experience, I don’t think yelling at one’s roommate should be listed as a punishable offense.

Under the heading “Exercise Self-Control,” page 19 of the handbook emphasizes the regulation-writers’ use of the Bible in developing each guideline: “Those acts which are expressly forbidden in Scripture, including theft, lying, dishonesty, gossip, slander, profanity, vulgarity, adultery, homosexual behavior, premarital sex, drunkenness, gluttony, immodesty, intentional self-harm and occult practice will not be practiced by members of the Indiana Wesleyan community, either on or off campus.”

That list prohibits six types of expression, including lying, dishonesty, gossip, slander, profanity and vulgarity. Let’s discuss four of them.

Gossip is practiced by those with a loose tongue, typically with little regard for fact-checking. Slander is always spoken, and it always involves a false claim that damages someone else.

Profanity and vulgarity have a more nuanced relationship. Oaths, blasphemy and irreverence are all profane, while that which is vulgar is merely low-class, coarse or corporeally explicit.

Consider the words of Jesus as translated in the New International Version of Matthew 5:21-22, when He said: “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!” will be in danger of the fire of hell.”

According to Zondervan’s NIV exhaustive concordance, “raca” was a Greek derivative of an Aramaic word meaning “empty-headed,” and the English phrase “You fool!” was translated from the Greek word “moros,” which simply means “fool.”

So saying “raca” was a crime, according to the Law, but saying “moros” jeopardized the fate of one’s eternal soul by violating a higher Law. How, then, did Jesus justify his exclamation later in Matthew’s Gospel?

“You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred?” asked Jesus in the NIV translation of Matthew 23:17. Translators selected “moros” as the best Greek equivalent for whom Jesus called “fools,” and they did so before the end of the very Gospel in which Jesus forbade such designations.

My point? Jesus did not blacklist words. The words themselves were not dirty – the words were vehicles for acts punishable by Law or by fire.

These passages remind me of multiple stories I’ve heard of evangelical congregations being shocked by their pastors’ use of vulgarity to solidify a sermon point. But what does this have to do with the enforcement of the IWU student handbook?

Certainly a Christian university will prohibit the use of profanity, but vulgarity is more difficult to define. Currently there seems to be an assumption among those in the IWU community that certain words are appropriate and certain words are not. I would suggest that we, instead, discuss why we collectively accept or reject certain vocabulary, as a diversity of opinions thrive regarding this very issue.

This column is part of a series:
The handbook: an introduction
The handbook: intellectual property
The handbook: free speech
The handbook: sexual misconduct
The handbook: bigotry

The past week marks a major shift in the American debate over intellectual property rights and the enforcement of existing legal codes.

Online powerhouses roused dissent among commoners Jan. 18 by publicly protesting two bills proposed by the U.S. Congress. Wikipedia censored itself for 24 hours to draw attention to legislation that could, according to its opponents, “break the Internet.”

FBI agents acted on more than 20 search warrants Jan. 19 in nine different countries, seizing $50 million in assets and 18 domain names related to Megaupload.com, according to The New York Times, all in the name of enforcing existing copyright law.

“Anonymous” responded quickly. By day’s end, the clandestine collective of hacktivists took down major websites that supported the Megaupload raid, including sites belonging to the FBI, the Department of Justice and the copyright offices in the U.S. and France. Also affected were websites belonging to major proponents of the proposed anti-piracy legislation, including the Motion Picture Association of America, the Recording Industry Association of America, Universal Music, Warner Music and others.

Congress then tabled the two controversial anti-piracy bills Jan. 20, two days after their proposals caused such a stir online.

But Congress isn’t the only legislative body with an interesting stance on intellectual property rights. Crack open a 2011/2012 student handbook, if you care to read a curious claim made by Indiana Wesleyan University officials regarding content produced by its students:

Page 30 states that “all information composed, transmitted, received or stored via the IWU computer system is also considered the property of Indiana Wesleyan University. As such, all stored information is subject to disclosure to management, law enforcement and other third parties, with or without notice to the student.”

This “Exclusive Property” clause in the handbook may appear to be an attempt to comply with lawful requests by law enforcement officers, whether they be enforcing state law or IWU codes of conduct. But if this were truly the only purpose served by the rule, it would merely restate the “Technology Equipment” clause a page earlier, which reads:

“Technology equipment provided by the University is the property of IWU, and as such IWU retains the right to remove, reallocate, or change equipment at its discretion. No information residing on any computer hardware owned by IWU should be considered private and therefore is subject to review by University staff.”

This “Technology Equipment” clause is completely acceptable, but the “Exclusive Property” clause makes the dubious claim that everything I transmit, using IWU’s technological equipment, belongs to the school.

I spent a semester at the L.A. Film Studies Center, a program offered by the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities. For insurance reasons, all films produced by LAFSC students belong to the center, which I was required to list as the “production company” for each of the three films I produced.

Upon returning to IWU, I spoke with my academic adviser, Dr. Randall King, to ensure that the short film I produce for my senior project would remain my property alone. Instead, this rule could possibly indicate otherwise.

The question rests in how the interpreters of these two clauses choose to define “information.” Does the “Exclusive Property” clause claim intellectual rights to my film and anything I write, such as this column? Or does the term “information” apply solely to the lingering files archived by the IWU technology equipment? The former interpretation presents some terrifying legal ramifications, while the latter makes me ask what the “Exclusive Property” clause adds to the “Technology Equipment” clause a page earlier.

Policies like these are not unique to IWU. Other university policy books include similar clauses which are similar to rules commonly enforced in the corporate world. Regardless, this is a prime example of an ambiguously worded student handbook rule with potentially contentious implications.

This column is part of a series:
The handbook: an introduction
The handbook: intellectual property
The handbook: free speech
The handbook: sexual misconduct
The handbook: bigotry

Freshman year, I spent months looking for one T-shirt.

Ever the stereotypically poor college student, I rarely buy anything brand new, so my search was confined to thrift stores in multiple states.

During Christmas break that year, I spent a blustery winter day perusing my local Goodwill (a veritable gold mine for all clothing trendy and unique) looking for anything of interest.

Then I found it. It was purple, near (ish) my size, with white block print. The familiar logo read, “To Write Love on Her Arms.”

I’d seen similar shirts on dozens of trendy art majors, “McConnites” and upperclassmen during my first semester at Indiana Wesleyan

University, although I had no idea what the words actually meant. I’d looked up the logo months before out of curiosity and knew it represented a cause, but that wasn’t why I immediately took the shirt to the register.

I bought it because I wanted to be like them. To me, it was the equivalent of a North Face jacket, UGG boots or a feather permanently twisted into someone’s hair: just another trend.

The world we’ve grown up in can’t seem to get enough of causes. Today, there are more non-profit organizations than ever before, each vying for attention and donations to support very specific, intentional causes. Most of which, entirely merit support.

Most of which, go through various phases of popularity with resident “in” crowds.

And more than likely, most of which have many supporters without the slightest knowledge of the implications of their support. Think Facebook status, online surveys, “tweet for a cause” –  type things.

Urbandictionary.com defines this supporter-situation as “The act of participating in obviously pointless activities as an expedient alternative to actually expending effort to fix a problem.” It’s so popular, in fact, it was the “word of the day” on March 28, 2008.
“Slacktivism.”

(And yes, I had to go off-campus to look that up. Thanks, iprism.)

Recently, I had a conversation with a few friends on the topic, where we discussed the fate of our generation, specifically concerning politics.

In the midst of disparaging our peers for their apparent apathy concerning things that actually matter (the state of the world, international affairs, hunger, poverty etc.), my dear friend Caitie brought up an interesting point.

“I don’t think that’s true,” she said simply. “We aren’t apathetic, we’re just different.” She explained how our generation’s version of activism or “slacktivism,s” as previously defined, is simply a different way of looking at the needs of the world.

Always skeptical, I asked her to define her terms.

She explained how interacting with others through the Internet and supporting causes through indirect means doesn’t mean we’re not making a difference. It just means we view the world differently than those of the past. We connect differently.

That’s all true. But does it work?

I don’t have statistics that measure the amount of awareness raised via “slacktivist” means. I can’t give you numbers on support donated, seals saved or lives changed.

Perhaps there are some. Maybe someday, I’ll get a grant and do the research myself. Until then, I’ll still probably be skeptical.

But I hope that at the very least, I’m more aware. Aware of not only what the needs are in the world, but what the best ways to meet them are.

And, for heaven’s sake, aware of the cause that I’m supporting, whether that’s through virtual, or physical means.

I stopped wearing that shirt two years ago. After I finally understood the cause, I knew it wasn’t my cause; for me, it would always be a trend.

Instead, I gave it to someone whose dear friend struggled with suicide and depression. She didn’t care about the color or who else was wearing it. She cared about the cause. For her, awareness was worth thought in her morning clothing choice.

I love the fact that my peers are aware enough of the world to realize that there are needs and means of meeting them. My concern, however, is that the needs will become the means to a trend, instead of a solution.

We may be “slacktivists” compared with the civil rights advocates of the past or the anti-war protesters of our parent’s generation. We will always be more virtual, more tech-savvy, more removed. But perhaps that doesn’t negate our activism, it simply changes it.

The next generation will decide if our method works.

Some of the rules established by Indiana Wesleyan University have received widespread attention among students in recent years. The evangelical school’s stance on media, social dancing and compulsory chapel services are frequent topics of heated debate. Meanwhile, potentially contentious lesser-known rules have gone uncritiqued.

IWU published an updated, 64-page student handbook in October 2011 that specifically requires students to familiarize themselves with its contents.

“IWU students are responsible for the behavior expectations and policies set forth in this handbook,” states page 4 of the 2011/2012 handbook.

“All students should be familiar with and abide by the expectations set forth in this publication.”

These expectations include some nuanced clauses that may be unfamiliar to students.

Page 44 explicitly forbids opening windows “to transmit music to the community outside the residence hall.” (That’s right, Scripture Hall Disney fans, we’re looking at you.)

“All candles are prohibited,” states page 35. “This includes wickless gel candles, candle warmers, and decorative candles.”

Officials have very clearly defined IWU as a dry campus. Students are not allowed to drink alcohol off-campus or attend dance events where alcohol is sold or provided. Page 31 of the handbook takes the rule a step further and prohibits alcohol substitutes, including “near beer,” which includes a variety of malt beverages with little or no alcohol. Page 35 prohibits empty beverage containers, advertisements and clothing items that promote alcohol on-campus.

“As a Christian community, IWU is careful not to celebrate the pagan holiday called Halloween, with its emphasis on the occult, witches, the dead, ghosts, and rituals,” states page 22. “For this reason students should avoid dressing in costumes or otherwise promoting Halloween during this time of year. Therefore, any event or activity on or near Halloween which may include costumes must be approved by Student Development in advance of the promotion and marketing of the event.”

In two separate paragraphs on page 19, the handbook necessitates church attendance, stating that IWU community members “are to revere the name of God and observe the Lord’s Day through worship and spiritual edification and renewal for tasks ahead.”

Some of the handbook’s regulations are clearly defined, but others leave questions in the minds of students and administrators who interpret the loosely worded rules differently.

For instance, is the church attendance policy to be interpreted as a rule or a suggestion? That question may seem petty, but other questions are clearly not.

Are students permitted to attend a dance-free party where alcohol is served, so long as students do not consume alcohol? There are clear rules against drinking and attending dance events at venues where alcohol is sold or provided, but there is no prohibition of simply being in the presence of alcohol.

This did not stop the drafters of the handbook from suggesting that such a rule exists. Page 47 summarizes potential handbook violations in an inexhaustive list that includes “attending a party where alcohol is served (unsolicited confession)” as a Level I violation.

Points of potential contention and varied interpretation exist throughout the 2011/2012 handbook. The legislative process is one of constant evolution, so these cases represent issues that should be clarified one way or another in the coming semesters.

In each of the next few weeks, I will explore one or two topics found in the student handbook with lesser-known rules or inconsistencies in hopes of highlighting points that should be clarified or abolished, including issues of sexual misconduct, intellectual property rights, free speech and nondiscrimination.

As always, The Sojourn invites IWU community members to participate in the conversation. Send a letter to the editor to iwusojourn@gmail.com.

This column is part of a series:
The handbook: an introduction
The handbook: intellectual property
The handbook: free speech
The handbook: sexual misconduct
The handbook: bigotry