Group scores partial victory in free speech fight: Shippensburg is told to rewrite its code of conduct.

The forces behind FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) can score a partial victory in the foundation's fight against Shippensburg University (PA). The conservative group supported two student plaintiffs who brought suit against the state school this summer, arguing that the Shippensburg's establishment of "free-speech zones" on campus actually prohibited free thought and speech instead of encouraging open discourse.

This fall, a judge ruled that while Shippensburg's free speech zones and its written code of conduct were well intentioned, the language used is too broad and could indeed be construed as prohibitive. In March, Shippensburg established a code of conduct that asked students to express their beliefs in "a manner that does not provoke, harass, intimidate, or harm another." The intention of the code seemed harmless enough, but the judge's opinion notes that any contentious speech, when measured against such a broad directive, might be viewed as a violation of the code.

Shippensburg President Anthony Ceddia had noted previously that the school established its speech zones and code of conduct to protect students from others who would use face-to-face intimidation to get their point across. Better that students be exposed to political debate on their way to the library than screamed at white entering their dormitories.

But the plaintiffs in this case claimed to be the ones intimated. They said they were especially afraid to express conservative political or social views. Exactly what these political or social views are were not revealed in the courtroom proceedings, but the outcome fuels FIRE and its promise to bring similar suits against universities across the country.

Still, Ceddia says the outcome isn't necessarily bad news for Shippensburg. Although the school is now charged with rewriting some of the passages in its code of conduct, the judge was clear about the school's legal rights. There is nothing in the ruling that prevents the school from "property regulating student conduct" and enforcing anti-discrimination laws.