Law school students request use of a meeting room for a balanced debate on affirmative action. The administration denies the request because such a debate would negatively affect morale and disrupt the educational mission. Is the denial constitutional?

Law school students request use of a meeting room for a balanced debate on affirmative action. The administration denies the request because such a debate would negatively affect morale and disrupt the educational mission. Is the denial constitutional?

• A. No, because the regulation is content-based and must satisfy strict scrutiny.
• B. No, because rational basis scrutiny would suffice for campus regulations.
• C. Yes, because the denial is necessary to protect campus morale.
• D. Yes, because the campus facility is not a public forum.

Answer: (A)

The central idea is how speech is treated when a government entity opens a campus space for student expression. When a university designates a meeting room as a forum for student groups, restrictions based on the content of what is said are generally subject to strict scrutiny. Denying use of the room to holding a balanced debate on affirmative action because the topic itself could affect morale is a content-based restriction on speech. Under strict scrutiny, the government must show a compelling interest and that the restriction is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest, with no less restrictive alternatives. The asserted interests—protecting campus morale and advancing the educational mission—are not automatically compelling enough to justify suppressing a topic from discussion, especially when alternatives exist. For example, the university could implement neutral procedures to prevent disruption, require balanced viewpoints, assign moderators, or schedule the debate at a time or in a manner that minimizes disruption while still allowing speech. Because a blanket ban on a topic in a designated public forum is not narrowly tailored to a compelling interest, the denial is unconstitutional. If the space were not treated as a designated public forum, the outcome could differ, but in this typical campus setting the strict-scrutiny standard applies.

The central idea is how speech is treated when a government entity opens a campus space for student expression. When a university designates a meeting room as a forum for student groups, restrictions based on the content of what is said are generally subject to strict scrutiny. Denying use of the room to holding a balanced debate on affirmative action because the topic itself could affect morale is a content-based restriction on speech.

Under strict scrutiny, the government must show a compelling interest and that the restriction is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest, with no less restrictive alternatives. The asserted interests—protecting campus morale and advancing the educational mission—are not automatically compelling enough to justify suppressing a topic from discussion, especially when alternatives exist. For example, the university could implement neutral procedures to prevent disruption, require balanced viewpoints, assign moderators, or schedule the debate at a time or in a manner that minimizes disruption while still allowing speech. Because a blanket ban on a topic in a designated public forum is not narrowly tailored to a compelling interest, the denial is unconstitutional. If the space were not treated as a designated public forum, the outcome could differ, but in this typical campus setting the strict-scrutiny standard applies.