On January 12, five students and two non-students at Florida International University (FIU) were arrested for participation in an Occupy Miami protest and for not holding the protest in one of the designated free speech zones on campus. In response, FIU students wrote a letter to University President Mark Rosenberg asking the school to eliminate designated free-speech zones and allow the entire campus to speak freely, as they feel that limiting students to free-speech zones is a violation of their first amendment rights. One school, the University of North Texas, did recently get rid of free speech zones in favor of extending free speech across the entire campus, amidst pressure from students and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, following examples ser by many other schools.

In an age where "the protester" is Time magazine's person of the year, free-speech zones where protests can occur are becoming increasingly relevant. While that choice reflected political uprisings in foreign nations as well as movements such as Occupy Wall Street, the protester seems to be gaining momentum and power in the public eye. Free speech zones seem to be a way for threatened groups and entities to contain their agitators while keeping up the appearance of fairness.

On the flip side, there are places such as our own campus that do not allow for an established space for complete and total free speech. Students here do not seem especially eager to mount a protest against, say, the cafeteria (not anymore, at least), but that may be because they would not know what to do if they had that desire.

At Rose Hill, one has to file formal protest papers, get them approved, obtain club backing and wait for three weeks before he or she can actually stage that protest. Is it not counterproductive to ask someone for permission to protest against them?

Some may remember the failed Maroon Square proposal of 2009, a 26-page document which called for the removal of protest application guidelines in one specific area of campus. The proposal wanted to eliminate the administrative hurdles students face when organizing a protest, namely a discrepancy between the three-week space reservation policy and the two-day protest approval policy, and though students and administration reached a compromise on Maroon Square, many of the major issues from 2009, including the lack of a designated free- speech zone, remain unresolved.

What Fordham students have to decide is how much they want an area designated specifically for free speech in the face of a campus that does not allow it.  Coming back to the caf example, say Martyrs' Lawn became a free-speech zone. People could go and protest the caf there, but the attention it attracted would undoubtedly come from annoyed students on their way to the library to memorize important terms from Pope John Paul II's encyclical letters. The quality of food in the cafeteria, in this case, takes on an air of significantly less importance.

The students at FIU and elsewhere are certainly on to something. How right or wrong they are depends on an individual's views; however, most can probably agree that those in charge must take steps to somehow address free speech and the territories it spawns on college campuses. Perhaps there should be a standard for every college, some form of free speech areas on every campus where students, faculty and administrators alike can express themselves. Asking for total free speech everywhere may be too selfish at this point. Maybe we can take it step-by-step, gradually building toward an open dialogue on free speech, if not toward total free speech itself. If the powers that be do not give us everything we want in due time, we can stage a protest.