•Colleges and universities have long been considered quintessential marketplaces of ideas—places where ideas can be developed, discussed, debated, and ultimately accepted or rejected.  The United States Supreme Court repeatedly has recognized this function of higher education:

                        •“…the classroom is peculiarly the ‘marketplace of ideas’”

                        Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589, 603 (1967)

                        •”…the college classroom with its surrounding environs is

                        peculiarly the ‘marketplace of ideas.”

Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169, 180 (1972).

                        •”…essentiality of freedom in the community of American

                        universities is almost self-evident…teachers and students must

                        always remain free to inquire, to study, and to evaluate, to gain

new maturity and understanding” Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234, 250 (1957).

•Some ideas may be considered offensive, but that should have no bearing on whether it may be considered within the marketplace of ideas.  It is well settled that offensiveness is not a sufficient reason to censor those ideas—however distasteful.  As Justice William Brennan wrote in Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 414 (1989):

            “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First

            Amendment, it is that the government may not

            prohibit the expression of an idea simply because

            society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”

•The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot prohibit speech simply because it expresses disfavored or offensives views (R.A.V. v.  City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992)) or because it uses offensive language (Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971)).

•Universities that have tried to stop expression because the content is distasteful or offensive have been stopped by the courts.  (Doe v. University of Michigan, 721 F. Supp. 852 (E.D. Mich.1989 ).

•Universities that have tried to limit demonstrations by students also have been stymied by the federal courts because such measures typically amount to an unconstitutional prior restraint on expression.

            •Healy v. James 408 U.S. 169 (1972).

•Students Against Apartheid Coalition v. O’Neil, 838 F.2d 735 (4^th Cir. 1988).

•Hammond v. South Carolina State College, 272 F. Supp. 947 (D.S.C. 1967).

•An oversight board created by a state-related university or any government entity would be tantamount to a system of prior restraint.  Any such system is viewed by the courts with a “heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.” Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 70 (1963); See also New York Times Co. v. United States,  403 U.S. 713 (1971).