For Immediate Release

May 28, 2002




CHICAGO – The free speech rights of students and faculty at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States were violated by a university-wide, March 2001 directive mandating that students and faculty members wishing to voice their objections to the continued use of Chief Illiniwek symbol seek pre-clearance for such objections from the University’s Athletic Department, according to a decision released today by U.S. District Court Judge Michael Mihm in Peoria. Judge Mihm granted a motion for summary judgment filed on behalf of students and faculty members, ruling that the requirement for pre-clearance amounted to a prior restraint on the speech rights of the students and faculty members in violation of their constitutional protections.



In addition, the court denied a motion seeking immunity from damages for former Chancellor Michael Aiken in the matter. This ruling means that the plaintiffs will be allowed to proceed to trial in July 2002, and seek to obtain damages from the former Chancellor.



“Today’s ruling is a vindication for our clients, for their free speech rights and the rights of all persons at the University of Illinois campus to express themselves on matters of public policy,” said Harvey Grossman, Legal Director for the ACLU of Illinois who is providing representation for the students and faculty in this matter. “The court affirmed today that faculty and students at the University have the right to address issues of public concern – including the controversial Chief Illiniwek issue – without being compelled to seek the prior permission of University officials. The court specifically recognized that the Chancellor’s pre-clearance directive had a chilling effect on those who might speak out against the University’s policy of using the Illiniwek symbol at sporting events.”



Today’s decision is the latest development in a lawsuit filed in March 2001 by seven faculty members and students at the Urbana-Champaign campus. Many of the plaintiffs are active in efforts to end the University’s use of the Illiniwek symbol, and had announced plans in February 2001 to contact prospective athletic recruits for the purpose of informing them about the on-going controversy. The group made clear at that time that they would contact the prospective student athletes in order to inform the prospective recruits that many individuals and groups find the use of the Illiniwek symbol disrespectful.



After reports about such efforts circulated in the news media, the Chancellor issued a campus-wide directive (via email) on March 2, 2001, stating that any contacts with prospective student athletes needed to be cleared in advance by personnel from the Athletic Department.



After a hearing in March 2001, Judge Michael Mihm issued a temporary restraining order, barring the University from enforcing the provisions of the pre-clearance directive. In June 2001, the University Chancellor issued a second directive that appeared to withdraw the previous order.



“Today’s ruling is a final decision, finding that the University acted unjustly in this matter,” added Grossman. “The judge found that the pre-clearance directive created a vague, standard-less system where members of the Athletic Department could determine when and where students and faculty could speak out on issues of public importance. While the University never has admitted that the March 2 directive was wrong, a federal judge now has found it to be an unconstitutional infringement upon the rights of students and faculty members.”



The court’s ruling also makes special mention of the importance of protecting free speech in a University setting. Citing a 1977 case from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, the decision notes, “it is axiomatic that the First Amendment must flourish as much in the academic setting as anywhere else. To invoke censorship in an academic environment is hardly the recognition of a healthy democratic society.”



In denying the motion to allow Chancellor Aiken “qualified immunity,” the court today ruled that the Chancellor will be forced to defend his actions at a trial this summer, a trial that will center on the specific damage claims of the plaintiffs, Cydney A. Crue, Brenda Farnell, Fred Hoxie, Stephen Kaufman and Philip Phillips.