Judge Voids Speech Limits at O.C. Campus

A federal judge invalidated many of the restrictions placed on student speech and demonstrations at Irvine Valley College in a preliminary ruling released Monday.

Students and faculty members said they were planning a “celebratory demonstration” at the school after U.S. District Judge Audrey B. Collins determined that several aspects of the South Orange County Community College District’s policy regulating speech and expression on campus were unconstitutional.

Three Irvine Valley College students, claiming the policy violated their 1st Amendment rights, had requested a preliminary injunction preventing the district from enforcing it in a lawsuit filed Aug. 31.

Though the judge upheld portions of the policy, she struck down provisions that would prevent students from holding demonstrations or gatherings in all but a few designated areas on campus. In particular, she said students should be allowed to hold gatherings in front of the Student Services Center, a prominent and central location where student activities had traditionally been held.

Collins also struck down the portion of the policy that prevented students from using microphones and other amplification equipment.

“When a large gathering is expected, those engaged in speech and advocacy activities understandably want and need amplification equipment to ensure their message is heard by their intended audience,” Collins wrote.

The policy was adopted by the South Orange County Community College District last spring. In addition to Irvine Valley College, it also applies to Saddleback College, the district’s other campus.

A final ruling on the students’ motion for a preliminary injunction is expected within days.

“It’s great that we can use the court system and they acknowledge our need,” said Dorothy Caruso, one of the three student plaintiffs. “On the other hand, it’s sad that we have to take the administration to court in order to get them to honor our freedom of speech.”

Lawyer Carol Sobel, who is representing the students pro bono, said she is pleased with aspects of the ruling but has serious concerns regarding the provisions the judge has so far left standing.

“I’m certainly very pleased that my clients are happy with the decision. But I’m a 1st Amendment advocate, and I always want to make sure that 1st Amendment rights are protected as broadly as they can be under the law,” Sobel said.

In a written statement, the law firm of Wilion, Kirkwood & Kessler said on behalf of the school district: “The district respectfully disagrees with the court in regard to certain positions of the court’s tentative decision. Nevertheless, the district is evaluating the tentative decision based on the recommendation of the court. The district is anxious to have a policy that preserves its educational goal, and is consistent with the 1st Amendment.”