Tyranny Across the River

THE WEATHER may be the same across the river in Boston, but the political climate sure is different. Boston University President John Silber has been treating his university as his personal fiefdom, making authoritarian decisions with little regard for the concerns of students or faculty.

And as long as conflicts and friction generated between Silber and the B.U. community remain small, he will continue to abuse the power of his office.

When the conflicts involve serious issues, however, Silber's position may become a bit more precarious. He can stomp on his own students if he wishes but skirting the First Amendment poses a greater problem.

B.U., you see, prohibits students from hanging banners outside their dorm windows. Or rather, it did until last week, when a superior court judge ordered the university to put an end to its policy.

The case reveals two things. First, it is now clear that John Silber cannot violate the law when it serves his ends. More important is the revelation that Silber was willing to try to violate basic civil rights to protect his precious image of a tranquil campus.

SILBER AND CRONIES claim that the banner ban exists to avoid conflict with neighborhood residents. Were that really the case, it wouldn't matter; fear of upsetting a few neighbors is not sufficient grounds for violating the First Amendment.

But what makes the situation more sinister is that it appears that the Silber is being--surprise--disingenuous; the university's alleged concern for its neighbors cannot be seen as anything more than a pretense for suppressing political expression. After all, the university permits banners for blood drives and student government elections.

It is only private banners, then which upset the neighbors? Or, don't tell me, only political banners upset the community, so Silber, in his infinite concern, has taken it upon himself to quash them.

NOT ONLY DOES it appear that John Silber is trying to sabotage political expression and dissent at B.U., he is also willing to employ neodraconian means to do so.

Students are first kindly asked to remove their sign. When the student refuses, administrators barge into his dorm room and make sure that the sign is removed. Privacy is clearly as important as free speech across the river.

But that's not all. Students who display signs also face disciplinary action and can be expelled from their dormitories. Just hanging a banner. For the neighbors' sake, of course.

The fact that Silber is willing to kick students off campus and make them face the rack of the Boston housing market reveals the disequilibrium of power which he is willing to exploit. He knows that individual students have no recourse against his harsh discipline except to shut up and obey. Only this time, Silber went too far; he was taken to court and his scorn for the law was, most delightfully, revealed.

The university holds that the ban on banners is fair because all dorm residents sign an agreement not to hang such signs as a condition of residency. But as the judge held, such an agreement is hardly worth the paper its written on; it is just another example of B.U.'s coercion. A student from out of town has no choice but to sign the agreement.

One cannot simply sign away constitutionally protected freedoms. That's about as absurd as forcing students to agree not to discuss politics in the dorms for fear of creating a ruckus, or banning political buttons on campus for fear of offending others. A contract that violates the Constitution may give John Silber something to wave in his hand, but B.U. students wisely called his bluff. Silber's contract typifies his attempt to dress up his actions, but he really adorns himself in the Emperor's wardrobe.