Board may not adopt porn policy

Despite a state mandate, the Board of Regents likely won't institute a policy restricting the viewing of pornographic movies on college campuses after months of discussion and student protest.

Citing free speech issues and administrative difficulties, University System Chancellor Brit Kirwan has recommended the Board of Regents — a 17-member panel of gubernatorial appointees that oversees the university system — not pass a film policy at its meeting today.

It is unclear how the state legislature, which required the board to develop a policy in response to the controversy surrounding the screening of Pirates II: Stagnetti's Revenge at the university last spring, will react to the move.

"It would be extraordinary for us to refuse a mandate from the General Assembly, and I think we would very much run the risk of some policy being created that we wouldn't have any real say over," Kirwan said last month. "I don't think any of us want to go there."

Kirwan could not be reached for comment yesterday.

But Board of Regents Chairman Cliff Kendall said the board has given the issue ample consideration, consulting legal experts and postponing its deadline for several months to allow for more discussion and student, faculty and staff input.

"Having spent several months looking at different drafts of policies that didn't make much sense to me ... and having some of the best legal minds in this area looking at it, I think that some people may suggest some things, but when responsible people look at it, my assumption is they'll come to the same conclusion we came to," Kendall said.

Pornographic movies have been shown on this campus before, but this past April, State Sen. Andrew Harris (R-Baltimore and Harford) threatened to withhold funding for any university that showed obscene films after learning of plans to screen Pirates II at the Hoff Theater. As a compromise, the legislature eventually asked the Board of Regents to develop a policy regarding the viewing of unseemly films.

As recently as last month, the university system was considering policies that could have added educational components to screenings of objectionable movies.

But Kendall said any policy would create administrative headaches. Somebody would have to spend time and effort overseeing the policy and would have to define what counts as "objectionable," Kendall said, noting not even the U.S.Supreme Court has been able to define pornography.

While lamenting the university's association with pornography, Kendall said the board is committed to protecting freedom of speech.

"We did not want to imfinge upon that," he said. "Or even imply that we're impinging on it."

Students, who have been generally opposed to the policy, said they were pleased with Kirwan's recommendation.

"I couldn't be happier with the outcome," said Sarah Elfreth, a Towson senior and the lone student representative on the Board of Regents. "I think it's a victory not only for students, but faculty were involved, and I think it's a victory for higher education in general. ... If you had asked me even a month ago what the outcome would be, I never would have guessed."

Elfreth said out of the hundreds of students she had talked to about the issue, just one was in favor of instituting a film policy. On the campus, students spoke out against the mandate at a free speech forum last month, and the Student Government Association easily approved a bill sponsored by SGA legislator Kenton Stalder opposing any kind of movie policy.

"I'm really satisfied the Board of Regents has decided that ideas are worth more than unsubstantiated threats to the budget coming down," Stalder said.

"I'm not surprised at all," he added. "There were a lot of people — the media, the board, the legislature — who seemed to be resigned to the fact [there would be a policy], but anybody who understood the issue and what it was at its core recognized that no policy could exist."

cox at umdbk dot com