After one year of Ohio State's ban against chalk on campus sidewalks, the ACLU of Ohio has threatened legal action against the university, calling the ban "unconstitutional."
Ohio State leaders responded saying they disagree with the ACLU's analysis. David Carey, managing legal director of ACLU Ohio, said the organization is prepared to file a lawsuit.
In the letter sent on July 30 to Ohio State University President Ravi Bellamkonda, the ACLU of Ohio said the ban violated the First Amendment. Through their analysis of public records requests, the ACLU of Ohio said the ban was enacted to suppress pro-Palestine and anti-Zionist speech.
On Aug. 30, Amy Nash Golian, senior assistant vice president at the Ohio State Office of Legal Affairs, responded to the ACLU in a letter WOSU received through public records. She said the ban "passes constitutional muster" and the university still provides many ways for students to express themselves such as social media, university bulletin boards and the student newspaper.
"It's very disturbing that OSU chose to go this route," Carey said. "Even though this is sort of superficially couched as a neutral policy, if the reason for putting it in place was to silence one particular viewpoint, then that is a very serious First Amendment violation," Carey said.
WOSU asked students on campus how they feel about the university's response to the ACLU and how student life has been affected since the ban.
Dalina Houangvilay, a third-year journalism student, said the ban is a great disservice to the Ohio State community. She said she is disappointed the new president won't take responsibility after direct confrontation.
"It feels illegal, it really does," Houangvilay said. "What next? What else are they going to take away?"
Several students said the university's response felt inconsiderate.
"I think it's very dismissive," said Andrea Chacon-Ruiz, a fourth-year international business and political science student. "There's not really any sign of trying to work with the [ACLU] or with students and try to hear them out."
Students also reflected on how chalking allowed messages to be spread across campus.
"Chalking was just like a really unique way to catch people's attention, and also let them hear your voice about certain matters," said Biaggio Bican, a fourth-year visual communication design student.
Bican said he is concerned students are now hesitant to speak out about topics they care about.
"It is a very obvious statement that they don't want students speaking about things that they think are fair," said Koree Alvarez, a third-year marketing student. "They'd rather just shut them down."
Amelia Zup, a third-year nutrition dietetics major, said the ban took away the voice of student life, making campus feel less colorful and lively.
Many students said although there are other ways to express viewpoints on campus, they still feel limited.
"Even in other ways that students have tried to express themselves, the university has done something to go against it or stop them from doing it," said Habsa Abdulahi, a fourth-year public health student.
Some students said the university's reaction to chalking seems disproportionate to the action.
"Chalk is one of those things that's easily removable, be that just by splashing water on it or even just the rain and the weather," said Arden McGuire, a first-year atmospheric science student. "It's a simple way to just go outside and express yourself."
Piper Porter, a second-year criminology and criminal justice student, said the ban shouldn't discourage students to continue to voice their concerns.
"I'm not saying that the ban on chalk is okay, but that shouldn't silence you," Porter said. "Do other things to get your point across."
