12/14/21
Problems Before the Symposium
The Symposium went really well. At the beginning of it, there were some issues with the zoom room and with the university’s internet that made the day more memorable. I had just finished the Powerpoint earlier that afternoon before my other class, so the internet deciding to take a break couldn’t have happened at a better time. It was a particularly difficult time trying to connect my computer to someone’s wifi hotspot so I could download the Powerpoint to the flash drive. Needless to say, there were plenty of issues that popped up before my presentation.
The Symposium
Once the presentation started, it went very well. The specific concentrations of my research broke off into a few sections. The first section was general free speech and limitations to free speech. In this section cases such as Schenck and Brandenburg were included. These are two obvious cases involving what the government deems free speech. It also touches on the significant government interest test. This was one of a few main indicators used in my research to determine constitutionality at UWEC and other campuses. The next section was student speech. In the student speech section, I mentioned Tinker, Healy, and Papish. All of these cases referenced a student’s ability to speak at school whether through protest or club participation. All of these cases reference a significant government interest as well as content and viewpoint neutrality. Both are important indicators of the constitutionality of speech limitations. Then, my speech focused on cases specifically about free speech in residencies. The cases discussed in this part were Frisby v. Schultz and City of Ladue v. Gilleo. Frisby was used to show an area in which the authors and I disagreed. Gilleo was mentioned because it is a case about window signage in residential home windows. To finish the presentation, I talked about my conclusion regarding the constitutionality of the window display bans specifically at UWEC. In this conclusion, it was revealed that their rule is perhaps constitutional to some but not all. Additionally, as it is currently enforced, there is little chance it is being enforced constitutionally.
The Future
The next step is adding the secondary sources and finalizing a write-up of my research. Per the McNair program and the Menard Center for Constitutional Studies, my research will also be presented at CERCA. That means, there will be some changes made to adapt to that format and potentially a switch to a poster rather than an oral presentation. That is still months away. For now, my efforts will be focused on making it through finals week and taking a much-needed rest during semester break.
Link to My Presentation
If you would like to hear me talk about my research in-depth for about ten minutes, I would encourage you to watch Day 2 of the McNair Symposium. To access this, click on the link below. You can find my presentation at the timestamp 19:43.
