Director defends Muhammad speech

Jeane Caveness, senior director of Student Life and Development at Cal State Long Beach, said that the Associated Students Inc. did not violate any policies when it provided funds for the Black Consciousness Conference where former Nation of Islam member Khallid Abdul Muhammad gave a speech on Nov. 19.

Caveness granted confirmation to the Black Student Union and the Black Cultural Programming to hold the conference.

Upon granting confirmation she said that she was aware that Muhammad was going to speak at the conference and at that point A.S. policies were not violated.

Caveness also said that Muhammad had spoken at CSULB on three occasions preceding the 1994 conference and that no other complaints had been made against him.

"The university is a marketplace of ideas," Caveness said. "People should be free to defend their own points of view and perspectives."

She added that ideological speech is the most ambiguous area discussed because it can assume various definitions.

The controversy was not a result of what was said in Muhammad's speech, but rather the alleged misuse of mandatory student fees. Controversy erupted when A.S. Sen. Steve Negley and CSULB student Joseph Thinn sued the BSU, the committee and the A.S.I. for this alleged misuse.

In his complaint, Negley said the speech was in violation of the 1993 California Supreme Court Smith vs. UC Board of Regents ruling, in which students at UC Berkeley challenged the use of mandatory student fees to fund 14 various interest groups.

The ruling states that mandatory student fees cannot be used to support activities or student organizations whose focus is to advance political or ideological interests.

The policy which stemmed from the case was adopted at CSULB on Jan. 31, 1995 by the A.S. Board of Control.

Negley argued that Muhammad's speech was offensive and should be subjected to the policy because he considered it to be of ideological content.

"I don't care if it's David Duke or Khallid Muhammad or any other hate speaker that comes up here and gives a speech, it's wrong," Negley said. "It's ideological and it's wrong."

Negley said that his primary goal in pursuing his case is not to seek retribution, but to remedy how the A.S.I. chooses to fund certain activities through policy change. He added that the A.S.I. has no real set policy on how it chooses to fund activities on campus. A.S. treasurer Allison Swinson said that the A.S.I. does observe the Smith vs. UC Board of Regents ruling and its required guidelines concerning speakers on campus.

These guidelines were set to provide adequate security, advertisements and a question and answer session. Approval from a director of Student Life and Development Office is also needed.

The Black Cultural Programming Committee was granted about $2,000 by the A.S.I to advertise for the event.

Swinson said she was told by Jack Pearson, director of University Police at CSULB, it was university policy that any event that draws a crowd more than 300 required the presence of security. "One of our main concerns was security," Swinson said. "Not for Khallid, but for our students."

While speaking at UC Riverside Muhammad was shot in the leg. Swinson added that the incident at the university was an act against Muhammad and not the student body.

The question and answer session guideline was also met while Muhammad was on campus. Caveness said that the 20-minute session was available to students to give them the chance to present different view and ideas for debate and discussion.

On March 13, the A.S. Judiciary dismissed charges against the BSU saying that the BSU was not the correct party named in the case. It was dismissed with prejudice, meaning that the BSU cannot be renamed as a defendant in the case nor can Negley or Thinn refile their case against the BSU.

At another hearing on the same day, Negley and Thinn dismissed their case against the committee. Negley was told by the judiciary that the Smith ruling would apply to the provider of the funds, the A.S.I., and not the receiver of those funds, the committee. Therefore, the dismissals of the BSU and the committee left only one defendant, the A.S.I.

On March 20, Mark Raber, acting special counsel to the A.S.I., was granted a one-week continuance citing that the A.S.I. had not been in contact with former A.S. Attorney General Daisy Uy Kimpang Gonzales, which hindered the defense since her files weren't accessible. Another date for the hearing was set for March 27.

The hearing was postponed once again on March 27 when the judiciary was unable to meet quorum (conduct business) because one of the justices was ill and could not attend the hearing.

A hearing has been rescheduled for April 3 for the judiciary to decide if the A.S.I violated policy funding the conference where Muhammad spoke.