Apparently, when University of Maryland, College Park decided to allow the showing of a XXX-rated pornographic film on campus last week, they didn't realize they were stepping into a hornet's nest. State Senator Andy Harris went so far as to propose an amendment that would pull state funding from College Park if they showed the film, a move that provoked outraged cries of First Amendment violation. But do students really have a constitutional right to watch hard-core porn in university buildings maintained with public money? I doubt it.
Despite the worry that this sort of intervention constitutes a bad precedent for future state influence on university policy, the fact remains that College Park is a state school. In almost every sphere of business, the person who puts up the money has a pretty substantial say in how that money is used—they want to see a profitable return on their investment. If they don't like the causes that money is used to support, or they don't think they are getting a good return, they are perfectly within their rights to reinvest elsewhere. In this case, since the state holds the purse strings, the state automatically has a certain amount of legitimate influence over UMCP. If College Park wants complete autonomy to decide how to use its resources and buildings, then it should refuse state money.
This, however, raises the question of whether public funds should be used to sponsor such viewings. I would argue not for two reasons. First of all, there are legitimate concerns about the social impacts of pornography. Professor of Psychology Victor Cline writes that, "...a number of studies suggest a relationship (correlation) between early exposure to pornography and later sexual promiscuity and deviancy." Although he qualifies this statement by saying that a correlation does not necessarily indicate a cause-and-effect relationship, he does document several different studies showing sexual offenders were more likely to use pornography in conjunction with their crimes. In light of this, why should the state fund institutions that sponsor such potentially harmful material?
Second, in College Park's case, it was argued that the film had educational value since a representative of Planned Parenthood was scheduled to talk about safe sex afterwards. This is laughable. The film was provided in order to give "a little stress break for students," according to the director of College Park's Hoff Theater. Additionally, this viewing at UMCP is part of a nationwide campaign sponsored by the film's maker, Digital Playground, in order to market pornography to a broader audience. In the words of the company's spokesperson Adella Curry, Digital Playground is targeting the "well-educated, big-spending consumers of the future." Education? Right. Why should government funds support (even indirectly) this form of entertainment so repugnant to a large segment of taxpayers? As for the "educational value" of the Planned Parenthood presentation, can anyone seriously argue that young adults these days do not know about safe sex? Please.
Finally, even if we ignore all this and just focus on whether this kind of porn is protected by free speech rights, such a claim still seems doubtful. In 1973, the Supreme Court established a standard for obscenity in Miller v. California, allowing states to regulate or ban material that meets three criteria: First, does it appeal to the prurient side of people's natures? I think it's hard to argue that porn does anything but appeal to people's baser instincts. Second, is it really offensive to a large portion of the population? Again, it's hard to picture a XXX-rated porn film as the established viewing norm in America. Finally, does the material lack all literary, artistic, political, and/or scientific value? In a film described as "hokey" and "corny" by The Baltimore Sun, it's hard to see the overriding merit that would warrant a university-sponsored viewing of this film.
Let me be clear: This is not about morality. If students want to watch pornography in their dorm rooms or on their laptops that is a personal decision that no one else can make for them. The issue here is whether they have the right to do so in public buildings. The answer is no.