Everyone must feel free to speak out for change

An individual’s right to voice his or her grievances in the public sphere must be steadfastly protected and defended. The issue of the Honor Court charge facing sophomore Landen Gambill is, at its core, an issue of free speech.

It is important to set aside accusations for a moment and acknowledge the following: In this case, there is no way for a detached observer to know what is true and what is not.

Commentary, rumor and speculation have run rampant in recent days; many of the loudest and most self-assured opinions have been, by nature, flawed due to a lack of certainty about the facts.

It is the job of this editorial board to form opinions based on the facts of a story. But when an absence of facts makes such judgments impossible, we must instead consider the general principle of the issue.

The principle at work here is nothing less than the ability of an individual to speak freely about his or her experience, publicly and controversially, in the hope of righting wrongs.

This has been Gambill’s stated goal. She has publicized her own dealings with the University’s administration and honor system, she claims, to correct its institutional faults. This effort first took the form of coverage in The Daily Tar Heel, and has since spread to national media.

Gambill was one of five to file a complaint accusing the University of violating several federal laws in its treatment of sexual assault on campus. The complaint was a thorough indictment of many top administrators.

Gambill now says the publicity her case has received has led to an Honor Court charge against her: engaging in intimidating behavior against the man she has accused of raping her.

Her account is a disturbing one, for several reasons. It raises questions about the ability of the student-run honor system to provide a semblance of justice in the realm of criminal behavior. And there is no doubt that the conversation around the story could have a chilling effect on the likelihood that victims of sexual assault will take their stories public.

More silence is the last thing we need in this debate.

It is imperative that any who feel wronged ­— including, importantly, the man accused by Gambill — know they have the option of speaking out on the issue. This is often the only way to effect change and seek truth from institutions like the honor system or even the University.

In part, this is why The Daily Tar Heel has pursued this story for months, and why it chose to report on the contents of the federal complaint when it was controversial to do so.

All are free to use media as a means of expression. Any action that might intentionally or unintentionally curtail that ability — an Honor Court charge, for example — must be questioned and scrutinized.

Did the man in question have significant cause to justify a formal charge? It’s impossible to know when opaque institutions control the information and the right to judge — a depressing reality all its own.

The University’s tight grip on information has been constant in recent years, and the source of many black eyes. The Daily Tar Heel has sued twice in less than 20 years for access to public records.

The area of campus crime is no exception. Until recently, few might have realized the honor system has jurisdiction over non-academic violations; this creates concerns surrounding its legitimacy.

On a fundamental level, the process and its many closed doors only heighten the need for transparency and an emphasis on free speech.

In the absence of facts, we can demand no specific action. But the UNC community should be reminded of this foundational right, and the responsibility it has to make everyone feel they can exercise it without recourse.