Although NIU did not take the 1988 case involving the suspension of Sigma Chi to court, the fraternity’s actions might not have been protected by the First Amendment if they had, according to NIU’s legal counsel.

Speech protected by the First Amendment in one situation might not be protected in another, said George Shur, NIU legal counsel.

The two-year suspension of a George Mason University fraternity in Fairfax, Va., was overturned by a U.S. District judge last week. The fraternity was suspended for performing a skit similar to the blackface skit that resulted in a one-year suspension for the NIU Sigma Chi chapter in November, 1988.

In determining which cases are protected, several aspects have to be considered, including the context of the speech, the location and whether the rights of others were violated, Shur said.

“It’s terribly difficult to differentiate what is protected,” Shur said. “You have to look at things after they occur.”

For example, bull horns cannot be used at 2 a.m., he said. “But we have all kinds of space cadets passing things out in the commons.”

Because the protection of individual incidents only can be determined after they occur, “playing around” with ethnicity, sex, race and religion is risky, Shur said.

“All the university can do is to create an atmosphere where everybody on campus can feel comfortable,” Shur said.

The Artistic Freedom and Artistic Expression Amendment, passed at Wednesday’s University Council meeting, protects the rights of students in an academic and artistic setting unless the behavior is intentionally offensive, Shur said.

Norman Magden, professor of media arts, said the new amendment protects respected artists with serious intentions.

Also, Magden said in his judgement, the Sigma Chi fraternity would not be protected under the amendment because they were fraternity members and not artists.