In the wake of controversy about sexually themed events, students, parents, lawmakers and university officials are discussing ways to deal with similar situations in the future.

At one extreme, state Rep. John Lawless has adopted a paternalistic stance, insisting that someone must keep an eye on wayward students before they sponsor more scandalously naughty events that might make people blush.

On the other hand, some student groups, including the Penn State America Civil Liberties Union and Womyn's Concerns, insist that students are not accountable to taxpayers if their events are funded by the Student Activity Fee or by the clubs themselves.

University officials and student leaders are considering a middle road by monitoring such things as the content of banners, limiting entry to certain events to students with a Penn State ID, and requiring students to explain in detail the content of an event before they can reserve a room.

At face value, these suggestions may seem like a sensible way to prevent Penn State from suffering another public relations embarrassment. It may also seem like an easy way to ensure that state lawmakers have no excuses when it's time to allocate funds.

However, these policies raise serious First Amendment concerns. Having an official or committee judge banners on a case-by-case basis is an invitation for abuse. Personal politics will prevail, and students' rights to free speech will suffer. Penn Sg tate must be consistent — either prohibit banners altogether or allow all banners that don't violate laws. Just because something is thought of as offensive or crude doesn't make it legally obscene.

In addition, it makes little sense to restrict some events and not others to Penn State students based purely on their content. The State College community has the right to benefit from the university's learning environment, especially when their use of our resources doesn't cost a penny. And if someone wanted to bring a friend from another university to the Sex Faire, why should we prevent that?

A more appropriate solution might be to limit attendance to sexually oriented events to those who are older than 18. However, even this should be avoided. Parents and legal guardians, not university officials, should have ultimate discretion over what events their children attend.

The university should not have any say in student-initiated, student-funded, student-run activities. This is a form of suppression that will nip thought-provoking events in the bud, because student groups will engage in self-censorship and tone down their proposals to meet the university officials' standards.

Student-imposed restrictions are already in place in the form of the University Park Allocation Committee, which disperses funds from the Student Activity Fee. Additional oversight is neither necessary nor appropriate.