Stephanie Babines' sultry dance spins and gyrating hips aren't the only moves that are shaking things up in Adams Township, a small suburb 25 miles north of Pittsburgh.
If the 30-year-old computer programmer hadn't ruffled enough feathers when she first applied for an occupancy permit to open an exercise studio to teach pole dancing and other risqué fandango, the federal lawsuit she brought against the zoning board in August certainly did.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Pennsylvania sued the township on Babines' behalf, claiming it trampled her First Amendment rights of expression by denying her the permit.
"She wants to teach dance to willing students," ACLU attorney Sara Rose said. "Saying she can't teach it there because it's too provocative ... is a First Amendment violation."
Babines' suit entered the system at the same time the U.S. Supreme Court had on its docket a case involving a different sort of provocative speech: Whether television networks should be fined when f-bombs are dropped on live television.
But at a zoning board meeting on Tuesday night, Adams Township officials reversed their earlier decision, voting unanimously to issue Babines an occupancy permit. The lawsuit will continue through the federal court system so attorney and damage fees can be determined.
Babines might not be as famous as Cher or Nicole Richie, the stars who provoked the case the Supreme Court will hear in early November, but her issue is just as important.
Though the local zoning ordinance prevents "adult" businesses from setting up shop within 1,000 feet of residential areas (such restrictions have been upheld by the high court), the lawsuit argued that Babines' studio does not fall into this category. On that basis, if the board refused to grant her the permit, Rose argued, the application of the ordinance would be unconstitutional.
First off, how a dance studio offering lessons in pole dancing, an increasingly popular exercise routine practiced both in public health clubs and private settings, could be misconstrued as an adult business speaks volumes about how out of touch the township officials are.
In a post-Footloose era, it's no secret that sex and dancing often go hand in hand.
More troubling, however, was the board's attempt to prevent sexual self-expression. If the bumps and grinds in pole dancing courses could be restricted, what's next? The future wouldn't look so spicy for salsa and tango. As if the decision itself was not suspect enough, the process that led to it was marked by either laziness or prejudice.
The code enforcement officer never interviewed Babines or scoped out the studio before denying her the permit. In fact, at an appeals hearing he testified that he made his decision after observing the pink and white logo and platform high-heeled shoe on Babines' Web site, ohmyyouregorgeous.com. How could government officials logically conclude the illegality of a business based on the color scheme of a Web site?
Before the zoning board changed its mind, Clay Calvert, Penn State communications professor and co-director of the Pennsylvania Center for the First Amendment, said the studio deserved the same treatment as any other local business.
"It's a misclassification of the business that does not appear to be sexually oriented," said Calvert, who serves on The Daily Collegian's Board of Directors. "It's symptomatic of our society's overreaction to any speech that has a sexual component to it."
Besides, most zoning ordinances nationwide seek to reduce undesirable "secondary effects" -- prostitution, crime, violence, lower property values, and so forth -- that could flare up near adult businesses.
But Babines' dance studio will do nothing of the sort. Liquor will not be served and no spectators will be permitted. And if all that isn't sufficient indication that this is not a strip joint: Every participant will be wearing clothes.
"That's the great thing about this country. Each township and community gets to make their own laws," John Brown, chairman of the zoning board, told the New York Times last month. "And I'm sure what they allow in San Francisco and other places is different from what we do here in Adams Township."
I wonder if Brown thought about John Quincy Adams when he initially made the decision to deny Babines the permit. After all, he is the president for whom the township was named and the son of one of the most vocal proponents for a Bill of Rights at the Constitutional Convention.
Though the elder John Adams would surely be surprised by Baby and Johnny's sexy shimmy sessions in Dirty Dancing and the power, lap, and belly dancing aerobic classes inside Babines' studio, I'm sure he'd acknowledge -- as the zoning board ultimately did Tuesday -- that the First Amendment protects speech both in San Francisco and Adams Township.
Alyssa Owens is a senior majoring in journalism and political science and is The Daily Collegian's Thursday columnist. Her e-mail address is alo5014@psu.edu.
