Alcohol license for disco puts legal restrictions on behavior

The Tribe 8 concert which took place at the Wilder Disco and the associated Review article which described the performance have stimulated much discussion regarding the limits, if any, of artistic expression on this campus. I have already expressed my views regarding these events in my Nov. 8 letter to the editor. In that letter I suggested that the events which took place during the Tribe 8 concert were probably illegal and urged the College to establish procedures to see that similarly behavior not occur at future College-sponsored events. President Dye also expressed the view that the concert "crossed the line" and should have been stopped. Others have argued that the Tribe 8 performance was just another form of free speech, protected by the 1st amendment. Some have claimed that there is little difference between the Tribe 8 concert and the art of Robert Mapplethorpe or even materials presented in Oberlin College courses.

While there are broad issues which deserve extensive discussion regarding what is and is not appropriate for Oberlin College sponsored events, the "free speech" issue is irrelevant to the Tribe 8 concert specifically. The Tribe 8 concert took place at the Wilder disco, an establishment which holds a State of Ohio, D-1 permit to serve alcohol. The 1st Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the right to free speech. It does not, however, guarantee the right to sell alcohol. The privilege of selling alcohol is granted by the State of Ohio through its Department of Liquor Control. Such a permit is accompanied by restrictions on the kinds of behavior and performances which are permissible. Section 4301:1-1-52 of the State of Ohio Liquor Laws and Rules states the following:

"No permit holder, his agent, or employee shall knowingly or willingly allow in, upon, or about his licensed premises improper conduct of any kind, type or character; any improper disturbances, lewd immoral activities or brawls; or any indecent, profane or obscene language, songs, entertainment, literature, pictures, or advertising materials; nor shall any entertainment consisting of spoken language or songs which can or may convey either directly or by implication an immoral meaning be permitted in, upon or about the permit premises.

Entertainment consisting of dancing, either solo or otherwise, which may or can, either directly or by implication, suggest an immoral act is prohibited. Nor shall any permit holder, his agent, or employee possess or cause to have printed or distributed any lewd, immoral, indecent, or obscene literate, pictures or advertising material." Indecent and lewd behavior may be protected by the 1st Amendment, but they are not permissible at an establishment which holds a license to serve alcohol in the State of Ohio."

In her comments quoted in the Nov. 8 issue of the Oberlin Review, President Dye indicated that the Tribe 8 concert had crossed the line and should have been stopped. At the recent meeting of the General Faculty the President appeared to back away from this view, but emphasized that we all have different "lines" that we draw with respect to decency. Well, I believe she was right the first time. I believe that the Tribe 8 concert crossed the line, not a line drawn by me or President Dye, but one drawn by the Ohio Department of Liquor Control. The College, by virtue of its license to sell alcohol at the Disco, was legally obligated to stop the show. The state of Ohio has repeatedly revoked the license to serve alcohol from establishments which do not, in the view of the Department of Liquor Control, abide by the above regulations. The owners of such establishments cling to their 1st Amendment rights, but they lose their alcohol permit, and the courts refuse to restore it.

So, it would appear that as long as it wishes to retain its permit to serve alcohol, the Disco must abide by a more restrictive code of conduct than required for other parts of the College. Perhaps the Tribe 8 concert would have been legal at the Cat and the Cream or in Finney Chapel (apologies to Charles), but I don't believe it was legal at the Disco. Many on campus may disagree with the law, but I suspect that most faculty members will agree that the College must abide by it. Ironically, the Review article which described the Tribe 8 concert in such glowing detail may itself be sufficient evidence for the Department of Liquor Control to revoke Oberlin College's alcohol permit for Wilder. Of course, I am no legal expert, so it is up to legal folks to actually figure out whether my interpretation is correct or not.

Perhaps Oberlin College students are so firmly committed to unrestrained free speech that they will willingly give up the alcohol permit for Wilder rather than to enforce any kind of performance restrictions on events which take place there. Or perhaps the College is willing to mount a legal battle to retain the Wilder alcohol permit without being subject to the performance restrictions. Or perhaps future events similar to the Tribe 8 concert will simply be scheduled for other venues which are not subject to the above regulations. In any case, I believe that some change to the operation of the disco must take place to bring it in compliance with the law.

John Scofield is a Professor of Physics

Contact Review webmaster with suggestions or comments at ocreview@www.oberlin.edu.
Contact Review editorial staff at oreview@oberlin.edu.