Restrictions against sign holding at football games were made clear in a press release sent by Shannon Yates, Assistant AD of athletic operations, November 4.
There has not been a complete sign-ban at Carter-Finley, but not all signs will be allowed into the stadium, according to the press release. Five specific restrictions were listed, some which restrict placement of signs, others restricting each signs’ content.
Disqualifying features include signs that are, “offensive to individuals or teams,” and signs that are not in “good taste”, according to the release.
Signs must also be held properly. According to the press release, signs may not block spectators’ view, create a hazard, or be “affixed on property, stadium walls, railings, or overhangs”.
Luke Nadkarni , sophomore in communications, explained that the restricting sign content concerned him the most.
“I don’t see why you shouldn’t be allowed to have signs at games,” Nadkarni said, “I know that Carter-Finley Stadium does not allow signs that are affixed to posts or poles, and that signs cannot block the view of fans behind you, but other than that, why not?”
Nadkarni explained that earlier in the football season, two students were not allowed to bring their signs into Carter-Finley. According to him, these signs were in support of N.C . State and not offensive.
The confiscation of signs has been replaced with a set of rules. However, since these rules have been in place, they have not necessarily been obeyed. Several signs at the UNC football game made direct marks against our rivals, some of which were mildly offensive.
The release did not explain why the content restrictions had been put in place, or how the athletic department has planned to enforce the restrictions. There were no consequences mentioned for inappropriate signs, only the promise that “event staff will check signs at all entrances”.
Ian Richardson, sophomore in communications, explained that restricting sign use at games could be a violation upon an individual’s free speech.
“I understand that the university has an interest in promoting good sportsmanship” Richardson said, “but at the same time, that policy could theoretically be pretty limiting on people’s expression of all kinds.”
Richardson explained that though he had not researched the sign-ban, he was unsure as to how controlling signs’ content in this way could be justified.
“My concern would be the policy that allows the administration control whatever they want,” Richardson said, “it would be interesting to know what the justification would be for that policy.”
Jesse Rodar , sophomore in fashion and textile management, explained that the only content restrictions should be placed against signs that contain profanity.
“As long as you don’t say anything racist or profane then it should be ok because it’s all in the sport,” Rodar said.
The rules that are of particular interest to Rodar , Richardson and Nadkarni are ones restricting the content that fans can display, not where signs are placed.
Nadkarni explained that he was not keen on the idea of content restriction, but realized where the athletic department was coming from.
“Of course, some parameters must be drawn as far as appropriateness.” Nadkarni said
The sign rules will apply to the upcoming game against Clemson and the remainder of the season; however, these restrictions are not applicable to games outside of Carter-Finley.
