The Trousdale Parkway entrance is the locus of ideological diversity on campus. When walking from USC Village to Taper Hall, you encounter various religious groups encouraging you to attend church with them, student film groups selling baked goods to fund their projects and non-Recognized Student Organization clubs looking for new members. That is why it is quizzical that the University would suddenly enforce a long-ignored rule that bans tabling in this area.

When asked by the Daily Trojan why the tabling ban was being enforced, Department of Public Safety Assistant Chief David Carlisle stated that it was due to many vendors’ lack of approval. 

“It is University property and private vendors and students have always been required to get permission from the University,” Carlisle wrote, “The number of unapproved vendors (food vendors, private student housing groups, etc.) moving onto the plaza recently was becoming a problem. Signs were added in the plaza to help DPS keep the area unobstructed.”

However, the University’s recent measure to ban tabling at Herbert Plaza counters its supposed new free speech bent. 

To start, Trousdale is an ideal area for student organizations and outside groups to take advantage of the heavy foot traffic: As a bridge between USC Village and the main campus, Trousdale becomes a necessary public access area. The re-opening of campus in Fall 2024 signaled a willingness to engage with communities outside of USC, and Trousdale is simply an extension of that willingness.

Yes, the University has an incentive to protect students from potential harassment. But, the supposed protected freedom of speech available just before students reach the entrance of campus is worth 20 seconds of inconvenience.

What exacerbates this hypocrisy is the University’s newfound commitment to freedom of speech. After an admittedly terrible track record of silencing on-campus speakers, President Beong-Soo Kim and his Open Dialogue Project were supposed to reform the University’s image. 

This rebrand to free speech absolutism was successful, at least from the perspective of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression’s College Free Speech Rating: On Wednesday, FIRE gave USC a “green light” in terms of its respect of freedom of speech. 

Truly nothing encapsulates the hot air and false promises of USC’s commitment to open dialogue than banning groups from tabling and communicating on and near campus. To go from holding discussions on “The Importance of Free Expression in an Ever-Changing World” in March 2026, asking what the future of expression is in “a world of cancel culture, safe spaces, and ‘words are violence,’” to then turn around and ban a form of free expression only six months later signals that the actions of the University do not reflect their publicity stunts. 

Ironically, the University justified the prohibiting of tabling to “keep the plaza safe and accessible,” suddenly prioritizing making campus a “safe” space.

The impacts of this ban extend beyond its contingent theoretical support for free speech; there are tangible effects of this ban on the larger economy of the USC community. 

Student groups are especially targeted by this initiative. For anyone who has ever filled out an RSO form, it should be evident that it is overly burdensome for student groups to become RSOs. To qualify as an RSO, you must have at least ten members, a faculty advisor and go through laborious training. All of this must be completed before the school year even begins. 

For new clubs revolving around niche interests, the RSO process is an incredibly complicated barrier to overcome. Thus, there must be an alternate way for students with similar interests to convene. 

Prospective clubs that do not have the requisite numbers to become an RSO must resort to Trousdale tables to gain new members and increase their public visibility. This ban removes the most straightforward pathway for building group membership among non-RSO groups, which threatens the freedom of association that is essential to the liberty of college clubs. 

Additionally, since RSO and USG funding are opaque, restrictive and cumbersome to access, allowing students to fundraise for causes they care about in a highly visible area is a direct corollary to supporting the rights of speech and organization for students. 

The University’s free speech code protects this organizing, stating, “Students and student organizations are free to support causes by all orderly means which do not disrupt or substantially interfere with university activities.” Just on an intuitive level, it is difficult to see how much — or how little — these booths interfere with university activities. 

Even beyond clubs, Trousdale entrance is a hub for the dissemination of beliefs from a wide range of backgrounds. Political and social groups from across the ideological spectrum pass out flyers and request to debate passersby. 

The spirit of free expression is alive and well when Trojans for Life and fashion clubs are able to spread their respective gospels. 

This ban has not stopped groups from tabling on Trousdale. Nor should it. If the University wants to maintain its image as a place for open dialogue, it should open up Trousdale entrance for this dialogue between students and the larger community.