What happens when a student violates someone else’s free speech rights on campus?

University officials are responsible for documenting such an offense and may choose—but are not required if it is a first offense—to impose consequences such as suspension or expulsion.

Universities already have this authority, but administrators have routinely chosen to enforce only minor penalties—or no penalties at all—for students who violate the free expression rights of others, even for repeated offenses. Therefore, after students are found guilty of a second offense, our model requires universities to levy a mandatory disciplinary sanction of suspension for one year or expulsion, while guaranteeing robust due process protections in any case involving free expression.

Yale’s famous Woodward Report of 1974, the classic statement on campus free speech, actually demanded that students who shouted down visiting speakers be suspended or expelled on a first offense. Our model legislation gives individuals the opportunity to learn from their mistakes and understand the value of protecting everyone’s free speech rights.

Why should a student face a more serious punishment for interfering with someone else’s rights a second time?

When an individual infringes on someone else’s right to free expression, such activity can result in violence and physical harm. It also infringes on everyone else’s right to hear the speaker’s words.3 Universities must protect both the physical safety of students and faculty and the rights of everyone lawfully on campus to express themselves.

Repeat offenders must be sanctioned, via temporary or permanent removal from the campus community. Otherwise, students will have no incentive to cease the oppressive conduct and will be free to silence others without fear of consequence. A repeat offense indicates that an individual has not truly learned from the first experience that silencing others is wrong. Our model legislation requires that students be informed at freshman orientation of the penalties for a second offense. This will have a significant deterrent effect.

What’s the point of “due process” in hearings on student discipline?

Individuals who block someone else’s ability to speak on campus often do so without consequences.

Our model bill is designed to provide recourse to individuals when they are silenced. Due process allows individuals accused of an infraction the chance to respond to the charges against them, receive a fair hearing, and appeal. These essential safeguards ensure students who are accused of silencing speech are presumed innocent and afforded a fair opportunity to present their side of the story. Our model gives students accused of silencing speech the right to:

• Receive advance written notice of the charges;

• Review the evidence in support of the charges;

• Confront Present a defense;

• Call witnesses;

• A decision by an impartial arbiter or panel; and

• An appeal.

In the most serious cases, when suspension for longer than 30 days or expulsion are potential penalties, students are entitled to all of the above, plus the right assistance of counsel.

Does this bill give colleges more authority to suspend or expel students?

No. This model legislation does not give public universities any more authority over student conduct than state law already allows. This model directs public university governing boards to develop policies to guide the universities’ enforcement of their existing authority to better protect the free speech rights of anyone lawfully on campus.

Does this bill just protect conservative speakers on campus?

No. This model bill protects the right of anyone lawfully present on campus to speak, protest, or demonstrate—regardless of his or her political message. Our bill has the same implications for progressives as it does for conservatives.

At Evergreen State College in Washington state, a self-professed liberal professor disagreed with a suggestion that white members of the campus community leave campus for a day, and in response, students interfered with his teaching and even threatened his life.

Our bill would require public university officials to intervene and even discipline those students. The individuals guilty of such behavior would be subject to the same sanctions as students who tried to block the entrance to the venue on the California State University Los Angeles campus where conservative speaker Ben Shapiro was due to deliver remarks in February 2016.

Can the university ever restrict speech or expression on campus?

Yes. The model legislation explicitly “does not prohibit professors or other instructors from maintaining order in the classroom.” Outside the classroom, university officials can set reasonable viewpoint- and content-neutral restrictions on the time, place, and manner of expression, if university policies are:

• Clear and published in advance;

• Necessary to achieve a compelling governmental interest;

• The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest;

• Leave open ample other opportunities to engage in the expressive conduct; and

• Provide for spontaneous assembly and distribution of literature.