Free Speech at SUU

The general purpose of the SUU Free Speech and Advocacy on Campus Policy (5.1) is to “protect and enhance the free exchange of ideas, the right to free speech, and academic freedom in the University and on the University campus, without prior restraint or censorship[.]” While there are very limited exceptions where speech may be limited, none of those exceptions were present. And it will be in extremely limited circumstances where such an exception will ever be present.

First, to be clear again, the Chicago Principles guide that free speech is indispensable to the functioning of a University which exists for the sake of the exchange of ideas, and without the free exchange of ideas they cease to be Universities. This logic applies throughout campus. There are however limited exceptions where speech can be limited. 

These exceptions include:

1. Content that constitutes a true threat to incite reasonably imminent violence and call expressly for those listening to commit the spoken offense;
2. Content that is targeted harassment or a specific particularized threat base on a protected characteristic that is so pervasive and severe that the speech would prevent an education or employment experience;
3. In a few circumstances speech of all kinds may be limited in time, place, and manner because it interrupts the functioning of the University. There are designated “Speaker Areas” where such speech should be moved, if possible, so as to no longer interrupt the operations of campus. (Policy 5.1, 4.8.5 and 4.8.6).
4. Obscenity, as allowed to be restricted by law. (Policy 5.1, 3.6).
5. University based political endorsements or speech (i.e. an individual’s speech must be theirs, not the University’s).

Yes, symbols are speech. Things on our clothing are speech. Generally, symbols are protected speech regardless of whether the messages they display are intimidating or offensive. Exceptions likely include obscene material. Also, the symbol of a “noose” is typically not allowed as it is symbolic of a call for violence.

Personal speech, not made on behalf of the University, is protected speech and generally cannot be limited. As President Wyatt stated in the podcast referenced above, “the purpose of the University is not to make ideas safe for people, but to make people safe for ideas.” The Chicago Principles dictate that “the cure for ideas we oppose lies through open discussion rather than through inhibition.” Also, students can only be judged and graded on merit and cannot be judged on values or ideas spoken or otherwise expressed.

Hate speech is actually protected speech. There is no legal definition of “hate speech” in the United States, but it often refers to speech that insults or demeans a person or group of people on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, or gender. While SUU condemns hate speech, there is no First Amendment exception to hate speech unless it meets one of the exceptions described above. As the Chicago Principles explain, “it is not the proper role of the University to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive.” Civility is a core principle of Higher Education, and we all must do our part to maintain civil discourse.

First, if the speech is drawing a crowd, has safety concerns, is generating excessive noise, etc. that is disrupting the daily operation of campus, this speech or gathering can be moved to the “Speaker Areas” pursuant to law and SUU Policy 5.1, 4.8-9. Moving such a speech or gathering must be based solely on disruption, not the content of the speech. The government generally cannot limit inflammatory speech unless it intentionally and effectively provokes a crowd to immediately carry out violent and unlawful action. This is a very high bar no matter how much discomfort, offense, or emotional pain the words may cause.

Speech that targets an individual with an imminent and immediate threat of violence or harm is not allowed by law, and is prohibited by SUU Policy (5.1, 4.9). The ACLU has said that the First Amendment does not protect behavior on campuses that crosses the line into targeted harassment or threats, or that creates a pervasively hostile environment for vulnerable students. These “fighting words” apply to intimidating speech directed at a specific individual in a face-to-face confrontation that is likely to provoke a violent reaction. However, merely offensive or bigoted speech does not rise to this level.

Typically, a person’s office or personal space is their space and any “speech” found in those areas is protected as such. Political speech by a public university employee is subject to the same constitutional analysis as the speech of any other public employees. Political speech that is related to scholarship or teaching may be afforded greater constitutional protection than speech outside the classroom. Finally, areas of an office that are generally open to one form of speech, i.e. decorations, posters, stickers, etc. must be open to all speech, and any restriction should not be based on content.

Yes. While the First Amendment forbids public employers from taking adverse employment actions against their employees in retaliation for protected speech, you have a right to freedom of speech, and due process, you do not have a constitutional right to be a student or employee of SUU. Discipline in this sense is not because you have exercised your First Amendment Rights, but rather because of a policy or legal violation. The takeaway here is to make sure any controversial or offensive speech is made personally, and not on behalf of the University, and that it is legal.

No. The Internal Revenue Services prohibits all nonprofit organizations (i.e. SUU) from endorsing or opposing political candidates or otherwise conducting political campaign activities to intervene in elections to public office. Thus, statements, social media platforms, and other forums affiliated with the institution cannot be used to express or otherwise provide support for particular candidates, if the statements or information can be reasonably attributed to the institution. A disclaimer on a personal Facebook page may be sufficient to distance the statement from being reasonably attributed to the institution. This area is constantly developing in the courts. PS – it would be awesome if Mickey Mouse ran for President.