[We are on WhatsApp. Start following us now]
Listen to this note:
By Amy Dipierro and Michael Burke. EdSource
California State University and the University of California are welcoming student activists back to campus this fall with revamped protest rules that draw a tougher line on camping, barriers and, under certain circumstances, the wearing of face masks.
Cal State, the nation’s largest public university system, was the first to issue its policy Thursday, a set of restrictions governing public gatherings on college campuses. UC President Michael Drake followed Monday with a letter outlining his expectations that campus chancellors would place restrictions on how students could participate in protests this fall.
The two schools join a wave of universities that have revised rules on how and where people can demonstrate on their campuses following pro-Palestinian protests last spring. Critics say tighter restrictions could limit the right to free speech.
Cal State's policy prohibits tent encampments and nighttime demonstrations, a hallmark of the spring protest movements both within the CSU and at higher education institutions. Erecting unauthorized barricades, fences and furniture is also prohibited.
“The policy prohibits camping and those who attempt to initiate one may be sanctioned or disciplined,” CSU spokesperson Hazel Kelly said in a written statement to EdSource. “Campus presidents and their designated officials will enforce this prohibition and take appropriate action to stop camping, including giving clear notice to those who violate the policy that they must cease their camping activities immediately.”
Kelly said the encampments “are disruptive and can create a hostile environment for some members of the community. We have an obligation to ensure that all members of the community can access University property and programs.”
UC campuses will also ban encampments or other “unauthorized structures,” Drake said in a letter to campus chancellors Monday morning, directing them to enforce those rules. He also said they must prohibit anything that restricts movement on campus, which could include protests that block sidewalks and roads or deny access to UC facilities to anyone on campus.
“I hope the guidance provided in this letter will help you achieve an inclusive and welcoming environment on our campuses that protects and enables free expression while ensuring the safety of all community members by providing greater clarity and consistency in our policies and their enforcement,” Drake added.
UC faces October 1 deadline
As part of this year’s state budget deal, lawmakers directed Drake’s office to create a “systemic framework” to systematically enforce protest rules across all UC campuses. Lawmakers are withholding $25 million from UC until Drake submits a report to the Legislature by Oct. 1 detailing those plans.
A variety of higher education institutions have reinforced policies restricting demonstrations and similar gatherings in reaction to protests over the war between Israel and Hamas last school year.
The University of Pennsylvania’s “temporary guidelines” include a ban on megaphones and loudspeakers after 5 p.m. on school days and a two-week limit on the display of signs and banners, according to The Associated Press.
Indiana University’s policy allows “expressive activities” such as protests only from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. and requires advance approval to hang or place signs on university property. University of South Florida rules stipulate that protests are not allowed in the last two weeks of a semester, AP reported, among other restrictions.
Tyler Valeska, an adjunct law professor at Loyola University Chicago, said that while one university has seemed reluctant to strictly enforce protest rules in the past, many are now announcing a more aggressive approach in the future.
“For years, maybe even decades, it seemed like university officials had one policy on the books and then another policy in their actual approach to enforcement,” he said. “And we saw a major shift from that status quo in the spring, when universities across the country suddenly began enforcing policies that had been on the books for years or decades but had never really been enforced against relatively nondisruptive student speech.”
“Universities may be promoting their policies without any real intention of enforcing them strictly, but based on what we saw in the spring, that would surprise me,” he added.
Applies to all Cal State campuses
Cal State's interim policy applies to all 23 campuses in the system and supersedes individual school policies. University officials still have discretion over specific issues, such as determining which buildings and spaces on campus are considered public areas and what hours of the day those spaces can be accessed, which they will explain in addition to the systemwide policy.
Drake's letter to campus chancellors is not a system-wide policy. Instead, its letter directs each campus to develop its own policies. Those policies must meet certain requirements, including a ban on camps.
Some campuses likely already have the necessary policies in place, Drake said in its letter. If they do not, they should develop or modify existing policies as soon as possible, it added. In any case, each campus should provide a document or web page outlining those policies.
California’s two four-year university systems have come under fire for how they responded to protests in solidarity with Palestine this spring. Some campus leaders approached student activists gently, allowing students to camp out overnight in quads peacefully and negotiating with representatives until they voluntarily dismantled the encampments. But when conflicts broke out between protesters, counterprotesters and administrators on some campuses, university leaders called in law enforcement to dismantle the encampments and arrest students who did not comply with orders to disperse.
Highlights of both systems
The new protest guidelines suggest that Cal State and UC are now heading in roughly the same direction, taking a firmer stance against practices that appeared frequently in the spring protests.
Policy highlights include:
Camping: Cal State’s policy prohibits “camping of any kind, nighttime demonstrations … and nighttime loitering.” It prohibits the use of camping paraphernalia, including recreational vehicles and tents. Bringing “large amounts of personal belongings” onto campus without permission is also prohibited, except as permitted in residence halls and university workspaces. Drake’s letter directs UC chancellors to clarify their policies to make clear that setting up a campsite, tent, or temporary housing structure without prior authorization is not permitted.
Barricades and Other Structures: Drake is asking campuses to ensure that their policies prohibit the construction of unauthorized structures on campus. Cal State's interim policy also includes a number of temporary and permanent structures (tents, platforms, booths, benches, buildings, building materials (such as bricks, pallets, etc.), walls, barriers, barricades, fences, structures, sculptures, bike racks, or furniture) that are not permitted without a permit.
Mask-wearing and refusal to identify oneself: The Cal State and Drake letters invoke the same mask-wearing policy almost verbatim. Both warn that masks and other attempts to conceal identity are not permitted “for the purpose of intimidating and harassing any person or group, or for the purpose of evading or escaping discovery, recognition, or identification in the commission of violations” of relevant laws or policies. In addition, Cal State’s language notes that masks are “permitted for all persons who comply with University policies and applicable laws.” Similarly, both systems prohibit individuals from refusing to identify themselves to a University official acting in his or her official capacity on campus.
Restricting free movement: Drake’s letter emphasizes that campus policies should prohibit restricting another person’s free movement — for example, by blocking hallways, windows or doors in a way that denies access to university facilities. The guidance comes days after a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction barring UCLA from “deliberately permitting or facilitating the exclusion of Jewish students” on its campus. Cal State’s interim policy includes general warnings against actions that “impede or restrict the free movement of any person” and blocking streets, hallways, parking lots or other pathways for pedestrians and vehicles.
CSU spokesperson Kelly said the policy sections on encampments, barricading and face coverings “are not new and are already largely in place at each university and in the Office of the Provost.”
In the spring, students set up camps on UC campuses, including UCLA and UC San Diego, as well as Cal State campuses, including Sacramento State and San Francisco State. Bobby King, a spokesman for San Francisco State, said the school granted students an exception to the campus’s time, place and manners policy last spring.
“The new CSU policy will create greater urgency to resolve a situation like we had last spring,” he said. “Obviously, with the new policy in place, campus leaders who interact with students will have to convey that urgency.”
Cal State’s interim policy takes a comprehensive approach to defining what is and isn’t allowed during demonstrations, banning items such as firearms, explosives and bulletproof vests, as well as actions such as shooting arrows, climbing light poles and public urination. The policy prohibits demonstrations in residence halls, including the homes of employees who live on university property when “public events are not being held.”
Drake's directive outlines a tiered system for how campuses should police people who violate rules. First, they would be informed of the violation and asked to stop. If they don't, the next step would be to warn them of possible consequences.
After that, UC police or the local campus fire marshal could issue orders that could include an unlawful assembly notice, an order to disperse, or an order to identify oneself. If the behavior doesn't change by that time, the people involved could be cited for violating university policy and, if they're breaking a law, they could also be detained and arrested. Police could order them to stay off campus for repeat offenses or what they consider more serious violations.
That response system, however, “is not a rigid prescription that covers all situations,” the guide states.
Cal State's interim policy is effective immediately for nonunion students and employees, Kelly said. Unionized employees will work under previously negotiated campus policies until a meeting and consultation process for the new policy is completed.
Each Cal State campus was asked to explain more details
Cal State Dominguez Hills and Stanislaus State were the first two campuses to release addenda for their schools at the time of publication.
The Dominguez Hills addendum, for example, lists areas where walk-in protests are permitted, including the north lawn in front of the Loker Student Union and a sculpture garden adjacent to the University Theatre. But the document limits events at those locations to the hours between 7 a.m. and 11 p.m. and only allows for “unamplified speech and expression.”
The campus-specific policy will also outline restrictions on signs, banners, and chalk. The Dominguez Hills addendum prohibits the use of sticks or poles to support portable signs, does not allow signs to be “taped to any campus building, directory signs, fences, railings, or exterior light poles,” and by default limits the sign posting period to two weeks. It also includes a list of “designated sign posting locations” on campus.
Margaret Russell, an adjunct professor at Santa Clara University School of Law, said Cal State’s policy is clearly motivated by a desire to minimize disruptions caused by protests. Russell said that while many of the restrictions target student conduct rather than expression, she is concerned about the broad language that appears to require written permission to post signs, banners, placards and chalk.
Russell said such language could create “a chilling effect” because “it is potentially so broad and far-reaching that people don’t know in advance what is allowed and what is not.”
“The overall message is, ‘Be careful. Be careful when you express your opinion out loud.’ So to me, it seems like it suppresses freedom of speech, which is probably what they want,” he said.
Cal State spokesman Kelly said the policy is broadly intended to outline how university property can be used without inhibiting free speech.
“Generally, individual written permission is not required to post signs unless the person intends to do so in a place where it is not permitted,” he explained. “This rule does not apply to signs and posters that people carry or use personally.”
An Aug. 14 statement from the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) did not name any universities but broadly criticized school administrations for policies it said “seriously undermine academic freedom and the freedom of expression and speech that are fundamental to higher education.”
“Many of the recent policies on expressive activities strictly limit where demonstrations can take place, whether amplified sound can be used, and the types of posts that are permitted,” the statement said. “With harsh penalties for violations, the policies generally discourage students and faculty from participating in protests and demonstrations.”
The AAUP statement notes that some institutions have gone so far as to require protest groups to register in advance. The AAUP maintains that such provisions effectively block spontaneous protests and can discourage protesters who wish to avoid surveillance.
The AAUP statement came a day after the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) released a “guide to preventing campus encampments and occupations.” The guide encourages universities to ban encampments and act decisively to punish students who violate those policies.
“Once an encampment has occupied a campus, the institution has very few options to avoid an unpleasant spectacle that, at best, will make the administration look ineffective and even the board look negligent,” the guide says. “Negotiating and making concessions are invitations to more and greater demands. They embolden others to employ similar coercive tactics in the future and further undermine the university’s mission.”
Cal State’s interim policy says the university embraces its obligation to support the free exchange of information and ideas, but that such free expression “is permitted and supported as long as it does not violate other laws or University policies and procedures.”
Cal State spokesman Kelly said the university system “places the highest value on fostering healthy discourse and the exchange of ideas in a safe and peaceful manner, maintaining a learning and working environment that supports the free and orderly exchange of ideas, values and opinions, recognizing that individuals grow and learn when confronted with differing viewpoints, alternative ways of thinking and conflicting values.”
Read the original note giving click here.
You may be interested in: Students are called to apply for the Half Moon Bay Civics Academy for Future Leaders
