This year, Alliance Defending Freedom has urged Universities around the country to change their unconstitutional policies. Some schools, like Virginia Tech and University of Alabama, have quickly changed their policies, making their campuses safe for free speech.

Other colleges and universities, however, refused to change, denying rights guaranteed to students by the constitution. These schools are

• Ohio University
  Coerced Association
  Speech Code
• University of South Dakota, South Dakota State, Black Hills State University, Dakota State University, and Northern State University
  Student Fee Policy
• University of Hawaii at Hilo
  Coerced Association
• Alabama State University
  Coerced Association
• University of Alaska
  Coerced Association
  Speech Code
• University of Montana
  Coerced Association

How you can help: If you attend one of these Universities, please contact us at 1.800.835.5233 or online here. We’d love to talk to you about what you or your student group can do to help challenge these policies that limit your freedom.

___________________________________
The schools all have policies that violate the rights of students protected by the First Amendment.

Among the problematic policies are various speech codes and zones that place unconstitutional restrictions on student speech, policies that force student clubs to accept voting members and officers that don’t agree with the clubs’ beliefs, and policies that allow non-religious student groups to use student activity fees but exclude religious student groups even though the students in those groups have contributed to the fees.

___________________________________

What policies are unconstitutional at my school? Read below: 

University of Alaska
The University of Alaska has a “speech code,” or policies that suppress and punish speech that some may find subjectively offensive. In one instance, they say that student groups must “avoid the use of obscene or offensive language or illustrations and demonstrate sensitivity to social concerns” in their campus postings. The Supreme Court has said that restrictions on speech cannot be “overbroad” or “vague,” which this policy violates because it likely prohibits much speech that is protected by the First Amendment and leaves terms open for individual interpretation. The constitution protects all speech, even if that speech is considered unpleasant or offensive by some.

Not only does UA have a speech code, but its policies may also prohibit religious groups from selecting their leaders based on their faith.  UA’s policies ban religious discrimination (which many universities are wrongly interpreting to prohibit religious groups from requiring their members and leaders to agree with their religious beliefs) but allow other groups to exclude members based on nonreligious belief (i.e., political or social issue groups), gender (fraternities and sororities), GPA (academic merit groups), and much more. When a school permits groups to make nonreligious membership and leadership exclusions, they violate the constitution if they prohibit religious groups from selecting co-religionists as their members and leaders.  For more information, click below for our letters to the University of Alaska.

Ohio University
Ohio University has a “speech code,” with policies that suppress and punish speech that some may find subjectively offensive. In the Student Code of Conduct, OU prohibits students from acting in any way which “demeans, degrades, [or] disgraces any person.” The Supreme Court has said that restrictions on speech cannot be “overbroad” or “vague,” which this policy violates because it likely prohibits much speech that is protected by the First Amendment and leaves terms open for individual interpretation. The constitution protects all speech, even if that speech is considered unpleasant or offensive by some.

Ohio University’s policies also may prohibit religious groups from selecting their leaders based on their faith.  OU’s policies ban religious discrimination (which many universities are wrongly interpreting to prohibit religious groups from requiring their members and leaders to agree with their religious beliefs) but allow other groups to exclude members based on nonreligious belief (i.e., political or social issue groups), gender (fraternities and sororities), GPA (academic merit groups), and much more. When a school permits groups to make nonreligious membership and leadership exclusions, they violate the constitution if  they prohibit religious groups from selecting co-religionists as their members and leaders.  For more information, click below for our letter to Ohio University

SD
According to the Supreme Court, all private student groups must have equal access to Student Fee Funding regardless of their viewpoint. This Board of Regents policy excludes religious groups from receiving funding, which is unconstitutional. For more information, click below to read our letter to the South Dakota Board of Regents.

University of Hawaii at Hilo
The University of Hawaii at Hilo’s policies may prohibit religious groups from selecting their leaders based on their faith.  The university’s policies ban religious discrimination (which many universities are wrongly interpreting to prohibit religious groups from requiring their members and leaders to agree with their religious beliefs)  but allow other groups to exclude members based on nonreligious belief (i.e., political or social issue groups), gender (fraternities and sororities), GPA  (academic merit groups), and much more. When a school permits groups to make nonreligious membership and leadership exclusions, they violate the constitution if they prohibit religious groups from selecting co-religionists as their members and leaders.  For more information, click below for our letter to the University of Hawaii at Hilo.

University of Montana
The University of Montana’s policies may prohibit religious groups from selecting their leaders based on their faith.  The university’s policies ban religious discrimination (which many universities are wrongly interpreting to prohibit religious groups from requiring their members and leaders to agree with their religious beliefs), but allow other groups to exclude members based on nonreligious belief (i.e., political or social issue groups), gender (fraternities and sororities), GPA (academic merit groups), and much more. When a school permits groups to make nonreligious membership and leadership exclusions, they violate the constitution if they prohibit religious groups from selecting co-religionists as their members and leaders.  For more information, click below for our letter to the University of Montana.

How you can help: If you attend one of these Universities, please contact us at 1.800.835.5233 or online here. We’d love to talk to you about what you or your student group can do to help challenge these policies that limit your freedom.

Over at The Torch, FIRE’s Samantha Harris has been writing an excellent series on various threats to liberty on public universities campuses.  Much like our series a few years ago on equal access and student fees, not only does Harris discuss the variety of threats to freedom, she also flexes the legal muscle on why these policies must be removed.  Several of Harris’ posts include examples from Alliance Defending Freedom cases, like College Republicans at San Francisco State University v. Reed (a speech code case) and Roberts v. Haragan (a speech zone case).  Here are links to each part of the series:

The Problem with Mandating Civility

Misunderstanding ‘Harassment’

Free Speech Rights Must Extend to Students’ Online Expression

Posting Policies Frequently Restrict Student Expression

Misunderstanding ‘Time, Place, and Manner’ Restrictions

Alliance Defending Freedom, like FIRE, is working to eliminate these unconstitutional policies, but can do so only with your help.  Contact us if you think your university might be unfairly restricting your rights on campus.

Alliance Defending Freedom received an outstanding First Amendment victory Tuesday when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled against Oregon State University in OSU Student Alliance v. Ray, a case brought by The Liberty, an independent student newspaper at OSU.  Read our previous posts about this case here, here, and here.

The Liberty sued OSU in 2009 after university officials removed all of The Liberty’s newsbins from campus and dumped them in a trash heap.  OSU acted pursuant to an unwritten and previously unenforced policy and without any prior notice to The Liberty.  Only after The Liberty’s staff reported the bins as stolen did the police determine that OSU confiscated them.  OSU claimed it removed the bins to clean up campus, but noticeably left the newsbins of the Daily Barometer and other off-campus papers untouched.  Afterward, OSU refused to allow The Liberty to replace its bins anywhere except in two locations near the student center.  The newsbins of the other papers remained scattered across campus.

The Ninth Circuit’s opinion contains several important conclusions.  First, it finds that OSU’s campus is a public forum for students, meaning that university policies that restrict student speech are subject to the most exacting constitutional scrutiny.

Second, OSU violated the First Amendment by acting with unbridled discretion.  According to the Ninth Circuit:

The policy that OSU enforced against plaintiffs, however, was not merely unwritten. It was also unannounced and had no history of enforcement. It materialized like a bolt out of the blue to smite the Liberty’s, but not the Daily Barometer’s, newsbins onto the trash heap. The policy created no standards to cabin discretion through content or history of enforcement, and it set no fixed standard for a distinction between the Barometer and the Liberty. The policy’s enforcement against plaintiffs therefore violated the First Amendment.

Third, in the words of Ninth Circuit, OSU’s insistence that it may treat The Liberty differently than the Daily Barometer because the latter has been on campus longer and is allegedly more connected to the university “raises the ominous specter of viewpoint discrimination.”

Fourth, OSU’s failure to give notice to The Liberty before confiscating its bins violated its right to due process.  As the Court said:

Clearly there was no urgency and no reason to junk the bins instead of directing plaintiffs to remove them. Moreover, contact information for the paper’s editorial board appeared inside the first page of every copy of the Liberty. Providing notice would have been as simple as flipping a page and making a phone call or sending an email. The Facilities Department’s decision to forego this procedure in favor of summarily confiscating the newsbins — more like a “thief in the night” than a “conscientious public servant” — violated due process.

Finally, the Court held that OSU’s president and two other officials may be held personally liable for these unconstitutional actions.  The case now returns to the federal district court for further proceedings.

Has your student group been treated in a similar way?  Let us know.

FIRE has released its second annual survey of America’s Best Colleges for Free Speech.  This year, seven colleges receive the rare distinction of being ivory towers that welcome free expression.  FIRE’s President Greg Lukianoff describes the methodology and the results in the Huffington Post.  Be sure to take a look at his article, but for those who cannot wait, here’s FIRE’s list (in no particular order):

• James Madison University
• The College of William and Mary
• University of Mississippi
• Mississippi State University
• University of Tennessee – Knoxville
• University of Virginia
• University of Pennsylvania

Interestingly, Lukianoff points out a trend that when one college revises its policies to be more welcoming to free expression, other colleges in the state begin to do the same thing.  He’s right.  No one wants to be seen as the lone censor of free speech.  For example, in Virginia, we were involved in Rosenberger v. University of Virginia at the U.S. Supreme Court, which ended a discriminatory policy banning religious student groups getting equal access to student fees and campus facilities.  And earlier this year, we scored another win in Virginia when Virginia Tech ended a similar ban on religious student groups accessing student fees.  Colleges follow the free speech leader.

Did your college not make FIRE’s list?  Perhaps you can be the catalyst to encourage your college to set the trend in your state.  Contact us and let us know if you’ve had trouble expressing your beliefs on campus.

Today, Alliance Defending Freedom is launching a new tool with important information and up to date information about your rights on  campus. The Speak Up University Newsletter will cover a range of topics relevant to college students and their parents, as well as faculty and staff, keeping you informed about your constitutional right to Speak Up.

Take a look at the first newsletter here, and sign up to receive the newsletter in your inbox each month.