[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 191 Introduced in House (IH)]
<DOC>
116th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. RES. 191
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives relating to
protecting freedom of speech, thought, and expression at institutions
of higher education.
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 7, 2019
Mr. David P. Roe of Tennessee (for himself, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. McClintock,
Mr. Weber of Texas, Mr. Loudermilk, Mr. Babin, Mr. Fleischmann, Mr.
Byrne, Mr. Lamborn, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Grothman, Mr. Gosar, Mr.
Rutherford, Mr. Gianforte, Mr. Allen, Mr. Hice of Georgia, Mr. Walberg,
Mr. Luetkemeyer, Mr. Norman, Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania, Mr. Kustoff of
Tennessee, and Mr. Hudson) submitted the following resolution; which
was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor, and in addition
to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such
provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
_______________________________________________________________________
RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives relating to
protecting freedom of speech, thought, and expression at institutions
of higher education.
Whereas in Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169 (1972), the Supreme Court of the United
States held that the First Amendment applies in full force on public
college and university campuses;
Whereas in Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263 (1981), the Supreme Court of the
United States observed that ``the campus of a public university, at
least for its students, possesses many of the characteristics of a
public forum'';
Whereas lower Federal courts have also held that the open, outdoor areas of
public college and university campuses are public forums;
Whereas section 112(a)(2) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1011a(a)(2)) contains a sense of Congress noting that ``an institution
of higher education should facilitate the free and open exchange of
ideas, students should not be intimidated, harassed, discouraged from
speaking out, or discriminated against, students should be treated
equally and fairly, and nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to
modify, change, or infringe upon any constitutionally protected
religious liberty, freedom, expression, or association'';
Whereas despite the clarity of the applicable legal precedent and the vital
importance of protecting our Nation's public colleges as true
``marketplaces of ideas,'' the Foundation for Individual Rights in
Education has found that roughly 1 in 10 of America's top colleges and
universities quarantine student expression to so-called ``free speech
zones,'' that more than 20 speakers were disinvited from speaking on
campuses in 2016, and a survey of 449 schools found that almost 40
percent maintain severely restrictive speech codes that clearly and
substantially prohibit constitutionally protected speech;
Whereas according to the American Civil Liberties Union, ``Speech codes adopted
by government-financed state colleges and universities amount to
government censorship, in violation of the Constitution. And the ACLU
believes that all campuses should adhere to First Amendment principles
because academic freedom is a bedrock of education in a free society.'';
Whereas in December 2014, the University of Hawaii at Hilo settled a lawsuit for
$50,000 after it was sued in Federal court for prohibiting students from
protesting the National Security Agency, unless those students were
standing in the institution's tiny, flood-prone free speech zone;
Whereas in July 2015, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, settled a
lawsuit for $35,000 after it was sued in Federal court for prohibiting a
student from handing out flyers about animal abuse outside of the
school's free speech zone, comprising less than 0.01 percent of campus;
Whereas in May 2016, a student-plaintiff settled her lawsuit against Texas'
Blinn College for $50,000 after administrators told her she needed
``special permission'' to advocate for Second Amendment rights outside
of the school's tiny free speech zone;
Whereas in September 2016, two students from the Kellogg Community College in
Battle Creek, Michigan, were arrested for handing out copies of the
Constitution while talking with their fellow students on a sidewalk;
Whereas a policy of the Los Angeles Community College District--the largest
community college district in the country--declares that all of its
campuses ``are considered non-public forums, except for those portions
of each college designated as Free Speech Areas are hereby designated as
limited public forums, which designation may be removed and reverted to
non-public forum designation by the Board of Trustees.'';
Whereas in March 2017, a student sued officials of Los Angeles Pierce College
and the Los Angeles Community College District after administrators at
Pierce College told him that he could not distribute Spanish-language
copies of the Constitution on campus unless he was standing in the
college's free speech zone, which comprises approximately .003 percent
of the total area of Pierce College's 426 acres;
Whereas the States of Virginia, Missouri, Arizona, Kentucky, Colorado, and Utah
have passed legislation prohibiting public colleges and universities
from quarantining expressive activities on the open outdoor areas of
campuses to misleadingly labeled free speech zones;
Whereas free speech zones have been used to restrict political speech from all
parts of the political spectrum, and have thus inhibited the free
exchange of ideas at campuses across the country; and
Whereas in March 2017, Middlebury College students and protesters from the
community prevented an invited speaker from giving his presentation and
then attacked his car and assaulted a professor as the two attempted to
leave, resulting in the professor suffering a concussion: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives
that--
(1) free speech zones and restrictive speech codes are
inherently at odds with the freedom of speech guaranteed by the
First Amendment of the Constitution; and
(2) institutions of higher education should facilitate and
recommit themselves to protecting the free and open exchange of
ideas.
<all>