[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 233 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>






116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 233

 Recognizing the importance of protecting freedom of speech, thought, 
          and expression at institutions of higher education.


_______________________________________________________________________


                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 5, 2019

Mrs. Blackburn (for herself, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Lankford, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. 
Cotton, Mr. Braun, Mr. Grassley, Ms. Ernst, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Hawley, Mr. 
    Scott of South Carolina, and Mr. Cruz) submitted the following 
    resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION


 
 Recognizing the importance of protecting freedom of speech, thought, 
          and expression at institutions of higher education.

Whereas the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees 
        that ``Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of 
        speech'';
Whereas, in Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169 (1972), the Supreme Court of the United 
        States held that the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United 
        States applies in full force on the campuses of public colleges and 
        universities;
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 the 
        campuses of public colleges and universities 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 public colleges in the United States as true 
        ``marketplaces of ideas'', the Foundation for Individual Rights in 
        Education has found that approximately 1 in 10 of the top colleges and 
        universities in the United States quarantine student expression to so-
        called ``free speech zones'', and a survey of 466 schools found that 
        almost 30 percent maintain severely restrictive speech codes that 
        clearly and substantially prohibit constitutionally protected speech;
Whereas, according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), ``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 the University of Chicago, as part of its commitment ``to free and open 
        inquiry in all matters'', issued a statement in which ``it guarantees 
        all members of the University community the broadest possible latitude 
        to speak, write, listen, challenge, and learn'', and more than 50 
        university administrations and faculty bodies have endorsed a version of 
        the ``Chicago Statement'';
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 tiny, flood-prone free speech zone at the university;
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 free 
        speech zone at the university, comprising less than 0.01 percent of 
        campus;
Whereas, in May 2016, a student-plaintiff settled her lawsuit against Blinn 
        College in Texas for $50,000 after administrators told her she needed 
        ``special permission'' to advocate for Second Amendment rights outside 
        of the tiny free speech zone at the college;
Whereas, in February 2017, Georgia Gwinnett College agreed to modify its 
        restrictive speech policies after two students sued in Federal court to 
        challenge a requirement that students obtain prior authorization from 
        administrators to engage in expressive activity within the limits of a 
        tiny free speech zone, comprising less than 0.0015 percent of campus;
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;
Whereas, in January 2018, Kellogg Community College in Michigan settled a 
        lawsuit for $55,000 for arresting two students for handing out copies of 
        the Constitution of the United States while talking with their fellow 
        students on a sidewalk;
Whereas, in June 2018, the University of Michigan agreed to change its 
        restrictive speech code on the same day the United States Department of 
        Justice filed a statement of interest in support of a lawsuit in Federal 
        court challenging the constitutionality of the speech code of the 
        university;
Whereas, in December 2018, the Los Angeles Community College District, a 9-
        campus community college district that includes Pierce College, settled 
        a lawsuit for $225,000 and changed its restrictive speech policies after 
        it was sued in Federal court for prohibiting a Pierce College student 
        from distributing Spanish-language copies of the Constitution of the 
        United States on campus unless he stood in the free speech zone, which 
        comprised approximately 0.003 percent of the total area of the 426 acres 
        of the college;
Whereas, in December 2018, the University of California, Berkeley, home of the 
        1960s campus free speech movement, settled a lawsuit for $70,000 and 
        changed its restrictive policies after it was sued in Federal court for 
        singling out one student group, apart from other student groups, with 
        the imposition of stricter rules for inviting ``high-profile'' public 
        speakers;
Whereas the States of Virginia, Missouri, Arizona, Kentucky, Colorado, Utah, 
        North Carolina, Tennessee, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, South Dakota, 
        and Iowa 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; and
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: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) recognizes that free speech zones and restrictive 
        speech codes are inherently at odds with the freedom of speech 
        guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the 
        United States;
            (2) recognizes that institutions of higher education should 
        facilitate and recommit themselves to protecting the free and 
        open exchange of ideas;
            (3) recognizes that freedom of expression and freedom of 
        speech are sacred ideals of the United States that must be 
        vigorously safeguarded in a world increasingly hostile to 
        democracy;
            (4) encourages the Secretary of Education to promote 
        policies that foster spirited debate, academic freedom, 
        intellectual curiosity, and viewpoint diversity on the campuses 
        of public colleges and universities; and
            (5) encourages the Attorney General to defend and protect 
        the First Amendment across public colleges and universities.
                                 <all>