[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 94 (Wednesday, June 5, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3262-S3263]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SENATE RESOLUTION 233--RECOGNIZING THE IMPORTANCE OF PROTECTING FREEDOM
OF SPEECH, THOUGHT, AND EXPRESSION AT INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION
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:
S. Res. 233
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.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, it is so interesting to always come to
the floor and speak on topics that are important to Tennesseans and I
think also to Americans. As I begin my remarks, I want to kind of build
the context for this and take us back to a time I know the Presiding
Officer recalls, and so do I. It was the sixties. I was a child who was
growing up. I remember it as a decade where bold statements and brash
behavior and activists from each side of the aisle set the standard for
what we today look at and say is a modern-day political protest. What
we saw in this decade was once-sleepy college campuses became the
scenes of widespread unrest. Tensions were high and conditions were
perfect for what else but a Supreme Court battle.
In September 1969, a group of students attending Central Connecticut
State University decided they wanted to organize a local chapter of the
organization Students for Democratic Society. The university president
rejected the application, claiming that the SDS philosophy was
``antithetical to the school's policies'' and could be a disruptive
influence on campus.
Now, I am sure he thought he had a good point. The national SDS
organization was known for its fiery protests,
[[Page S3263]]
and its now-notorious acts of civil disobedience. They made it their
business to make authority figures nervous. Nervousness, however, is
not an exception to the First Amendment. The students knew that, so the
lawsuits started flying. The students' case finally made it to the
Supreme Court, which held that ``the First Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States applies in full force on the campuses
of public colleges and universities.'' That case, Healy v. James, was a
win for free speech. Although precedent continues to trend in the right
direction, the First Amendment is in danger on the American college
campus. From so-called free speech zones to severely restricted speech
codes, campus officials are doing their best to ensure that students
are protected from anything that may challenge their preexisting
notions of right and wrong.
Instead of creating a safe environment, these policies have
backfired, creating an atmosphere of fear and violence toward opposing
viewpoints.
Just this past April, protesters at the University of Texas at Austin
used smoke bombs to shut down a pro-life speaker at a Young
Conservatives of Texas event.
In 2017, the editorial staff at Wellesley College's student newspaper
threatened hostility toward anyone whose beliefs--their beliefs; not
just their words but their beliefs--did not fit into the acceptable
liberal mold.
That same year, Middlebury College campus--their left behaved so
disgracefully that one progressive columnist begged the students at his
alma mater to find a way to protest views they disagree with without
shutting down speech entirely.
In the face of such hostility toward free and open debate, I ask this
body, what have we done, and what can be done to turn back the tide?
Today, on the eve of National Higher Education Day, I am introducing
the Campus Free Speech Resolution of 2019. It is a first step in
restoring sanity to free speech for American college students. This
resolution first and foremost recognizes that free speech zones and
restrictive speech codes contradict the guarantees of the First
Amendment. It recognizes that universities should protect the free and
open exchange of ideas and that freedom of speech is worth protecting
in a world increasingly hostile to democracy.
Through this resolution, I encourage the Secretary of Education to
promote policies that encourage intellectual curiosity, viewpoint
diversity, and debate. Last but not least, I encourage the Attorney
General to defend and protect the First Amendment.
Standing by as universities surrender to activists who value their
own comfort over the free exchange of ideas isn't just a mistake; it is
a moral inversion.
We have a duty to make sure younger generations understand that
protecting the First Amendment means protecting one another in the
public square--even if we want more than anything to shut down what we
are hearing. I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will
defend your right to say it.
Above all, we have a duty to help them understand that an America
where curiosity is replaced by suspicion, where debate is replaced by
intimidation, and where speech is replaced by silence is no America at
all.
____________________