[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>