Excerpted from a letter FIRE sent to the University of Wisconsin yesterday (you can view the citation here); I generally trust FIRE’s factual summaries, but I’m certainly happy to correct them if there are any errors in the following:
FIRE is deeply concerned that UW-Madison has suspended two registered student organizations—Anti-Colonial Scientists and UW-Madison Machinery—after some members allegedly A chalk message written at an out-of-school event was criticized. Some of the messages expressed support for terrorist groups such as Hezbollah and the Hamas al-Qassam Brigades, and advocated violence against Israelis and Zionists in the Middle East.
These student groups are currently on temporary suspension pending an investigation, the University of Washington said, because “[s]Some chalk endorses violence, supports terrorist organizations and/or contains anti-Semitic rhetoric,” which may be considered prohibited discriminatory harassment under the university’s RSO Code of Conduct. But this conclusion is constitutionally untenable. Off-campus chalk information constitutes political speech and is fully protected by law.
More specifically, there is no exception in the First Amendment that would remove protections for speech simply because the speech is deemed “anti-Semitic” or otherwise bigoted on the basis of race or religion. Regardless of the views expressed, the rules are the same: Government officials cannot restrict speech because others find those ideas objectionable or hateful.
This is especially true at public universities, where “conflict is not unknown” and “dissent is expected and, therefore, at least some dissonance is expected.”Instead, the First Amendment “embraces such heated exchanges[s] the opinion of.
The Supreme Court has long regarded the public’s interest in “free and unhindered debate on matters of public importance” as “a core value of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.” There is no doubt that support for any participant in the Israel/Hamas war – the effects of which have been felt around the world for many months – constitutes an expression of public concern that is Broadly defined as “speech relating to anything”.
There’s also no evidence (despite UW’s suggestion) that the political messages students chalked up at a farmers’ market nearly a mile from campus violated the law, whether as material support for terrorism or discriminatory harassment — even if The words are the same.
The Supreme Court defined discriminatory harassment in the education context as those comments that are unwelcome, discriminatory on the basis of a protected status, and are “so severe, pervasive, and objectively objectionable that they may be said to deprive the victim of his rights.” .[] Access to educational opportunities or benefits provided by the school.
Current events do not change this analysis. Earlier this month, OCR reiterated that “the offensive nature of particular expressions considered by some students, alone, does not constitute a sufficient legal basis to establish a hostile environment under Title VI” and that “[n]Nothing in Title VI or implementing regulations requires or authorizes the school to limit any right protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The plan includes providing various support services to affected students.
UW’s own discriminatory harassment policy and RSO rules reflect appropriate limits on its ability to punish core political speech, with the RSO rules explicitly stating that they “will not be used to impose discipline on the legitimate expression of ideas,” and that “[t]The University of Wisconsin-Madison fully recognizes the rights of all students to seek knowledge, debate, and freely express their ideas. The statement describes the “need for the free exchange of ideas through open dialogue, free inquiry and healthy and vigorous debate” as “inherent” features of education at the university. of sifting and sifting, and only in this way can truth’ importance be found.
Student organizations play an important role in the healthy speech ecosystem that Washington University’s mission and values seek to foster. In turn, the First Amendment protects these groups’ rights of expression and association, fostering their ability to organize around causes and seek to influence our institutions, communities, and nation. Universities also cannot engage in additional, viewpoint-based scrutiny of RSO student speech.
In contrast, student groups have broad speech rights, even to express philosophical support for the use of force or violence. As the Supreme Court held: “A distinction must be made between what is a threat and what is constitutionally protected speech,” including “political exaggeration,” because our country “should be unfettered, robust, and completely open to debate on public issues.”
Government actors may prohibit non-expressive conduct intended to provide material support (such as property or services) to designated foreign terrorist organizations. But the First Amendment’s protection of vigorous debate prohibits government actors from restricting merely expressive activity or speech support for such groups. This is true even if the ultimate effect of propaganda is to influence public opinion.
While the intentions may be good, UW does the community no favors by censoring such controversial information. Like many universities, the University of Washington is a community of people with widely differing views on a variety of issues. To the extent that the Chalk Message has informed UW students, faculty, and staff that there are people on campus who hold these views, it should be viewed as an opportunity for those who disagree to engage with them in good faith— Or if they wish to avoid such contact. Censoring them will not help change their minds and will deprive all parties of the opportunity to learn from each other.
The First Amendment, and UW’s longstanding commitment to its related norms, are most important on campus at a time when social and political unrest are fueling heightened emotions, deep divisions, and the temptation to resort to censorship. When a university departs from its core principles during these critical moments and resorts to suppressing views it deems abhorrent, it sends a message that the university has placed the rights of its students and its mission of a liberal education at the forefront of today’s under political demands.
Therefore, during this difficult time for campus speech, we urge you in the strongest terms to abide by the University’s legal and ethical obligations and respect students’ core freedoms of expression. This requires the immediate reinstatement of anti-colonial scientists and the UW-Madison Mechanical Student Organization and public denial of any ongoing investigation into their explicitly protected political speech.
Given the urgency of this matter, we request a substantive response to our inquiry by close of business on Thursday, May 23, 2024.
The legal analysis sounds about right to me. It’s important to note that even if the government could ban chalk writing in various locations (it’s unclear whether it can), it can’t specifically punish chalk writing that expresses certain views, including advocating foreign terrorist groups and supporting violence in foreign conflicts.
