I. Fundamental Principles
The primary function of a university is to discover and disseminate knowledge by means of research, teaching, and public service. To fulfill this function a free interchange of ideas is necessary not only within its walls but with the world beyond as well. It follows that the university must do everything possible to ensure within it the fullest degree of intellectual freedom. The history of intellectual growth and discovery clearly demonstrates the need for unfettered freedom, the right to think the unthinkable, discuss the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable. To curtail free expression strikes twice at intellectual freedom, for whoever deprives another of the right to state unpopular views necessarily also deprives others of the right to listen to and evaluate those opinions and arguments.
We take a chance, as the First Amendment takes a chance, when we commit ourselves to the idea that the results of free expression are to the general benefit in the long run, however unpleasant they may appear at the time. The validity of such a belief cannot be demonstrated conclusively. It is a belief of recent historical development, even within universities, one embodied in American constitutional doctrine but not widely shared outside the academic world, and denied in theory and in practice by much of the world most of the time.
Because few other institutions in our society have the same central function, few assign such high priority to freedom of expression. Few are expected to. Because no other kind of institution combines the discovery and dissemination of basic knowledge with teaching, none confronts quite the same problems as a university.
For if a university is a place for knowledge, it is also a special kind of small society. Yet it is not primarily a fellowship, a club, a circle of friends, a replica of the civil society outside it. Without sacrificing its central purpose, it cannot make its primary and dominant value the fostering of friendship, solidarity, harmony, civility, or mutual respect. To be sure, these are important values; other institutions may properly assign them the highest, and not merely a subordinate, priority; and a good university will seek and may in some significant measure attain these ends. But it will never let these values, important as they are, override its central purpose. We value freedom of expression precisely because it provides a forum for the new, the provocative, the disturbing, and the unorthodox. Free speech is a barrier to the tyranny of authoritarian or even majority opinion as to the rightness or wrongness of particular doctrines or thoughts.
If the priority assigned to free expression by the nature of a university is to be maintained in practice, clearly the responsibility for maintaining that priority rests with its members. By voluntarily taking up membership in a university and thereby asserting a claim to its rights and privileges, members also acknowledge the existence of certain obligations upon themselves and their fellows. Above all, every member of the university has an obligation to permit free expression in the university. No member has a right to prevent such expression. Every official of the university, moreover, has a special obligation to foster free expression and to ensure that it is not obstructed. Administrative staff or other members of the University community engaging in actions to suppress freedom of speech shall be subject to appropriate sanctions.
The strength of these obligations, and the willingness to respect and comply with them, probably depend less on the expectation of the punishment for violation than they do on the presence of a widely shared belief in the primacy of free expression. Nonetheless, we believe that the positive obligation to protect and respect free expression shared by all members of the university should be enforced by appropriate formal sanctions, because obstruction of such liberty threatens the central function of the university. We further believe that such sanctions should be made explicit, so that potential violators will be aware of the consequences of their intended acts.
In addition to the university'Õs primary obligation to protect free expression there are also responsibilities assumed by each member of the university community, along with the right to enjoy free expression. Though these are much more difficulty to state clearly, they are of great importance. If freedom of expression is to serve its purpose and thus the purpose of the university, it should seek to enhance understanding. Shock, horror, and anger are not consequences to be weighed lightly, but it may sometimes be necessary in a university for civility and mutual respect to be superseded by the need to guarantee free expression. The values superseded are nevertheless important, and every member of the university community should consider them in exercising the fundamental right to free expression.
We have considered the opposing argument that expressive behavior which violates these social and ethical considerations should be made subject to formal sanction, and the argument that such behavior entitles others to prevent speech they might regard as offensive. Our conviction that the central purpose of the university is to foster the free access to ideas and the pursuit of knowledge compels us to reject both of these arguments. They assert a right to prevent free expression. They rest upon the assumption that speech can be suppressed by anyone who deems it false or offensive. They deny what Justice Holmes termed Òfreedom for the thought that we hate.Ó They make the majority, or any willful minority, the arbiters of truth for all. If expression may be prevented, censored or punished, because of its content or because of the motives attributed to those who promote or exercise it, then it is no longer free. It will be subordinated to other values that we believe to be of lower priority in a university.
The conclusions we draw, then, are these: even when some members of the university community fail to meet their social and ethical responsibilities, the paramount obligation of the university is to protect their right to free expression. This obligation can and should be enforced by appropriate formal sanctions. If the universityÕs overriding commitment to free expression is to be sustained, secondary social and ethical responsibilities must be left to the informal processes of moral suasion, example, and argument. Moreover, this approach can nurture a healthy tolerance for diversity of opinion and views in the public sphere, while at the same time developing the audience's critical skills for understanding messages, considering their implications, and refuting those with which they might disagree.
II. Peaceful Dissent, Protests And Demonstrations.
The University shall designate and publicize certain convenient public common areas where both members of the University community and non-affiliated persons can express their views on issues of personal and public concern to members of the University community. The right of free expression in a university also includes the right to peaceful dissent, protests in peaceable assembly, and orderly demonstrations which include picketing, the distribution of leaflets, or other means of symbolic expression. These shall be permitted on the campus, until or unless they substantially disrupt regular or essential operations of the University or significantly infringe the rights of others, particularly the right to listen to a speech or lecture.
III. Invited Speakers on Campus.
A. Commitment and Responsibilities of the University. In view of the obligation of any university to promote the free expression of all views, the campus is open to any speaker whom students or members of the faculty have invited, and for whom official arrangements to speak have been made with the University. The University is committed to maintaining an environment where open, vigorous debate and speech can occur. This commitment entails encouraging and assisting student organizations that want to sponsor speakers, providing funding for registered student organizations on a content-neutral basis, and informing students who seek guidance concerning forms of protest against speakers. It may also involve paying for extraordinary security measures in connection with a controversial speaker. Consistent with these obligations, the University endorses these guidelines, which are intended to be content-neutral.
B. The Right to Dissent. The right to dissent is the complement of the right to speak, but these rights need not occupy the same forum at the same time. The speaker is entitled to communicate her or his message to the audience during her or his allotted time, and the audience is entitled to hear the message and see the speaker during that time. The dissenter must not substantially interfere with the speakerÕs ability to communicate or the audienceÕs ability to hear and see the speaker.
The following guidelines, which are neither comprehensive nor absolute, suggest the limits of appropriate dissent:
1. Picketing; literature. Picketing in an orderly way or distributing literature outside the meeting is acceptable unless it substantially impedes access to the meeting. Distributing literature inside an open meeting is acceptable before the meeting is called to order and after the meeting is adjourned.
2. Silent or symbolic protest. Displaying a sign, wearing clothing, gesturing, standing, or otherwise protesting noiselessly is acceptable unless the protest interferes with the audienceÕs view or physically prevents the audience from paying attention to the speaker. Any use of signs, prolonged standing, or other activities likely to block the view of any one in the audience should be confined to the back of the room.
3. Noise. Responding vocally to the speaker, spontaneously and temporarily, is generally acceptable, especially if reaction against the speaker is similar in kind and degree to reaction in his or her favor. Chanting or making other sustained or repeated noise, during a speech, in a manner which substantially interferes with the speakerÕs communication or the audience's right to hear is not appropriate, whether inside or outside the meeting.
4. Force or Violence. Using or threatening force or violence, such as defacing a sign or assaulting a speaker or a member of the audience is to undermine the communication process and the consideration of ideas. Any interference with freedom of movement, or with freedom from personal force and violence, is a serious violation of personal rights.
C. The Audience'Õs Responsibility. The audience, like the host and the speaker, must respect the right to dissent. A member of the audience, the host organization, or the University staff who substantially interferes with acceptable dissent is violating these guidelines in the same way as a dissenter who violates the rights of the speaker or audience.
D. Questions and Answer Period in Open Meetings. The sponsoring organization shall arrange with the speaker to assure a reasonable opportunity for a question and answer period.
IV. Sanctions
Violation of the free speech rights of any person, as recognized and protected in this policy, will be treated seriously. Violators will be subject to the following sanctions:
A. Expulsion from a meeting or event;
B. Arrest or other legal action; and/or
C. As to members of the University community, disciplinary proceedings before the appropriate University judicial board or committee, which may impose any of the following sanctions.
1. Warning;
2. Written reprimand;
3. Required First Amendment sensitivity training;
4. Suspension; and/or
5. Expulsion or dismissal
D. Pursuant to existing procedures, these sanctions may be noted on a student'Õs transcript and placed in a faculty or staff members personnel file.