Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives relating to protecting freedom of speech, thought, and expression at institutions of higher education.

IV 116TH CONGRESS 1ST SESSION H. RES. 191 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives relating to protecting freedom of speech, thought, and expression at institutions of higher education. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MARCH 7, 2019 Mr. DAVID P. ROE of Tennessee (for himself, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Mr. WEBER of Texas, Mr. LOUDERMILK, Mr. BABIN, Mr. FLEISCHMANN, Mr. BYRNE, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. GROTHMAN, Mr. GOSAR, Mr. RUTHERFORD, Mr. GIANFORTE, Mr. ALLEN, Mr. HICE of Georgia, Mr. WALBERG, Mr. LUETKEMEYER, Mr. NORMAN, Mr. KELLY of Penn- sylvania, Mr. KUSTOFF of Tennessee, and Mr. HUDSON) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a pe- riod to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for con- sideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the com- mittee concerned RESOLUTION Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives relat- ing to protecting freedom of speech, thought, and expres- sion at institutions of higher education. Whereas in Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169 (1972), the Su- preme Court of the United States held that the First Amendment applies in full force on public college and university campuses; Whereas in Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263 (1981), the Su- preme Court of the United States observed that ‘‘the VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:20 Mar 08, 2019 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\HR191.IH HR191 pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS 2 •HRES 191 IH 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 public college and university campuses 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 Con- gress noting that ‘‘an institution of higher education should facilitate the free and open exchange of ideas, stu- dents 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 in- fringe upon any constitutionally protected religious lib- erty, freedom, expression, or association’’; Whereas despite the clarity of the applicable legal precedent and the vital importance of protecting our Nation’s public colleges as true ‘‘marketplaces of ideas,’’ the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has found that rough- ly 1 in 10 of America’s top colleges and universities quar- antine student expression to so-called ‘‘free speech zones,’’ that more than 20 speakers were disinvited from speaking on campuses in 2016, and a survey of 449 schools found that almost 40 percent maintain severely restrictive speech codes that clearly and substantially pro- hibit constitutionally protected speech; Whereas according to the American Civil Liberties Union, ‘‘Speech codes adopted by government-financed state col- leges and universities amount to government censorship, in violation of the Constitution. And the ACLU believes that all campuses should adhere to First Amendment VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:20 Mar 08, 2019 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\HR191.IH HR191 pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS 3 •HRES 191 IH principles because academic freedom is a bedrock of edu- cation in a free society.’’; 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 Na- tional Security Agency, unless those students were stand- ing in the institution’s tiny, flood-prone free speech zone; Whereas in July 2015, California State Polytechnic Univer- sity, 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 school’s free speech zone, comprising less than 0.01 per- cent of campus; Whereas in May 2016, a student-plaintiff settled her lawsuit against Texas’ Blinn College for $50,000 after adminis- trators told her she needed ‘‘special permission’’ to advo- cate for Second Amendment rights outside of the school’s tiny free speech zone; Whereas in September 2016, two students from the Kellogg Community College in Battle Creek, Michigan, were ar- rested for handing out copies of the Constitution while talking with their fellow students on a sidewalk; Whereas a policy of the Los Angeles Community College Dis- trict—the largest community college district in the coun- try—declares that all of its campuses ‘‘are considered non-public forums, except for those portions of each col- lege designated as Free Speech Areas are hereby des- ignated as limited public forums, which designation may be removed and reverted to non-public forum designation by the Board of Trustees.’’; VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:20 Mar 08, 2019 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\HR191.IH HR191 pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS 4 •HRES 191 IH Whereas in March 2017, a student sued officials of Los An- geles Pierce College and the Los Angeles Community Col- lege District after administrators at Pierce College told him that he could not distribute Spanish-language copies of the Constitution on campus unless he was standing in the college’s free speech zone, which comprises approxi- mately .003 percent of the total area of Pierce College’s 426 acres; Whereas the States of Virginia, Missouri, Arizona, Kentucky, Colorado, and Utah have passed legislation prohibiting public colleges and universities from quarantining expres- sive activities on the open outdoor areas of campuses to misleadingly labeled free speech zones; 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; and 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: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep- 1 resentatives that— 2 (1) free speech zones and restrictive speech 3 codes are inherently at odds with the freedom of 4 speech guaranteed by the First Amendment of the 5 Constitution; and 6 VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:20 Mar 08, 2019 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HR191.IH HR191 pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS 5 •HRES 191 IH (2) institutions of higher education should fa- 1 cilitate and recommit themselves to protecting the 2 free and open exchange of ideas. 3 Æ VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:20 Mar 08, 2019 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6301 E:\BILLS\HR191.IH HR191 pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS