Indiana University just walked up fairly new rules that banned free talk activities after hours, but critics say there’s more work to be done to ensure the university’s seven-month-old “expressive action” policy passes constitutional muster.
The American Civil Liberties Union sued the school in October, challenging the legality of the legislation that forbids activities like trekking and demonstrations, yet peaceful people, between the hours of 11 p.m. and 6 a.m.
The lawsuit alleged that the plan, enacted in response to undergraduate demonstrations over the Israel-Palestinian fight, is excessively broad and violates the First Amendment.
The original plan, according to Steven Sanders, a legal law professor at Indiana University’s Maurer School of Law, prohibited any and all First Amendment-protected “expression action” between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. This meant that someone walking across campus at 2 a.m. wearing a democratic t-shirt or sending an email would essentially have been in violation of the policy.
In response, the school clarified its policy in November to only prohibit “protesting”, “making speeches”, and” circulating petitions” overnight. Additionally, the policy permits” IU Community Members” to” spontaneously and contemporaneously assemble and distribute literature.”
Despite the school’s attempts to soften their ban on late-night “expressive activities”, the ACLU is not satisfied. It amended its complaint on Nov. 26, arguing IU’s policy is still substantially overbroad, not appropriately tailored, and violates the First Amendment. That lawsuit is ongoing.
Some people have argued that the original policy may have been enforced unfairly since it became effective in August.
Sanders asserted that “large, ambiguous regulations on speech raise concerns about the potential for arbitrary enforcement.”
When they held silent candlelight vigils after 11:00 p.m., some critics questioned whether students who gathered early into Memorial Stadium broke the law. Several people, including students and faculty, were cited for breaking the law when they hosted such vigils after 11:00 p.m.
Sanders claimed that despite being more specific than in its previous form, the revised policy doesn’t really define certain terms.
” Who gets to define what constitutes a’ protest?’ Is it against the law for one person to “make a speech” if they are loudly speaking to a group of two other people? You get the impression that even the revised policy was not at all well thought-through”, he told The Fix.
The policy should outline specific criteria, such as restricting amplified sound or limiting the size of overnight gatherings, rather than relying on vague terms like “protest”, he said.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression’s Laura Beltz, director of policy reform for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, reported to The College Fix that the First Amendment carve outs are still illuminating and not sufficiently clear for students to understand the policy and adhere to it.
” IU may be relying on statutory definitions of terms like assembly and protest, I’m not sure if that’s the case or not, but expecting students to cross-reference their university policy with state codes is unreasonable”, Beltz said.
” Campus safety is always a concern, and to that end, universities can enact reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. But if you don’t tell students when spontaneous assembly crosses the line into prohibited protest, this creates more confusion”, she said via email.
The ACLU’s complaint was amended in November, and it now includes a second lawsuit involving Bloomington residents and an IU student, both of whom were detained for their part in the April 2024 demonstrations. The case is ongoing.
MORE: Indiana University board imposes limits on protests
MORE: University of College / Shutterstock
Follow The College Fix on Twitter and Like us on Facebook.
