A group for free speech has demanded that the California State University system review its brand-new” Other Perform of Concern” discrimination and harassment policy, calling it excessive and unconstitutionally vague, and claiming it would unduly shiver expression.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression wrote to CSU leaders,” We urge you to rethink this advice and maintain no members of the CSU systemwide area are content to investigations or sanctions for engaging in constitutionally protected representation.”
The five-page Dec. 30 letter from the democratic nonprofit focused on defending free talk told officials of the 23-campus program the plan is a legal quagmire.
It is greatly concerning that this systemwide advice specifically addresses “behaviors that do not violate CSU laws or local, state, or federal regulations and are therefore not subject to disciplinary action.” This implies that the First Amendment protects the vast majority of behaviors that will be the theme of this program,” the letter states.
At their December meeting, CSU governors orally declared their support for the coverage. The California Auditor is scheduled to review it this quarter while it is still in document type.
The” Other Do of Concern” plan intends to control complaints of discrimination and harassment that do not contravene local, state, or federal regulations. It requires people to tackle any and all information of “verbal abuse”, “intimidating conduct”, “microaggressions that are not pervasive”, “bullying”, “hostile vocabulary”, and “acts of partiality”.
Despite messages and a phone, Cal State’s public matters business did not respond to The College Fix regarding FIRE’s notice. Additionally, The College Fix‘s email requests for comment were never responded to by the organization’s trustees department and chancellor’s office.
Under the” Other Do of Concern” plan, complaints will be tackled through a seven-step approach: confirmation, initial assessment, help for the “reporting party”, factfinding, communication, action, and follow-up. Reports call for” corrective action” in the form of re-education trainings and restorative justice actions to be taken when complaints are investigated.
In its letter, FIRE contends that the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit “has established that investigations cross the threshold from permissibly gathering information to impermissibly chilling speech when the process would” chill or silence a person of ordinary firmness from upcoming First Amendment activities.”
The policy is “unconstitutionally vague,” according to the letter.
” When parsing through the guidance, students are left wondering the meaning of terms such as ‘ microaggressions,’ ‘ bullying,’ ‘ bias,’ ‘ intolerance,’ ‘ verbal abuse,’ and ‘ intimidating behavior.’ Additionally, the guidance urges community members to” come out with sensitivity and care” without going into more detail about what those terms mean.
“…Absent any clarification in the text of the guidance, there is simply no way of divining the meaning of this exceedingly-vague language. As a result, the language of the guidance cannot survive constitutional scrutiny”.
The policy was also criticized in an article by San Diego State University professor Peter C. Herman, who claimed that “everyone is under surveillance and wants to set up a complicated system to police “OCC”:” People who experience or witness OCC” can report it.
“…It’s astonishing how tone deaf this is”, states the Times of San Diego op-ed. The CSU proposes an Orwellian policy in which everyone is under suspicion, the accused have virtually no rights, and almost anything you say can get you in trouble. At a time when America has shifted to the right, a growing number of people in the US have little confidence in higher education in good part because of rampant violations of free speech.
MORE: New CSU policy to police complaints of bias, microaggressions, intimidation, hostile words
IMAGE: CSU system
Follow The College Fix on Twitter and Like us on Facebook.
