CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE 20172018 REGULAR SESSION Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 21Introduced by Assembly Member KileyFebruary 08, 2017 Relative to public postsecondary education. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGESTACR 21, as introduced, Kiley. Public postsecondary education: free speech policy.This measure would urge all California State University and University of California schools to adopt as a policy the University of Chicago statement on free speech.Digest Key Fiscal Committee: YES Bill TextWHEREAS, The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.; andWHEREAS, The First Amendment prohibits, with narrowly defined exceptions, governmental entities such as state universities from restricting free speech; andWHEREAS, Free speech is being threatened at public universities across the country, including at recent events in California at the University of California, Berkeley and the University of California, Davis; andWHEREAS, In 2016, University of California President Janet Napolitano wrote that the sanctity of free speech in our country is hardly guaranteed at least not on our college campuses, where freedom of expression and the free flow of ideas should incubate discovery and learning and warned about how far we have moved from freedom of speech on campuses to freedom from speech; andWHEREAS, Furthermore, President Napolitano urged that the way to deal with extreme, unfounded speech is not with less speech it is with more speech, informed by facts and persuasive argument. Educating students from an informed more speech approach as opposed to silencing an objectionable speaker should be one of academias key roles; andWHEREAS, In a 2016 speech at Howard University, former President Barack Obama stated, Theres been a trend around the country of trying to get colleges to disinvite speakers with a different point of view, or disrupt a politicians rally. Dont do that no matter how ridiculous or offensive you might find the things that come out of their mouthsThere will be times when you shouldnt compromise your core values, your integrity, and you will have the responsibility to speak up in the face of injustice. But listen. Engage. If the other side has a point, learn from them. If theyre wrong, rebut them. Teach them. Beat them on the battlefield of ideas; andWHEREAS, In a recent study, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) conducted a survey of 449 colleges in the United States and found that 33.9% of public universities maintain severely restrictive speech codes that clearly and substantially prohibit constitutionally protected speech; and WHEREAS, The FIRE report identified 9 public universities in California as having at least one policy both clearly and substantially restricting freedom of speech and 23 public universities in California as having policies that could be interpreted to suppress protected speech; and WHEREAS, The Committee on Freedom of Expression at the University of Chicago was appointed in July 2014 by President Robert J. Zimmer and Provost Eric D. Isaacs in light of recent events nationwide that have tested institutional commitments to free and open discourse. The Committees charge was to draft a statement articulating the Universitys overarching commitment to free, robust, and uninhibited debate and deliberation among all members of the Universitys community; andWHEREAS, At least 16 universities across the country have adopted a version of the University of Chicago statement on free speech; andWHEREAS, The following is a model, based on the University of Chicago statement, for public universities in California to adopt:Because the institution is committed to free and open inquiry in all matters, it guarantees all members of the institutions community the broadest possible latitude to speak, write, listen, challenge, and learn. Except insofar as limitations on that freedom are necessary to the functioning of the institution, the institution fully respects and supports the freedom of all members of the institution community to discuss any problem that presents itself.Of course, the ideas of different members of the institutions community will often and quite naturally conflict. But it is not the proper role of the institution to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive. Although the institution greatly values civility, and although all members of the institutions community share in the responsibility for maintaining a climate of mutual respect, concerns about civility and mutual respect can never be used as a justification for closing off discussion of ideas, however offensive or disagreeable those ideas may be to some members of our community.The freedom to debate and discuss the merits of competing ideas does not, of course, mean that individuals may say whatever they wish, wherever they wish. The institution may restrict expression that violates the law, that falsely defames a specific individual, that constitutes a genuine threat or harassment, that unjustifiably invades substantial privacy or confidentiality interests, or that is otherwise directly incompatible with the functioning of the institution. In addition, the institution may reasonably regulate the time, place, and manner of expression to ensure that it does not disrupt the ordinary activities of the institution. But these are narrow exceptions to the general principle of freedom of expression, and it is vitally important that these exceptions never be used in a manner that is inconsistent with the institutions commitment to a completely free and open discussion of ideas.In a word, the institutions fundamental commitment is to the principle that debate or deliberation may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even by most members of the institution community to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed. It is for the individual members of the institutions community, not for the institution as an institution, to make those judgments for themselves, and to act on those judgments not by seeking to suppress speech, but by openly and vigorously contesting the ideas that they oppose. Indeed, fostering the ability of members of the institutions community to engage in such debate and deliberation in an effective and responsible manner is an essential part of the institutions educational mission.As a corollary to the institutions commitment to protect and promote free expression, members of the institutions community must also act in conformity with the principle of free expression. Although members of the institutions community are free to criticize and contest the views expressed on campus, and to criticize and contest speakers who are invited to express their views on campus, they may not obstruct or otherwise interfere with the freedom of others to express views they reject or even loathe. To this end, the institution has a solemn responsibility not only to promote a lively and fearless freedom of debate and deliberation, but also to protect that freedom when others attempt to restrict it; now, therefore, be itResolved by the Assembly of the State of California, the Senate thereof concurring, That the Legislature urges all California State University and University of California schools to adopt as a policy the University of Chicago statement on free speech; and be it furtherResolved, that the Chief Clerk of the Assembly transmit copies of this resolution to the author for appropriate distribution.
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE 20172018 REGULAR SESSION Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 21Introduced by Assembly Member KileyFebruary 08, 2017 Relative to public postsecondary education. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGESTACR 21, as introduced, Kiley. Public postsecondary education: free speech policy.This measure would urge all California State University and University of California schools to adopt as a policy the University of Chicago statement on free speech.Digest Key Fiscal Committee: YES
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE 20172018 REGULAR SESSION
Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 21
Introduced by Assembly Member KileyFebruary 08, 2017
Introduced by Assembly Member Kiley
February 08, 2017
Relative to public postsecondary education.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
## LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
ACR 21, as introduced, Kiley. Public postsecondary education: free speech policy.
This measure would urge all California State University and University of California schools to adopt as a policy the University of Chicago statement on free speech.
This measure would urge all California State University and University of California schools to adopt as a policy the University of Chicago statement on free speech.
## Digest Key
## Bill Text
WHEREAS, The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.; and
WHEREAS, The First Amendment prohibits, with narrowly defined exceptions, governmental entities such as state universities from restricting free speech; and
WHEREAS, Free speech is being threatened at public universities across the country, including at recent events in California at the University of California, Berkeley and the University of California, Davis; and
WHEREAS, In 2016, University of California President Janet Napolitano wrote that the sanctity of free speech in our country is hardly guaranteed at least not on our college campuses, where freedom of expression and the free flow of ideas should incubate discovery and learning and warned about how far we have moved from freedom of speech on campuses to freedom from speech; and
WHEREAS, Furthermore, President Napolitano urged that the way to deal with extreme, unfounded speech is not with less speech it is with more speech, informed by facts and persuasive argument. Educating students from an informed more speech approach as opposed to silencing an objectionable speaker should be one of academias key roles; and
WHEREAS, In a 2016 speech at Howard University, former President Barack Obama stated, Theres been a trend around the country of trying to get colleges to disinvite speakers with a different point of view, or disrupt a politicians rally. Dont do that no matter how ridiculous or offensive you might find the things that come out of their mouthsThere will be times when you shouldnt compromise your core values, your integrity, and you will have the responsibility to speak up in the face of injustice. But listen. Engage. If the other side has a point, learn from them. If theyre wrong, rebut them. Teach them. Beat them on the battlefield of ideas; and
WHEREAS, In a recent study, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) conducted a survey of 449 colleges in the United States and found that 33.9% of public universities maintain severely restrictive speech codes that clearly and substantially prohibit constitutionally protected speech; and
WHEREAS, The FIRE report identified 9 public universities in California as having at least one policy both clearly and substantially restricting freedom of speech and 23 public universities in California as having policies that could be interpreted to suppress protected speech; and
WHEREAS, The Committee on Freedom of Expression at the University of Chicago was appointed in July 2014 by President Robert J. Zimmer and Provost Eric D. Isaacs in light of recent events nationwide that have tested institutional commitments to free and open discourse. The Committees charge was to draft a statement articulating the Universitys overarching commitment to free, robust, and uninhibited debate and deliberation among all members of the Universitys community; and
WHEREAS, At least 16 universities across the country have adopted a version of the University of Chicago statement on free speech; and
WHEREAS, The following is a model, based on the University of Chicago statement, for public universities in California to adopt:
Because the institution is committed to free and open inquiry in all matters, it guarantees all members of the institutions community the broadest possible latitude to speak, write, listen, challenge, and learn. Except insofar as limitations on that freedom are necessary to the functioning of the institution, the institution fully respects and supports the freedom of all members of the institution community to discuss any problem that presents itself.
Of course, the ideas of different members of the institutions community will often and quite naturally conflict. But it is not the proper role of the institution to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive. Although the institution greatly values civility, and although all members of the institutions community share in the responsibility for maintaining a climate of mutual respect, concerns about civility and mutual respect can never be used as a justification for closing off discussion of ideas, however offensive or disagreeable those ideas may be to some members of our community.
The freedom to debate and discuss the merits of competing ideas does not, of course, mean that individuals may say whatever they wish, wherever they wish. The institution may restrict expression that violates the law, that falsely defames a specific individual, that constitutes a genuine threat or harassment, that unjustifiably invades substantial privacy or confidentiality interests, or that is otherwise directly incompatible with the functioning of the institution. In addition, the institution may reasonably regulate the time, place, and manner of expression to ensure that it does not disrupt the ordinary activities of the institution. But these are narrow exceptions to the general principle of freedom of expression, and it is vitally important that these exceptions never be used in a manner that is inconsistent with the institutions commitment to a completely free and open discussion of ideas.
In a word, the institutions fundamental commitment is to the principle that debate or deliberation may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even by most members of the institution community to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed. It is for the individual members of the institutions community, not for the institution as an institution, to make those judgments for themselves, and to act on those judgments not by seeking to suppress speech, but by openly and vigorously contesting the ideas that they oppose. Indeed, fostering the ability of members of the institutions community to engage in such debate and deliberation in an effective and responsible manner is an essential part of the institutions educational mission.
As a corollary to the institutions commitment to protect and promote free expression, members of the institutions community must also act in conformity with the principle of free expression. Although members of the institutions community are free to criticize and contest the views expressed on campus, and to criticize and contest speakers who are invited to express their views on campus, they may not obstruct or otherwise interfere with the freedom of others to express views they reject or even loathe. To this end, the institution has a solemn responsibility not only to promote a lively and fearless freedom of debate and deliberation, but also to protect that freedom when others attempt to restrict it; now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Assembly of the State of California, the Senate thereof concurring, That the Legislature urges all California State University and University of California schools to adopt as a policy the University of Chicago statement on free speech; and be it further
Resolved, that the Chief Clerk of the Assembly transmit copies of this resolution to the author for appropriate distribution.