1. First Amendment on the College Campus Neal Hutchens Penn State University

2. From Jan. 22 nd Editorial in Daily Collegian

3. First Amendment on Campus  Sup. Ct. decisions establish public college students possess 1st Amend. speech rights (e.g., Healy v. James, 1972)  Students do not shed rights at “schoolhouse gate”  But, importance of context and content:  Enhanced authority, e.g., in curricular contexts (see Axson-Flynn v. Johnson, 2004) or threating or harassing speech targeted at specific individuals (but not generalized “hate speech”)  In contrast, independent student speech outside of class environment often receives substantial protection

4.  Traditional Public Forum  The Hazy Middle  Designated Limited/Designated Unlimited (Bowman)  True Designated/Designated Limited (Smith)  Non-public Forum Open Campus Areas and Forum Analysis Background Picture: where it all began—digital recreation of original forum in Rome

5. The Big ‘?’: Standards for Open Areas Time, Place, and Manner restrictions: (a)content-neutral (b) narrowly tailored to serve significant govt. interest (c) ample alternative channels of communication Content based restrictions must survive strict scrutiny ————————OR———————— Viewpoint neutrality and any restrictions must be reasonable in light of purpose served by forum

6.  University argued campus area constituted limited public forum where requirements such as prior notice permissible  Preliminary injunction granted to students Case in Point:  Restrictions on open campus areas limited demonstrations, picketing, and rallies to small area  Groups of students required to give at least 5 days notice before engaging in speech activities Univ. of Cincinnati Chapt. of Young Am. for Liberty v. Williams McMicken Commons at University of Cincinnati

8. Beyond Legal Analysis

9. Beyond Legal Analysis (cont.)  Consider Policies, Plans in Advance  Bring campus actors together  Active monitoring, including through social media  Keep in mind what must do—First Amendment not voluntary  What can do isn’t always what should do  Role of Institutional mission, values  Opportunities for dialogue  Employ campus police carefully (pizza before pepper spray)  Negative consequences, especially for vulnerable populations  Best response to speech often more speech (silence is a response!)  Support systems such as from multicultural centers, campus leaders

10. QUESTIONS, COMMENTS

11. References Axson-Flynn v. Johnson, 356 F.3d 1277 (10th Cir. 2004). Bowman v. White, 444 F.3d 967 (8th Cir. 2006). Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169 (1972). Justice for All v. Faulkner, 410 F.3d 760 (5th Cir. 2005) OSU Student Alliance v. Ray, 699 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2012). Smith v. Tarrant County Coll. Dist., 694 F. Supp. 2d 610 (N.D. Tex. 2010). Univ. of Cincinnati Chapter of Young Am. v. Williams, No. 1:12-CV-155, 2012 WL 2160969, (S.D. Ohio 2012).