Top College News Subscribe to the Newsletter

Red light, green light

USF, Florida public universities receive ‘red light’ on free speech policies

Published: Monday, July 8, 2013

Updated: Monday, July 8, 2013 02:07

When students organized a candlelight vigil in remembrance of Trayvon Martin last February, conflict occurred between the student organizations and university administration over whether a permit for the event would be granted, according to USF alumnus and former Students for Democratic Society (SDS) President Matt Hastings.

Organizers of the event were told by administrators they would be charged $650 to host the event on campus due to the university viewing the event as a community event with non-USF student organization involvement. 

“We explained how unfair this was and finally got them to back off,” Hastings said. “USF thought it would be a bunch of community members who were going to come to this event, and the students weren’t doing any work for it, just the outside group.” 

The event was able to take place, and Hastings said the majority of the 60 attendees were USF students. Throughout the planning process, however, he said student organization leaders felt that they were facing difficulties in having their concerns addressed and heard by administrators at the university. 

“When you have USF administrators emailing you and calling you up, threatening you with hundreds of dollars of fines and disciplinary action, you’re going to be a little scared, and you’re not prepared to stand up to that,” he said. 

But Hastings isn’t the only one concerned about his free speech rights being restricted. 

A recent national study found USF is just one of many colleges with policies that restrict freedom of speech. 


USF, along with six other Florida public universities, were categorized as “red light” schools based on an evaluation of each school’s policies by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), an organization founded in 1999 to help protect fundamental rights of college students, such as freedom of speech and self-expression. 

The remaining four universities were listed as yellow light schools. 

The FIRE evaluated 11 free speech-related policies at USF last February, two of which were categorized as red light policies.

“Unfortunately, a majority of the universities we rate, including public universities, do have red lights,” Harris said. “Given that it’s only two (red light policies at USF), one thing that I always like to tell people is that we’re happy to work with administrators and students at schools towards policy reform, and we’ve done that at a lot of universities.” 

Harris said the policies at USF that have red light distinction can be fixed easily based on editing the wording chosen and the examples used within the policies. 

“With the University of South Florida’s policies, they’re pretty easy to fix because they’re saying examples of prohibited conduct include x, y and z,” Harris said. “What they would need to do is either get rid of the list of examples or if they do want to provide examples, just make clear that the list of prohibited conduct is tied to the definition.”

Examples of what is prohibited include the sexual harassment and discrimination policies, Harris said, which can be free speech protected by the First Amendment.

“In the sexual misconduct policy, the definition itself would be fine, but then it provides a list of what is prohibited,” she said. “On that list is ‘displaying or telling sexually-orientated jokes, statements, photographs, drawings, computer images, websites, videos, slides, graphics, calendars, cartoons, emails or other communications.’ So it basically prohibits all sexually-oriented speech.”

Harris said the case is the same with the university’s policies on discrimination and harassment. The policy prohibits “writing or displaying letters, notes or emails which are derogatory towards any individual’s race, color or marital status.” 

“It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to think of the political or ideological opinions that people might express in the course of legitimate academic debate that someone else might perceive as derogatory,” Harris said. “If you wrote an email in which you expressed an opinion opposing affirmative action for example. All of those certain hot button topics have strong feelings on both sides, so someone may perceive someone else’s opinion or statement as derogatory, but that in and of itself does not make it unprotected speech.” 

These policies are problematic, Harris said, because institutions can face legal problems due to these policies, and students can have their First Amendment rights suppressed by universities who enforce policies that conflict with free speech.

“A public university can be sued,” Harris said. “If a student who is disciplined under these policies feels they were disciplined for constitutionally protected speech, they can bring a First Amendment challenge.”


According to the USF Student Organization Handbook, the university has the authority to review events, such as the one Hasting’s group organized, proposed by student organizations that are considered controversial or popular — i.e., musicians, films, debates or lectures — among other categories according to the policy.

Recommended: Articles that may interest you


Fri Jul 12 2013 16:16
I'm not sure how that comment was accurate or helpful. While I am not familiar with American Council of Trustees and Alumni, I am familiar with FIRE and fail to see how you support that characterization. Your comment comes off as an attempt to dismiss their input based simply on an label or implication. In this particular article, the issue at hand stems from an attempted vigil for Martin. According to the standard splitting of every media item into a right/left argument, this is a "left" sort of thing to argue for. FIRE has argued for pro-choice groups as well. Fact is, based on actions, FIRE is about as non-partisan as one could ask for and advocates for student rights, not a particular political view. The have worked on behalf of students, faculty, and groups all across the perceived right/left spectrum. Minimal research would make that clear. Of course, if you simply perceive advocating for free speech as a "conservative" thing to do, then I suppose your definition fits, within your particular version of the world. I doubt that decades of free speech and civil rights advocates would agree that they were all "conservatives" however. Freedom of speech and academic freedom should not be an issue that only those on the "right" or "left" care about. This sounds like a case of projection on your part, where you are so wrapped up in "right" versus "left," that you assume everyone else is viewing the world through the same colored glasses. For instance, would a "conservative" group advocate on the side of:

A female student being punished for speaking out about her alleged attacker and complaining about the university's handling of sexual assault cases?

An explanation as to why a university would dis-invite William Ayers as a speaker on campus?

A group being denied campus space to hold an "anti-Israel" event?

A student group being denied recognition for their campus chapter of the NAACP?

I could go on and on, but the point is that your own polarized view of left/right does not automatically extend to everyone else. Free speech is an issue for all sides of the political spectrum. You will not find a more non-partisan "advocacy group" out there than FIRE. What you will find is any number of college administrators and campus groups that are happy to suppress the 1st amendment rights of others, based solely on their perception of the ideological content of their speech. FIRE advocates for a constitutional and humanistic principle, not an ideological one.

Fri Jul 12 2013 15:04
There's no "perspective on these free speech policies".....there's simply the law, and a whole slew of historical, precedent-setting court cases (all the way to the Supreme Court) that confirm FIRE's stance.
Wed Jul 10 2013 19:07
Please note that both FIRE and the American Council of Trustees and Alumni are conservative-leaning groups. It would have been nice to read the perspective on these free speech policies from groups at other places on the political spectrum

log out