We have joined with our colleagues in UAW-4811 (representing UC’s academic student employees, postdocs, and academic researchers), the California Faculty Association (representing faculty at CSU), and numerous other allies in opposition to SB-1287, which would restrict protected free speech on university campuses across the state. See our letter of opposition below.
June 12, 2024
The Honorable Steve Glazer
1020 N Street, Suite 7520
Sacramento, California 95814
Re: SB 1287 (Glazer) — Oppose
Dear Senator Glazer:
The Council of UC Faculty Associations respectfully opposes your bill SB 1287, which will restrict protected speech on campuses across the state.
Public higher education institutions are public spaces and must be areas where California shows its commitment to free academic thought by strongly protecting freedom of speech. Our members stand resolutely against hate in all forms, including antisemitism and anti-Palestinian and anti-Arab racism. But punishing students and speakers on campus for exercising their right to freely express themselves is wrong and unlawful—even when the views expressed are not shared by everyone.
Instead of reducing tensions on campus and creating space for dialogue across political differences, this bill will deepen political divides and create an unnecessary and duplicative enforcement structure to police speech on both sides. We seek to work together to create a better climate on campuses where everyone can peacefully demonstrate in support of their beliefs, but this bill will only make that collaboration more difficult and will not do anything to reduce the tension that has resulted in violence against union members.
We have serious concerns with Time, Place, and Manner (TPM) policies being enshrined through a stratification of on-campus spaces as “public”, “limited public”, and “nonpublic”. This separation of campus spaces is against the spirit of public education in our state and puts in jeopardy the sanctity of those public spaces as well as the right to freedom of speech. Campuses with already existing TPM policies are overly prescriptive in nature, in some cases specifying maximum decibels of noise or extreme time constraints on activity. These policies restrict freedoms of speech and association, particularly those that are critical of administrative policies and actions or which are protected union activity.
We also have significant concerns about the mandated training programs that are outlined in the bill. These programs would only reinforce administrative attitudes and perspectives on speech and activities that will prevent campus communities from coming together. Topics considered taboo to campus administrations, regardless of their view by the general public, will be at risk of being silenced, threatening the academic integrity of California’s higher education institutions. There is a long history of using “civility training” to stop conversations from happening on campus that administrators disagree with. Instead of mandating training to tell people what they can and can’t say, campus administrators should talk to those demonstrating about the issues at hand and work together to find solutions to those problems on their campuses and in their workplaces.
In addition, the provisions of this bill surrounding student codes of conduct are redundant and wholly unnecessary to meet the bill’s stated intent. Requiring students to sign declarations of obedience is unconscionable and unduly impacts the students that our public institutions claim they are seeking to empower.
We share the bill’s stated intent to bring civility back to on-campus discourse. Unfortunately, the implementation of this bill would have the opposite effect by deepening political divides and negatively impacting our campuses, our communities, and our public discourse. For all these stated reasons, we must respectfully oppose SB 1287.
Respectfully,
Constance Penley
President, The Council of UC Faculty Associations
Professor, Film and Media Studies, UCSB