It’s too early to know the full effect of enhanced restrictions placed on campus protests and demonstrations last month by the California State University and University of California systems. In most cases, classes are just under way, and the intensity of protest is not yet where it stood during last spring’s wave of pro-Palestinian actions.
But multiple interested groups, including faculty, students, labor organizations and, in one case, the American Civil Liberties Union have already expressed concern that the policies may be applied unfairly, singling out some campus demonstrations over others. That all speaks to the potential fallout of such behemoth systems essentially reacting to one particular set of protests.
“It’s a very top-down violation of academic freedom,” said Leda Ramos, a professor of Latino and Chicano studies at Cal State Los Angeles. “The intent is to create fear and criminalize labor and social justice organizing for students, faculty and staff in the statewide CSU system.”
California State University officials say no such thing is intended. “We have an obligation to ensure that all community members can access university property and university programs,” CSU spokesperson Hazel Kelly said when the system’s revised policy was announced in August.
As always, the devil is in the details.
Both CSU and UC have drawn a harder line on demonstrations after a spring filled with pro-Palestinian protests at campuses. In some cases, the new rules — referred to as time, place and manner (TPM) policies — restate regulations that are already on the books or exist under state law, like prohibitions on overnight encampments or unauthorized blockades of parts of campus.
But critics say the rules not only go too far, but are vague and could be applied selectively. In one case the American Civil Liberties Union got involved after five professors at Cal State Long Beach received notices this fall warning them that they had violated the campus’s “sound amplification” policy during a teach-in about Palestine last May.
During the teach-in, the professors had used a bullhorn to address nearly 1,000 protesters near a school administration building. By all accounts, there were nearly a dozen speakers that day, but only the five professors received notice about violating the policy.
In addition to questioning the constitutionality of Long Beach’s policy and its lack of specific definition, the ACLU’s letter to administrators noted that the five professors who were warned were also co-authors of a May article that had sharply criticized the university’s close ties with Boeing — which has contracts with the Israeli military — and several other military contractors.
ACLU attorney Jonathan Markovitz wrote that the university’s sound amplification policy “is unconstitutional on its face,” adding that Long Beach faculty have used amplification at past rallies without any warnings or sanctions. The attorney said the university may be practicing “viewpoint discrimination or retaliation” against the professors.
“I hope that the apparent inconsistent application of the university’s amplification (policy) has been merely an honest mistake,” Markovitz wrote, “but I am concerned that hope may not be justified.”
A Cal State Long Beach spokesman, Jeff Cook, told EdSource that the administration disagreed with the ACLU’s characterization of events, “and we also reaffirm that campus policies related to Time, Place and Manner are viewpoint-neutral.”
There are other basic issues in dispute. The powerful California Faculty Association, which represents 29,000 Cal State University professors, lecturers and other workers, filed an unfair labor practice charge against CSU earlier this month contending that the system instituted a directive from the chancellor — in addition to the revised protest rules — without bargaining with the union as required. (The directive basically urged campuses to strictly enforce existing policies.)
Further, the union said, “While Time, Place and Manner policies have existed on our campuses for decades to regulate when, where and how a campus is used, the new systemwide policy is a departure from past practices, as it is far more restrictive and oppressive than previous iterations.”
CSU’s Kelly told Capital & Main that the revised time, place and manner policy will not apply to represented employees until the university system has “met and conferred” with affected unions, including the California Faculty Association. That process is underway.
As for the CFA’s unfair practice claim, Kelly said, “The directive was issued to provide clarity to the campus community that during the meet and confer process, unlawful and prohibited activities will be strictly prohibited. The CSU denies the claims raised by CFA.”
But the CFA isn’t the only organization taking action. The California State University Employees Union, which represents 16,000 support staff across CSU’s campuses, sent a cease and desist letter to the university system in August asserting that the new interim time, place and manner policy cannot be implemented unilaterally.
“There is no question that CSU has a duty to bargain over both the decision to promulgate the Interim TPM Policy, and the effects thereof,” the letter said. “CSU is unable to assert a viable defense to justify its unilateral action.” (The university system maintains that it has a right to implement the new policy.)
For professors like Leda Ramos at Cal State Los Angeles, it’s the lack of student/faculty input into the revised rules that is so glaring, along with the sense that the policies were enacted almost strictly in response to problems that individual campuses had with pro-Palestinian protests.
“It’s wack,” Ramos said succinctly. Though it’s still early, she’s not alone in her view.
