Students, faculty and staff have expressed similar concerns with recently proposed campus regulations that they claim would restrict their freedom of speech and expression at the University of Rhode Island.
The Board of Trustees document detailing the regulations to campus property was drafted to protect the campus community, according to Vice President of Student Affairs Ellen Reynolds, who said that other higher education institutions have similar regulations in place.
“This is a threat to our First Amendment rights, our freedom to express ourselves about the things we object to, whatever they might be, whatever your cause is,” university psychologist Warren Schwatz said in Wednesday’s student senate meeting.
Plans to devise a document of regulatory nature for university property started to form during the summer, according to Jay Walsh, the executive director of the American Association of University Professors at URI.
The draft, titled “University of Rhode Island Board of Trustees Regulations Regarding Use of University Property ,” was uploaded to a Google Drive on Oct. 8. A notice was subsequently sent out by Rhody Today “seeking feedback” for these proposed regulations.
While the document had been released at the beginning of the month, the process to comment on the draft was not an easy one, according to Walsh.
“I think that there were very few public comments as of that point on Tuesday, Oct. 22, and then the faculty shared it with students, staff [and] other organizations on campus,” Walsh said. “And the students, to their credit, have taken it up.”
Most students first heard of the document on Oct. 24, when student senate President Argha Goswami posted a series of infographics on Instagram detailing certain themes from the regulations. At the time, the open commenting period was scheduled to end on Friday, the next day. As of Tuesday night, the post amassed over 103,000 views, 92% of them being from non-followers of the account, according to a post made by Goswami.
The draft proposes to implement regulations around leafleting and distribution of literature, disruptions to campus operations, signs, postings, banners, amplified sound and building access, among others.
While students were concerned about their rights to partake in various activities on campus regarding freedom of expression, faculty members additionally expressed concern with the process by which the document had been shared and the vague language used.
“I think that people are upset with a lot of the points, and it ultimately boils down to the fact that there is a lack of definition from what we’re hearing,” Walsh said.
AAUP’s vice president of the executive committee, Cate Morrison, said she had concerns about the regulations being applied fairly.
“It can be used to target anyone that the administration doesn’t like essentially, at the end of the day because of its vagueness,” Morrison said.
Student representatives were able to share their concerns with administration, including President Marc Parlange, at Wednesday’s student senate meeting.
“I think the biggest concern everyone has is that the rules itself are vague, but the punishment is very strong because it directly means expulsion or suspension,” Goswami said.
Sen. Timothy Small echoed student concern surrounding protesting, especially given the timing of the proposal.
“There have been a lot of college protests happening recently, and a lot of colleges are trying to pamper them out,” Small said. “I think this bill was written to try and get ahead of the curve.”
Reynolds assured students that university administration values freedom of speech and protest.
“The freedom of speech and that ability to have that on this campus is critically important,” Reynolds said.
Regulations would ensure the safety of students, staff and the public when protesting, Reynolds said.
Parlange and Reynolds said comments would be taken under advisement, and they appreciate all suggestions.
Discourse around the draft caught the attention of the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island, who shared a comment with their criticisms and suggestions. The ACLURI suggested “defining” and “limiting” terms in regulations for clarity.
“In this case, I don’t think the university lived up to its own values that include that it’s a diverse community, and the diverse community means a diversity of thoughts,” Walsh said.
The Board of Trustees is responsible for managing and overseeing the university’s property and they have begun to implement new policies on campus since its inception nearly five years ago.
“[The Board of Trustees] have an incredibly long list of policies that we need to enact,” Reynolds said. “And this, the timing was right to work on this one.”
Despite the fact that campus professionals insist the document will not prohibit protesting, the process by which the document was launched to the campus community alarmed some individuals.
“I am concerned that this policy is indicative of what is becoming a larger pattern of behavior whereby the administration doesn’t consider either faculty or students to be real stakeholders with any kind of real agency,” Morrison said.
Public comments on the regulations are scheduled to close on Nov. 15 and students, faculty and staff are encouraged to provide their input on the university policy website where it reads “Submit a Comment .”