If Syracuse University can prove that its educational mission is being hindered by an occupation of a public forum space, the university is “entitled” to end a protest, according to a recommendation from a workgroup on free speech.

The workgroup was created in February in response to resolutions passed by the Student Association, Graduate Student Organization and Student Bar Association in fall 2014 that said SU’s current computer and electronic policy is vague, broad and stifles academic freedom. The workgroup delivered its report to Chancellor Kent Syverud at the end of September. The Daily Orange obtained a copy of the report, which has not been made public.

While the workgroup was formed after concerns over the computer and electronic policy, the group decided that the rules governing free speech should cover speech in all its forms, according to the report. The workgroup didn’t rewrite policies relating to free speech on campus, but rather gave a framework for thinking about the topic, as well as some recommendations.

“… We hope this document will stimulate a debate about freedom of speech on campus, how to define it, and how to protect it,” the report says.

One of the main portions of the workgroup’s report discusses when the restriction of speech is acceptable. SU is in “the strongest position to restrict speech when that speech … threatens to undermine the educational mission.”

If the university does limit speech because of a threat to its educational mission, it has to show how the limitations help the university achieve its educational mission.

While offensive speech is protected, speech that poses a serious threat to the listener of the speech is not protected, according to the report.

“The university’s current efforts are vague and overbroad, and they permit the listener to weigh in too heavily in defining speech that is harassing,” the report says.

In order to protect minority viewpoints, the workgroup recommended SU support forums for open exchange of ideas.

The workgroup assumes campus is a public forum, according to the report, but SU could regulate areas like the Quad in order to protect the educational mission of the university.

In the section of the report on the occupation of a campus building, the workgroup says the assembly itself is an act of speech, but if SU can demonstrate the assembly is hindering the educational mission, it can end the protest.

In November 2014, THE General Body, a coalition of student organizations, held an 18-day sit-in in Crouse-Hinds Hall — SU’s administration building. While Crouse-Hinds serves as the administration building, classes are also held in the building, and THE General Body protesters stayed in the building’s first floor lobby. It is unclear if the group was hindering SU’s educational mission by the workgroup’s standards.

“The university need not tolerate the occupation of any space that is not deemed part of the public forum, such as a dormitory, a classroom building, the library, a dining commons, and so on,” the report says.

Kevin Quinn, SU’s senior vice president for public affairs, said in an email that he doesn’t believe there is any formal designation of Crouse-Hinds as a classroom building.

In December 2014, protesters held a “die-in” in Bird Library to rally against police brutality following the deaths of Eric Garner and Mike Brown.

The report also touches on the exhibition of banners and signs, saying that those items must be hung inside personal offices or dorm rooms. According to the workgroup’s proposal, the items may not be hung in common areas without permission from the building administrator.

Students at SU — a private university — should not have fewer free speech rights than students at public institutions due to federal funding and citizen preparation, according to the report.

In the hierarchy of speech portion of the workgroup’s assumptions, the workgroup says that sexual speech “should not be viewed as any more or less offensive than other types of speech that might be found offensive by other groups.”

“To list certain types of speech as more worthy of condemnation than others is itself offensive,” the report says.

In one of the final proposals in the report, the workgroup discusses computing and electronic communications. The workgroup “strongly” disagrees with the current computing and electronic communications policy that SU owns everything transmitted on the system, according to the report.

In 2012, the (FIRE) — a nonprofit devoted to free speech — gave SU a red-light rating because of its computing and electronic communications policy.

The group instead says the creator of the content owns them and SU only “owns” documents relating to the administration of the institution, such as student grades, financial data and personnel records. The group added that SU shouldn’t be allowed to access the non-administrative files without a subpoena.

Overall, the free speech policies of the university should be made easily available at one place on the SU website and in a single print publication, the report says.

In a separate letter to the presidents of the Student Association, Graduate Student Organization, Student Bar Association and chair of the University Senate Agenda Committee, Syverud asks the four leaders to assess the report in their organizations and asks each representative to report back to him by April 15, 2016 with their organizations’ perspectives and viewpoints.

Syverud asked the four to produce one report representing the recommendations of all four organizations as well as hold campus forums about the recommendations.

Working Group on Free Speech Recommendations Report

Published on November 10, 2015 at 9:58 pm

Contact Justin: [email protected] | @jmattingly306