U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

22–161 2017

PROTECTING THE FREE EXCHANGE OF IDEAS 

ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MARCH 2, 2016 

Serial No. 114–OS10 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means 

( 

ii 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

KEVIN BRADY, Texas, Chairman 

SAM JOHNSON, Texas 

DEVIN NUNES, California 

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

PETER J. ROSKAM, Illinois 

TOM PRICE, Georgia 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska 

LYNN JENKINS, Kansas 

ERIK PAULSEN, Minnesota 

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas 

DIANE BLACK, Tennessee 

TOM REED, New York 

TODD YOUNG, Indiana 

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania 

JIM RENACCI, Ohio 

PAT MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

KRISTI NOEM, South Dakota 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

JASON SMITH, Missouri 

ROBERT J. DOLD, Illinois 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan 

CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York 

JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington 

JOHN LEWIS, Georgia 

RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts 

XAVIER BECERRA, California 

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas 

MIKE THOMPSON, California 

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

RON KIND, Wisconsin 

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

DANNY DAVIS, Illinois 

LINDA SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

DAVID STEWART, Staff Director 

NICK GWYN, Minority Chief of Staff 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

PETER J. ROSKAM, Illinois, Chairman 

PAT MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

JASON SMITH, Missouri 

TOM REED, New York 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas 

JOHN LEWIS, Georgia 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York 

DANNY DAVIS, Illinois 

iii 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Advisory of March 2, 2016 announcing the hearing ............................................. 2 

WITNESSES 

Alexander Atkins, Law Student, Georgetown University .................................... 10 

Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University, and Visiting Professor of Law at Harvard University .............................. 87 

Frances R. Hill, Professor of Law and Dean’s Distinguished Scholar for the 

Profession, University of Miami School of Law ................................................. 116 

Catherine Sevcenko, Director of Litigation, Foundation for Individual Rights 

in Education ......................................................................................................... 40 

Joshua Zuckerman, Student, Princeton University, and Founding Member 

of the Princeton Open Campus Coalition ........................................................... 67 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) ....................................................................... 172 

Christian Legal Society (CLS) ................................................................................ 176 

Charles Michelsen ................................................................................................... 186 

Cru ............................................................................................................................ 188 

Doug Weber .............................................................................................................. 197 

Justin P. Gunter ...................................................................................................... 199 

Michael Berry ........................................................................................................... 204 

Mitchell Steffen ........................................................................................................ 213 

ReJOYce In Jesus Campus Fellowship (RJCF) ..................................................... 216 

Young America’s Foundation (YAF) ....................................................................... 226 

(1) 

PROTECTING THE FREE EXCHANGE OF IDEAS 

ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2, 2016 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in 

Room 1100, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Peter Roskam 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

[The advisory announcing the hearing follows:] 

2 

ADVISORY 

FROM THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: (202) 225–3625 

Wednesday, February 24, 2016 

No. OS–10 

Chairman Roskam Announces Hearing on 

Protecting the Free Exchange of Ideas 

on College Campuses 

* NEW LOCATION * 

All other details remain unchanged 

House Ways and Means Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Peter Roskam (R–IL), 

today announced that the Subcommittee will hold a hearing on ‘‘Protecting the Free 

Exchange of Ideas on College Campuses’’ on Wednesday, March 2, 2016, in 

Room 1100 of the Longworth House Office Building, beginning at 10:00 a.m. 

In view of the limited time to hear witnesses, oral testimony at this hearing will 

be from invited witnesses only. However, any individual or organization not scheduled for an oral appearance may submit a written statement for consideration by 

the Committee and for inclusion in the printed record of the hearing. 

DETAILS FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: 

Please Note: Any person(s) and/or organization(s) wishing to submit written comments for the hearing record must follow the appropriate link on the hearing page 

of the Committee website and complete the informational forms. From the Committee homepage, http://waysandmeans.house.gov, select ‘‘Hearings.’’ Select the hearing for which you would like to make a submission, and click on the link entitled, 

‘‘Click here to provide a submission for the record.’’ Once you have followed the online instructions, submit all requested information. ATTACH your submission as a 

Word document, in compliance with the formatting requirements listed below, by 

the close of business on Wednesday, March 16, 2016. For questions, or if you 

encounter technical problems, please call (202) 225–3625 or (202) 225–9263. 

FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS: 

The Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the official hearing 

record. As always, submissions will be included in the record according to the discretion of the Committee. The Committee will not alter the content of your submission, 

but we reserve the right to format it according to our guidelines. Any submission 

provided to the Committee by a witness, any materials submitted for the printed 

record, and any written comments in response to a request for written comments 

must conform to the guidelines listed below. Any submission not in compliance with 

these guidelines will not be printed, but will be maintained in the Committee files 

for review and use by the Committee. 

1. All submissions and supplementary materials must be submitted in a single 

document via email, provided in Word format and must not exceed a total of 10 

pages. Witnesses and submitters are advised that the Committee relies on electronic 

submissions for printing the official hearing record. 

2. All submissions must include a list of all clients, persons and/or organizations 

on whose behalf the witness appears. The name, company, address, telephone, and 

3 

fax numbers of each witness must be included in the body of the email. Please exclude any personal identifiable information in the attached submission. 

3. Failure to follow the formatting requirements may result in the exclusion of 

a submission. All submissions for the record are final. 

The Committee seeks to make its facilities accessible to persons with disabilities. 

If you are in need of special accommodations, please call 202–225–1721 or 202–226– 

3411 TDD/TTY in advance of the event (four business days notice is requested). 

Questions with regard to special accommodation needs in general (including availability of Committee materials in alternative formats) may be directed to the Committee as noted above. 

Note: All Committee advisories and news releases are available online at 

http://www.waysandmeans.house.gov

f 

/. 

Chairman ROSKAM. The Subcommittee will come to order. Welcome to the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Oversight, our 

hearing on protecting the free exchange of ideas on college campuses. 

Today we are going to examine how tax-exempt colleges and universities are suppressing the free exchange of ideas on campus. 

And specifically, we are going to focus on prohibitions on student 

use of campus resources for political activity, the adoption of restrictive speech codes, and incidents when administrators or students have silenced other students for seeking to exchange—engage 

in the exchange of opposing ideas. 

Every single year American taxpayers give colleges and universities billions of dollars worth of tax breaks. And, as a Nation, we 

believe education is an extremely valuable public good. But is this 

bargain truly benefitting the American taxpayers or the students, 

when colleges suppress speech on campus? 

Most colleges and universities, both public and private, are either 

tax-exempt organizations themselves under 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, or they have separate endowments that are 

(c)(3)s. And under these provisions of tax law, the taxpayers give 

financial benefits to schools based on the educational value that 

they offer to our society. 

When colleges and universities suppress speech, however, we 

have to question whether that educational mission is really being 

fulfilled. Almost all institutions of higher education explicitly 

pledge their support for unfettered academic exploration and freedom of expression in their advertising and school policies. But 

every day we learn of new ways that these schools are shutting 

down the marketplace of ideas on campus. 

Schools enact speech codes to stop teasing, and require the reporting of micro-aggressions. Students shout down speakers because they disagree with the ideas they are hearing presented. Colleges force students who want to advocate for a particular position 

to do so only while standing in a tiny, designated free-speech zone, 

often the campus boondocks, and only if they have made an advance reservation days or weeks prior. 

One situation that has caught this Subcommittee’s attention was 

the case of one of our witnesses. When Alexander Atkins wanted 

to pass out political campaign flyers on his campus at Georgetown 

Law, the administration shut him down, arguing that his political 

4 

speech could affect the school’s 501(c)(3) status. But Mr. Atkins’ 

persistence has paid off; Georgetown is currently working to revise 

its policies. 

And by unanimous consent I will enter into the record the letter 

that Georgetown sent to Ranking Member Lewis and me, acknowledging the faults of their previous free speech policies, and outlining steps they are taking to reform them so students like Alex, 

regardless of their points of view, can discuss issues important to 

them, debate the views they disagree with, and fully participate in 

the learning process we expect at our colleges and universities, not 

only allowing, but encouraging students to compare, reason, discuss, and debate ideas in the search for truth. 

[The submission of The Honorable Peter Roskam follows:] 

5 


22161A.001

<jEOR<jETOW:t( .. UNIVERSITY 

February 29, 2016 

Offit~ of P<dtral Rtlati•ns 

The Honorable Peter J. Roskam 

Chair 

Ways and Means Oversight Subcommittee 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable John lewis 

Ran<ing Member 

Ways and Means Oversight Subcommittee 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, OC 20515 

Re: lll'arch 2 Subcommittee Hearing on "Protectmg the Free Exchange of Ideas on Coll2ge 

Campuses" 

Dear Chairman Roskam and Ranking Member Lewis: 

I am writing with regard to the Subcommittee's hearing on "Protecting the Free Exchange of Ideas on 

College Campuses.• The Subcomm.ttee's announcement states that it wlll"us[el a recent Georgetown 

Law incident as a case study (in which) Georgetown Law recently prohibited law student Alex Atkins 

from distributing Information to support a Presidential candidate on campus, arguing that political 

acttvlty by students on campus would threaten its tax-exempt status." 1 am writing to sh~re with you 

and your Subcommittee members some information about political speech here at Georgetown 

University and some Insight into the Situation you are exploring and the work we are doing related to it 

here on our campus 

Georgetown is an institution that cherishes free speech and open and lively debate on all manner of 

topics. Students are encouraged to express their views, and do so routinely all across our campuses 

both Inside and outside of the classroom. With our Washington. DC location, and academic strengths in 

public policy, government, foreign servoce and law, we have a particular orientation toward public 

service and engagement in the polttoca prQQss, and have a long history of ed~cating students of all 

Ideological and portlca perspectives and woc1dng with them to express their ideas and advocate for 

causes they care about. 

We host numerous political speakers who represent a range of perspectives, Including elected offiCials, 

high level appointees and candidates for public office. In the last several Presidential electoon cycles, we 

have Invited all cand1dates to speak at Georgetown and many, includ1ng most recently Senator Bernie 

Sanders last November, have accepted our invitation. for your information, I am attaching a document 

that lists political and public sector speakers who have spoken on our campus over the last year. I would 

note that, coincidentally, this week alone, my office is working with the College Democrats to host 

Congresswoman Grace Meng (D-NV) and with our chapter of Young Americans for liberty and the 

College Republicans to host Congressman Mick Mulvaney (R·SC) While these Individuals are coming to 

speak in the'r offic•al capadtles as Members o! Congress and net as representatives of cand•dates for 

office, the discuss1on at their appearances. including the ·o&As" will doubtless allow students to engage 
6 


22161A.002

with them on a variety of political topics that are being debated tn the current Presidential campaign. 

These types of exchanges embody the spirit of this University and our success In engaging students in 

tne import.:Jnt issues of the day. 

The law Center did not accept law Center student Alex Atkins' request for space to engage in campafgn 

activity because our policies (1) focused on organized student groups and at the ttme did not allow 

Individual students to reserve space for organized activities on campus, and (2) contatned an overly 

cautious interpretation of the legal requirements governing the use of Universtty resources under 

Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. We are ad lusting the policies to make verv clear that 

tndividuals as well ps groups are able to reserve tables for organized activity and that all members of our 

community are able to make reasonable use of University resourtes to express their ool tical opinions. 

To mar>age the use of its constratned sp~te, the law Center's policy for reserving tables focused on 

providing opponunities for officially recogn·zed student organizations (including, of course, our 

Georgetown law Republicans and Georgetown Law Democrats), but did not provide such opportunities 

for individual students. While this policy has previously served the community well, Mr. Atkins' recent 

experience hlchlighted the need to adj~st this policy to ensure that not only groups but also individuals 

can express their views in an organized way. 

As your Committee knows, non·profit institutions of higher education must comply with Section 

501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, which imposes restrictions on their engagement in partisan 

politiCal campaign activity, and on the use of university resources in support of such activity. To ensure 

that students can engage in the political process without having the University run afoul of its legal 

obligations, the Law Center has established guidelines regarding partisan political activity on campus. 

The policy encourt~ges students to express their political views and to participate In the political process, 

while clarifying that they cannot speak for Georgetown or use Georgetown resourtes in a manner tha t 

could imply that GeorgetoYm itsetf is speaking or endorstng their VIewpoints. While the majority of the 

policy has appropriately enabled speech while protecting the University, Mr. Atkins' request led the law 

Center to realize that its understanding of the 50l(c)(3) restrictions on the use of law Center resources 

for student campaign activity was overly narrow. The Law Center is therefore adjusting Its policy to 

allow students to make appropriate usc of University resources as they engage in partisan political 

activities on campus. 

Georgetown University law Center's upd~tcd policies wtll reiterate that all members of the Georgetown 

law School community have t'le rignt to express themselves as they wish in a non-disruptive manner on 

campus instde or outside of the classroom. They will also specifically address the Issue that occasioned 

this hearing and provide student organizations, ad hoc groups and Individual students with access to 

space for political or other advocacy, Including partisan campaigning. 

This worl< began prior to the announcement of your hearing and is moving forward exoeditiously, 

particularly In light of the political season trat ts well underway. We expect to have the updated 

policies, which are currertly being revtewed by students, faculty and staff, in place shortly. Mr. Atkins is 

fully aware of this woiX. 

Thank you for the opportunity to share this context, and I hope it will be helpful as you explore these 

issues in the Subcommittee. We share the goal of ensuring that our students, faculty and staff can 

freely engage in political and pubhc policy debates and express thetr views through participation in 
7 

f 


22161A.003

political campaign activity, while being careful not to have the Unive~ity itself engage in partisan 

po itical activity that would run afoul of SOl(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. 

CC: Members of tile Subcommittee 

;;J;~ ~ for 

ScottS. 

Associate 

Federal 

Fleming 

Vice 

Relations 

President 

~ 
8 

Chairman ROSKAM. Along the way, we hope this educational 

environment will help students build character, hone their values, 

and strengthen virtues like compassion, maturity, and understanding. And in a word, we hope that colleges shape our young 

adults into the kind of positively contributing members of society 

who are equipped with the skills they will need to achieve their potential. 

Unfortunately, many other schools continue to use their 501(c)(3) 

status to stifle political speech on campus, especially during election years. Let’s get something straight: Section 501(c)(3) does not 

require schools to prohibit student political activity on campus. 

In 2010 the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia gave the 

commencement address at his granddaughter’s high school, and he 

told the graduates that, ‘‘More important than your obligation to 

follow your conscience, or at least prior to it, is your obligation to 

form your conscience correctly.’’ For students to form their consciences correctly, they have to be exposed to a wide variety of competing ideas. And some of these ideas might be uncomfortable, unpopular, or offensive. 

But education requires that students learn both to challenge others’ ideas, and how to form and defend their own. Even here, in today’s hearing, I am sure we will hear testimony that challenges the 

status quo and may even make us uncomfortable. But in the same 

way that challenging conversations are not a threat to education, 

they are not a threat to democracy. And, in fact, our willingness 

to engage in challenging conversations is the very foundation of 

both. 

Personally, I have an interest in these issues over the years because today I have heard from conservative students and faculty 

who were prohibited, shut down, or even fired for trying to express 

their support for the sanctity of life, their concerns about immigration or Planned Parenthood or defense of Israel, or their view that 

the government needs to stick more closely to the guidance of the 

Constitution. 

I suspect that some colleagues on the other side of the dais are 

concerned about situations where students and staff have had their 

speech stifled on a different set of views. But my hope is that we 

can all agree that whatever one’s particular views are, the American ideal supports and is founded upon the principle that we may 

each express our opinions freely. There is perhaps no institution 

where this is more valuable than the American college campus, 

where young minds are learning, growing, and maturing. 

I would now like to recognize Ranking Member Lewis for his 

opening statement. 

Mr. LEWIS. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. Welcome. 

Mr. Chairman, I do not understand why we are here. The Ways 

and Means Oversight Subcommittee does not have jurisdiction over 

future legislation, over freedom of speech, or college curriculum or 

school resources. 

On Monday the Chair and I both received a letter from Georgetown University. In the letter Georgetown explained that it will 

revise its policy so that students like Mr. Atkins may engage in 

certain campaign activity on campus without jeopardizing the taxVerDate Sep 11 2014 09:25 Mar 02, 2017 Jkt 022161 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\WAYSPS\22161\22161.XXX 22161
9 

exempt status of Georgetown. This hearing focuses on a soon-to-be 

resolved issue, and the Oversight Subcommittee does not have jurisdiction over the decade-long argument that certain colleges, their 

faculties, or their students are biased toward either conservative or 

liberal thought. 

Some of today’s witness testimony is better suited for the Education and Workforce Committee or the House Judiciary Committee, which held nearly an identical hearing on the same issue— 

subject last June. 

What are we doing here? What is the purpose of this hearing? 

I will tell you what this hearing is not. It is not in the tradition 

of the Subcommittee. The witnesses should remember that our 

Subcommittee jurisdiction does not extend to proposed changes to 

the Tax Code. This is a matter for the Full Committee or the Tax 

Policy Subcommittee. Consequently, I am requesting each and 

every witness directly address how their testimony relates to a requirement of the current Internal Revenue Code. 

I look forward to hearing the testimony from the democratic witness, Professor Frances Hill. She is a nationally-recognized expert 

in tax-exempt law from the University of Miami. Dr. Hill will explain the political campaign activity rules that apply to section 

501(c)(3) organizations, and she will detail why getting those rules 

right is a key concern for colleges and universities. 

Finally, let me state what falls currently squarely within our 

Subcommittee power: Taxpayers’ rights. Last July the Oversight 

Subcommittee Majority called on the IRS to put taxpayers first. 

But to date there has been no Subcommittee action, no hearing, 

and no progress. 

Yesterday morning, Nina Olson, the national taxpayer advocate, 

was on CSPAN. She took call after call from Americans who are 

frustrated with taxpayer services. We could have held our first 

hearing on the purpose of the current tax filing—I should say on 

the progress of the current tax filing season, or the impact of several years of significant budget cuts on IRS services, or on the rising threat by fraud and cyber attacks on our tax system. 

Instead, we are here for an issue that is not in this Subcommittee’s power or jurisdiction, and blatantly ignoring the needs, the 

rights, and concerns of American taxpayers. The Subcommittee 

Democrats are ready to roll up our sleeves and do the people’s work 

without politics and partisanship. 

Let me be clear. We have plenty of work to do, and this is not 

it. So, Mr. Chairman, on that note, I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Chairman ROSKAM. Thank you, Mr. Lewis. In quick answer to 

your question, we are here because of the fact that, look, American 

colleges are using 501(c)(3) as an excuse to stifle speech. That is 

the first reason. The second reason is we have jurisdiction here because of all activities under the Ways and Means Committee. The 

American taxpayer, through tax-exempt status, subsidizes this activity, and it is a reasonable thing that we follow up on it. And finally, we will be doing many inquiries as it relates to the Internal 

Revenue Service. 

10 

So, today’s witness panel includes five individuals who will offer 

us insight about their own experiences advocating for free expression on campus in this area. 

Alexander Atkins, who I mentioned in my opening statement, is 

a law student at Georgetown University Law Center, and an advocate for Senator Bernie Sanders’ Presidential campaign. 

Catherine Sevcenko is Director of Litigation at the Foundation 

for Individual Rights in Education. 

Joshua Zuckerman is a senior at Princeton University and a 

founding member of the Princeton Open Campus Coalition. 

Robert George is the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at 

Princeton University, a Visiting Professor of Law at Harvard University, and an advisor to the Princeton Open Campus Coalition. 

He is also Chairman of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, although he will not be testifying in that capacity 

today. 

And Frances Hill is a Professor of Law and Dean’s Distinguished 

Scholar for the Profession at the University of Miami School of 

Law. 

The Subcommittee has already received your written testimony. 

You will each be recognized for 5 minutes. The lights are green, 

yellow, and red. And if you could stick closely to that, we would appreciate it. 

Mr. Atkins, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ALEXANDER ATKINS, 

LAW STUDENT, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY 

Mr. ATKINS. Good morning, Chairman Roskam, Ranking Member Lewis, and honorable Members of the Subcommittee. My name 

is Alex Atkins, and I am a second-year student at Georgetown University Law Center. I am also a member of a group of law center 

students that supports Senator Bernie Sanders’ campaign for President. 

As you are likely aware, a law student’s free time is a rare commodity, so our group’s goals are fairly modest. We want to share 

our enthusiasm for Sanders’ campaign, and encourage our peers to 

participate in the election. But rather than achieving these objectives, our group has spent nearly 6 months struggling to engage in 

basic civic expression. 

In September 2015, at the start of the school year, our group’s 

goal was simply to establish our presence on the campus. So we 

decided to reserve a table where other student groups commonly 

reserve space to engage in outreach. But Georgetown’s office of student life denied our group’s reservation on the grounds that we 

were requesting the table in support of a specific candidate. That 

same week I received a campuswide email that recognized increased political engagement surrounding the 2016 election, and 

explained that Georgetown Law is a tax-exempt organization and 

was subject to limitations on the use of its resources for partisan 

political campaign activities. 

But rather than explaining what these limitations were, the 

email advised students to consult with the university’s Office of 

Federal Relations. I emailed the office that day, but I never received a response. 

11 

Many of us chose Georgetown Law for its presence in the Nation’s capital, and the presumption of heightened opportunities for 

political engagement. But with no apparent channel for our intended outreach, our group resorted to unofficially tabling in the 

school’s cafeteria. Despite the less-than-ideal location, students 

were excited to connect with fellow Sanders supporters, and appreciated receiving information on voting in their home States. 

October 13th was the first democratic debate, an ideal opportunity to amplify our message. It was a beautiful day, so we decided to table outside, and we enjoyed friendly interactions with 

our fellow students, while encouraging them to attend a debatewatching event. But within an hour, an Office of Student Life representative came and told us that we were violating the school’s 

policy, and were required to stop. We were disappointed, but we 

were mostly frustrated that the representative was unable to clarify precisely what the policy was, or how we could permissibly engage in this valuable expression. 

When I sought additional clarity in early November, I was directed to Georgetown’s student organization policy on partisan political activities. The policy begins optimistically, explaining that 

students are free to express their individual and collective political 

views. However, the policy sharply qualifies that statement by 

mandating that students may not use university-supported resources to do so, including space on campus. The only explanation 

for the policy’s contradictory approach is its reference to the Internal Revenue Code. Citing section 501(c)(3), the policy states that 

Georgetown must restrict the use of university resources. 

Our group was shocked by the policy’s implications for student 

political expression, and we questioned the legitimacy of its rationale. Other students I spoke with reacted with nearly unanimous 

confusion. ‘‘Why would the school not want you to do that,’’ they 

asked. ‘‘Isn’t that what college campuses are for?’’ 

When I explained that Georgetown’s policy seemed to be rooted 

in concerns about losing its tax exemption, many students seemed 

to share my own growing skepticism. Would the IRS really penalize 

Georgetown for allowing its students to engage in free expression? 

The budding lawyer in me wanted an answer. 

My efforts to determine what 501(c)(3) actually required led me 

to contact FIRE. A conversation with one of FIRE’s attorneys confirmed that Georgetown’s policy was far stricter than necessary, 

and FIRE offered to write a letter on our group’s behalf. 

We were relieved to finally have an ally, but we wanted to resolve the conflict ourselves. In early December we wrote to the 

dean of the law center and the dean of students. We explained our 

predicament, and sought an arrangement that could accommodate 

both the university’s interests and our own. But after waiting more 

than a month without a response, our group decided to accept 

FIRE’s offer. 

The letter FIRE wrote, and the media attention that it created, 

has motivated Georgetown to begin revising its policies to permit 

certain partisan activities. This is an undeniably positive step, and 

I am thankful to be included in the process. However, these 

changes cannot undo the nearly 6 months that we have lost, 6 

months when all we wanted to do was engage in the type of basic 

12 

civic expression long considered emblematic of America’s educational campuses. 

Colleges and universities across the country need to be reminded 

of their obligation not just to permit but to protect the vital free 

exchange of ideas. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Atkins follows:] 

13 


22161A.004

WRITfEN TESTIMONY of ALEXANDEil ATKINS 

Be fore the 

UNITED STAT ES ROUSE OF REPRF.SENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

March 2, 20 16 Hearing on 

" Protecting the Free Exchange of Ideas on College Campuses" 
14 


22161A.005

February 29,2016 

Dear Chainnan Roskam, Ranking Member Lewis, and honorable members of the 

Subcommittee: 

I write you today to supplcmem the testimony I will give at the March 2, 201 6 hearing on 

'·Protecting the Free Exchange of Ideas on College Campuses:· Thank you for the 

opportu nity to share my thoughts and cxpeo·ienccs. 

My name is Alexander Atkins, and I am a second year student at Georgetown University 

Law Center. I am also a member of a group of Law Center students that supports United 

States Senator Bernie Sanders's campaign for President. 

As you are likely aware, a law student's extracurricular time is a rare commodity, so our 

group·s goals are fairly modest. We want to share our enthusiasm tor Sanders's campaign 

and encourage our peers to participate in the election. Out rather than achieving these 

unassuming goals, our group has spent nearly six months struggli ng just to engage in 

basic civic expression. 

Our group was formed in September 2015, at the start of the school year. Our initial goal 

was simply to establish our presence on campus, so we decided to reserve a table outside 

of the main ealeteria, where other student groups commonly reserve space to engage in 

outreach. As we were planning this first activity, I recdvt:d a campus-w d~ email entitled, 

"University Guidance on Political Campa ign Activity and Lobbying." ' The email 

recognized the increased political engagement surrounding the 2016 election, and 

explained tha t ·'the University, as a tax-exempt organization, ... is subject to limitations 

on the use of its resources for partisan political campaign activities.'>l Rather than 

specifying what these limitations were, the email advised students who were interested in 

such activities to consult with the University's Oftice of Federal Relations.3 I emailed the 

office that day,' but I never received a response. 

The fo llowing week, I submitted a Tabling Request Form to the Office of Student Life.s 

The Office denied the request because our group was ' 'requesting to table . .. in support 

of a specific candidate,'· and the Oftice directed me to the same campus-wide email about 

political campaign activity.6 

Our group was eager to begin the outreach efforts that we had planned o1carly a month 

earlier. Many of us chose Georgetown Law, in part, for its po·escnce in the Nation's 

1 See Attachment #1. 

2See id. 

J See id. 

• See Attachment #2. 

s See Attachment #3. 

6 See Attachment #4. 

1 
15 


22161A.006

capital and the presumption of heightened opportunities to engage in the political process. 

With no apparent channel for our intended expression, on two occasions in late 

September, we resorted to tabling in unreservable areas of the cafeteria. Despite the less 

than ideal location. many students stopped to speak with us. They were excited to connect 

with fellow Sanders supporters, and they appreciated receiving information on voting in 

their home states. 

October l31

h was the first Democratic debate-an ideal opportunity to amplify O.lu 

message and achieve greater student engagement. It was a beautiful day, so we decided to 

table outside the entrance to the campus's main academic building. While representing 

our chosen candidate, we enjoyed friendly interactions with our fellow students and 

encouraged them to attend an off-campus debate-watching event. But within an hour, a 

representative or the Office or Student Life came outside and told us that we were 

violating the School's policy and that we were required to stop. We were disappointed, 

bur we were mostly frustrated that the representative was unable to clarify precisely what 

the policy was or how we could permissibly engage in this valuable expression. 

In early November, I emailcd the Otlice of Student Lite seeking additional clarity.' The 

Office responded promptll and directed me to Georgetown Law's "Student Organization 

Policy on Partisan Political Activitics."9 The Policy begins optimistically, explaining that 

"[s]tudents . . . are encouraged to participate in the political process and arc free to 

express their individual and collective political vicws."10 However, the Policy sharply 

qualifies that statement by mandating that students '·may not use University-supported 

resources, including space on campus, . .. for partisan political campaign activity.''" 

The Policy's contradictory approach can only be explained by its reference to the Internal 

Revenue Code: "As a non-profit institution of higher education whose activities arc 

regulated in pat1 by Section 50 l(c)(3)[,]" Georgetown Law "must generally avoid 

engaging in partisan political campaign activity and must restrict the usc of University 

resources in suppon of such activity." 12 

Our group was shocked by the Policy's implications for students' political expression, 

and we questioned the legitimacy of its rationale. Notably, when we attempted to partner 

with recognized student groups. they expressed their own uncertain apprehensions about 

violating the Policy. Meanwhile. other students I spoke with reacted with nearly 

unanimous confusion. 

"Why would the school not want you to do that?" they asked. "Isn' t that what college 

campuses arc for?'' 

7 See Attachment #S. 

a See Attachment 116. 

9 See Attachment #7. 

to See id. 

''Seeid. 12See id. 

2 
16 


22161A.007

When I explained that Georgetown's Policy seemed to be rooted in concerns about losing 

its tax exemption, many studenrs seemed to share m>' own growing skepticism. Could it 

really be true that the IRS would penalize Georgetown for allowing its students to engage 

in free expression? The budding lawyer in me wanted an answer. 

In a final email to the Office of Student Life, I inquired as to who had drafted thl! Policj 

and whether the Policy's primary rationale was indeed to ayoid violation of 501 (c)(3). 1 I 

was advised that concerns about jeopardizing the University's tax status were ·'at least 

pan of the rationale," but that, because the Policy had been developed by the Office of 

Federal Relations. the Office of Student Life "(couldn't] speculate as to what other 

rationales support(ed) the policy.'" 14 

My efforts to determine the actual rcquiremems of 501(c)(3) led me to contact the 

Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). An informative conversation with 

one of FIRE's attorneys con finned what I had already suspected- that Georgetown· s 

Policy was far stricter than necessary. FIRE offered to write a letter to Georgetown on 

our group's behalf: Although our group was relieved to finally have an ally, we were 

detennincd to make one final effort to resolve the conflict ourselves. In early December, 

members of our group wrote directly to the Dean of the Law Center and the Dean of 

Students.1s We explained our predicament, sought clarity on the school's policies, and 

hoped that we might reach an arrangement that could accommodate both the University's 

interests and our O'Wn. 16 After waiting more than a month without receiving a response, 

our group decided to accept FTRE's offer. 

FIRE's letter- and the media attention it created- has motivated Georgetown University 

Law Center to acknowledge the unmct needs of its students. Tite Law Center is now 

revising its policies to pennit certain partisan activities. This is an undeniably positive 

step, and I am thankful to be included in the process. However, these changes cannot 

undo the nearly six months we lost- six months when all we wanted was to engage in 

basic civic expression long considered emblematic of America's educational campuses. 

Georgetown Law is just one example of a much broader problem. Colleges and 

uni versities across the country need to be reminded of their obligation, not just to perntit, 

but to protect the vital free exchange of ideas. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to share my thoughts and experiences. 

Alexander Atkins 

alcxander.atkins@mac.com 

13 See Attachment #8. 

"See Attachment #9. 

ts See Attachment Ill 0. 

t6See id. 

3 
17 


22161A.008

ATTACHMENT #1 
18 


22161A.009

From Campus Broadcas•~··--·•III•P. Subje<:t Unlverstt)' OUK!anca on Polrticol Campaign Mtivity and LQbbying 

Do~:, ~:~r~;;::~;,s:;t&•'lliiiiiil••··~ 

As the academic year gets underway, we wanted to remind you of the rules that apply to the 

University's engagement in political campaign activity and lobbying. The University encourages 

its students, facu lty and staff to engage in the political process and in issue or cause advocacy in 

their personal capacities, and certain limited political activities and lobbying are permissible on 

campus. It is important for members of our community to understand, however, that there are 

restrictions and requirements relating to political activity and lobbying by the University or 

utilizing University resources. [f you are considering engaging in political campaign activity 

or lobbying activities in your University carJacity, or in ways that involve University 

resources or could appear to be on behalf of the Unjversity, you should pay careful attention 

to the foUowing information and contact the Office of Federal Relations for guidance. 

Political Caml!lllgn Act t:~: 

The 20 16 political campaign is already dominating the news, and the presidential and other 

elections are sure to draw more and more anention. While individuals, of course, may support 

candidates of their choice, the University, as a tax-exempt organization, is prohibited from 

supp01ting or opposing candidates for political office and is subject to limitations on the use of its 

resources for partisan political campaign activities. Members of the University community, 

including student groups, who wish to engage in political campaign activities in their University 

capacity or in ways that use University resources should consult with the Office of Federal 

Relations in advance for guidance. Many political activities can be conducted on campus, but it is 

important that activities be planned and structured in ways that meet requirements. More detailed 

infonnation is available at: !illp://fedcralrclations.gcorgctown.edu/ncws/lobbying . 

Although we typically think oflobbying as an attempt to infl uence specitic legislation, it 

encompasses a broad range of communications with various federal officials and also activity that 

helps to prepare others to make such communications. Georgetown i~ represented by a registered 

federal lobbyist (Scott Fleming), and as a result must observe lobbying rules and reporting 

requirements. There is a cap on the amount of lobbying the University can engage in and we 

must fi le qualterly lobbying reports that repo11 on all lobbying activity that has been undettaken 

on behalf of the University, include a calculation of the dollar value of University resources 

devoted to lobbying activities, 8lld list the topics on which lobbying has occuned. Keeping track 

of all lobbying activity is an important, legally-required, responsibility of the Office of Federal 

Relations. Before you engage in any lobbying activity that involves members of the University 

community or utilizes University resources (or if you have questions about whether a planned 

activity may consti tute lobbying). you should contact the Office of federal Relations. 

Finally, it is also impottantto note that Congressional gift rules generally prohibit members of the 

University community fi'om offering or providing anything of value to a Member of Congress or a 

Congressional staO' person. Federal agencies also have the ir own gift mles. There are a series of 

exceptions to these rules, including for widely attended events, certain educational events, and a 

carefullv defined oersonal li·iendshio exceotion. but it is best to check with the Oll'ice of Federal 
19 


22161A.010

J • • • 

Relations to detennine'how these mles apply to a particular circumstance. 

Thank you for your allention to this information. Please contact us if you have questions either at 

(ederalr tj ons@~etown edu or by phone to 202-687-3455. 

With best regards 

Clu·istopher Murphy 

Vice President 

for Government Relations 

and Community Atiairs 

Scon S. Fleming 

Associate Vice President 

for Federal Relations 

James E. Ward 

Associate Vice President 

for Compliance and Ethics 
20 


22161A.011

ATTACHMENT #2 
21 


22161A.012

Frorn: ASexonder Atkins ~11!!!1!!11•••• Subject; Law Student Political Activity 

Dllte: Seplember11 ,2015at4·58PM 

To: rl"·dolf3if8tJliOOS "f,~~OV.:'l P1u 

Greetings. 

1 am pan of an unofficial law studoot group ln support or Bernie Sanders' run for President. I want to make sure that ·.ve are able to engage in 

meaningful extracurricular activities while comporting with the Uni\'erslty"s policies. Please let me knoY.• whohoflen I can call to discuss these 

issues. 

Thank )IOU, 

Alex A1kils 

Ahtxtmd~r Atkins 

Juris Doctor Candidate 

Georgetown university Law Cooter 

Staff Membef 

Georgetown Law Joornal 

AeSK:Ient Fetlow 

Gewirz ~vdent Cemor 
22 


22161A.013

ATTACHMENT #3 
23 


22161A.014

From Alel(ender Atkins <I SubJcc;-l Tabling Aeqoesl 

Dale September 14, 2015 a18:36 AM 

To Office ol Student U1e stud~"l1 te "l3W l}")(ltf!AIOV.TlMu 

Tabling request attad'lecl 

Thank I'OUJ 

~a nat: Ahunekr Allr.lDJ 

Oil It Rrqutr.1 Subrnlll(d: O•'lol l:Ol!> 

GlLCt:maU:A··---Iol' 

Purpo~t el RnJanl: hiDf 11 "nt'M\.~ and pm\ldlftl Hlltr RJ.hlnli<tl' 

'' iiiiDOd or tw\tt"•t:" bt \fr\td! /'>o'O \\ltlmetnt~ ht t .Uhlllltl'd ? :r-:o f'o.,j .,.d H r •YT,.Zt' . lti-.1'UH]": k('(J!I4"ifof' h li \('rutVIilt'/•11 tJ'U.!NU1X' l/hlf dk .UhJ I' tn ~.t,..,J ot~JttJ(flt 1t1frr 

«•lffWk>: Nt.ur tt'4tiJ~I l arilmu M~~NJ:ro~t•J..' dl I:U.'166.!·9J.JU tf 617'11 tf<Jjlt HIM orildJiz:•'lll1oJI s.nwc-r.c d.rrllt'tYIN 

ft11t l ttdm lt\ltlll. b'l'llllfU, p/nN'l'fJIIIfH( .-1/ 1 r/irn'tlffll (!91J6H·II014. 

All ((>t~t ~·w 1/w!'llld ~ tfJRJidm·.. l wntutl\r tu:nl rott/I'Ym!IJIOIItr tYcrl\Y\1 II:•• (ollo~oinx 1"-l//t;U.J m~J 

~'(fJ,lhfl tJ K•)lr'f'TI taMr v.r.r;;:t< unJ n:ntlll ttl c;,-.Jf'J:CJQ'H71 t nllt'r.n/\ La"' c-m~r. TIJc- KUitidrocs 

rrquin! W('t"t ''' uhMt hy 11/f Low C"r11lu tY;:ut,uitM.C tn os/Julon. kJN~ usa;:r mu.rJ J.r ~nn.cistn~t loirli t):,..,. ad.mtt' lt1U.ft•ln tJnJ CJar!dotnU u(( tV;r,:nahl~ L rrn~ntt\ Lin.- i·nrr.r 

• All rr-qunttn muct cumpJrtP a Tuhlr krq1u't Ftttlll • I m.n-unttm n{! tahll"f M.41\ 1v " '(ttn·,t Ul ant 

s;ucn lfqt• b'' ~.m .·on;oJHt:dtHlfl.):ft111' • A.'I!L<<n f'li'l.l\' lucl. Jl}:ru IHt thr bul!ttm J>o..JJ .f ~~ tlk u11!11J( 

tlzr ..-b;•rt'l £uYol l>duuJ tJJ •• ,,. t.rMr .\ixro..ot nmn ~ ro •~t ·J "'ho1 1hr a...••l).:t ;-.. ri,,.,/ h•s• f'JJdrJ .\' .. •1g1H 

lth tr1 1-t plo.~u·,/ tHt the• dl)ftft 111 t/lr tlrt.lf"-1 • F.mrilnu•t '" tl':t <4lipf"/ rtnJI •ml M ~V~~tmd .. J • 011A 

INtc·tll.dl gi"V:tJ•J ,oiJJ\' wsc- luMettm lh•olnud.Jl <t • 1ah!u Off /ur flu,·rt~Jf "·''' Ln. Cmtfr n·ltltt·d J.Jkf ,,J 1oln (!} lo~•r- rdmnl mutrriab_ • ltrl<la an• NUIII\'d:!aN('Jor mJ;,;Ju.d ucr 

IIIA\' F. f.A I>A~U L~Uf.RST.\NUALL TII£Ail0\ f.R£Ct:I.A II O~S. 

S ICI\A'I LRE: ;\ltxandtr Franklin Aikin• 

Tu.:-.. 9 IS 

TIIIIr;.9.1i 

TlnltC .. rcm,·T<II A,\l, orf',\1, 

t.!p-.lr & s,,.Jp 

t21>·Jr & ~ '" 

1\umbfrl)( b~n TJbltHI;\nb:nf'd tq ~t<-d t \b\. ,,.,.~,. Jt~l .,.,,.117, 

!) 

'"u ma) "ulmdt )tn•r rflflle"l d~frctnlt:llll ) ••• vucknllil•• •lllU,ff"llfl:rhn\n,tdu.ln ptr"Qn .. "' b' tu 111 

t!OlJ66l·9!bl . 

ll:.lf'ft~m(.C lld : 

GCORGCTO\'i.'Y ""V!RS.N U.W C£HT!R ,.., 

lnnlt.ln;•· 
24 


22161A.015

ATTACHMENT #4 
25 


22161A.016

From: Oflfc:eot Student lifo studanl foQ.I<'lwqootqotawn~du 

Subject: fW. Univet'Sity Guidance on Poktical Campaign Activity and Lobbying 

Ooto: Septe<nbct tS. 20t5ot .. 9.:2ii•IIAMIII•••• To: AlexMdet Alldns(lwd) • 

Hi Alex, 

Unfortunately, we cannot approve your request to table since you are requesting to table on behalf/ in 

support of a specific candidate. Please see the University's policies below. 

Best, 

OSL 

The Office of Sludent Life I GEORGETOWN LAW 

studentllfe@law.georgetown.edu 1 McDonough 170 & 171 

Office: 202.662.9292 1 Fax: 202.662.9261 

1CIIIWA I ~ I hillW I Qmlixns; 

From: Office of Federal Relations [mailto:aonouncemems@.gwgetown edu] 

Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 3:45PM 

To: bliliJ§J_gwgetown edu 

Subject: University Guidance on Political Campaign Activity and lobbying 

As the academic year gets underway, we wanted to remind you of the rules that apply to the 

University's engagement in political campaign activity and lobbying. The University encourages 

its students, faculty and stall' to engage in the political process and in issue or cause advocacy in 

their personal capacities, and cet1ain limited political activities and lobby ing are pennissible on 

campus. It is important for members of our community to understand, however, that there are 

restrictions and requirements relating to political activity and lobbying by the University or 

utilizing University resources. If you arc considering engaging in political campaign activity 

or lobbying activities in your University capacity, or in ways that involve University 

resources or could appear to be on behalf of the Univct·sity, you should pay careful attention 

to the following information and contact the Office of Federa.l Relations fot· guidance . 

. Political Campaig!l..A£1i:ri.1Y. 

The 2016 political campaign is already dominating the news, and the presidential and other 

elections are sure to draw more and more attention. While individuals, of course, may support 

candidates of their choice, the University, as a tax-exempt organization, is prohibited from 

supporting or opposing candidates for political office and is subject to limitations on thc usc o f its 

resources for partisan poli(ical campaign activities. Members of the University community, 

including studem groups, who wish to engage in political campaign activities in their University 

capacity or in ways that use Universi(y resources should consult with the Office of Federal 

Relations in advance for guidance. Many political activities can be conducted on campus, but it is 

important that acti vities be planned and structured in ways that meet requirements. More detailed inr"',.,..,......,,;,,n ;!.'> oJo\IOJo ;l.:.l, l.:o "lt• h ltt'\•llf: .. ,-. •o:~~ l .. ..,.l._. t:t"'no n..,.,..,.,....,.,,...,.,n ..,....l, n...,." '"l l.-.1--. ": .~ ,.. 
26 


22161A.017

Although we typically think of lobbying as an attempt to influenc.e specific legislation, it 

encompasses a broad range of communications with various federal officials and also activity that 

helps to prepare others to make such communications. Georgetown is represented by a registered 

federal lobbyist (Scott Fleming), and as a result must observe lobbying rules and reporting 

requirements. There is a cap on the amount of lobbying the University can engage in and we 

must file quarterly lobbying reports that report on all lobbying activity that has been undertaken 

on behalf of the University, include a calculation of the dollar value of University resources 

devoted to lobbying activities, and list the topics on which lobbying has occurred. Keeping track 

of all lobbying activity is an important, legally-required, responsibility of the Office of Federal 

Relations. Before you engage in any lobbying activity that involves members of the University 

community or utilizes University resources (or if you have questions about whether a planned 

activity may constitute lobbying), you should contact the O!licc of Federal Relations. 

foinally, it is also important to note that Congressional gift rules generally prohibit members of the 

University community from ol:lering or providing anything of value to a Member of Congress or a 

Congressional staff person. Federal agencies also have their own gift rules. There are a series of 

exceptions to these rules, including for widely attended events, ce1tain educational events, and a 

carefully defined personal friendship exception, but it is best to check with the Office of Federal 

Relations to detennine how these l'tlles apply to a particular circumstance. 

Thank you for your attention to this infonuation. Please contact us if you have questions either at 

fe al ion ~ or by phone to 202-687-3455. 

With best regards 

Christopher Murphy 

Vice President 

(or Government Relations 

and Community Aila.irs 

ScottS. Fleming 

Associate Vice President 

for Federal Relations 

James E. Ward 

Associate Vice President 

for Compliance and Ethics 
27 


22161A.018

ATTACHMENT #5 
28 


22161A.019

SubFtojKm I SIWorl Atexander Atkin• 4111!••···· Poi- A<Woty 

Dolt ""'·-·· 201501 10-0&AM To 

Greot•ngs. 

I writu "'you seeking datily ootne Law Con tor's poliCies 1egarding potl!licaJ aC11wty by incividual students and groups I am a membef of a 9fOUP of ttudents who are Clotci:lll.f19 a portion of our exua-cvrrleulat tim6 to IUPPQC'bng SenalOf Ser~e Sanders' campaq~ tor Pr.sidenl v:a 

are o.got 10 oorlribute to our oc:aclemc and.,_.,.,., commvnly whi~ lllo-..,th tho~ -oily's pobdes 

I nave rood the campus ... ide emal prw4ng guodOnCO on dJe ~Jily't I)Oidoo regarding po< 11<:11 C0fnP1191 oolov'f onc1 nave alSQ read t1141 

~·~'» ··""9PoMCI AgmtttonCotaoaangV1 ., ~~online Howe\'W_ ltrom•ntunc::AewtomeptiCIHtywt\atacfYl1YIS 

and It not PQftnm.ed when It comH to studenls, as •t aooms that the niles and gu•dance petlalll almosc entirety to the instJtUiion lilseft and "' taoutty af\Cf t:1aff.l emal&d tho Ottlce of Fedorat Ro&otiOM in mid-September aeeklng addit1onal dtlllt)'. but I never reoefved a tesponse. 

Our group's request for a tabling rtHtVaton was dOniod ~the Offtce of Student u~. and we WOfO dltee:'ted to the campua·wlde email mentioned 1bove We were sublequencly asked by OSL 10 vacale an un·teS«VIbfe outdoor Wile wt'Otet..o met'T'Ibefs ot Otl' group were 

.. .,.., - prO'~wt'olmai.<>O lbotit-a'cam- ard pnmwy¥0011g ~swilh-maleriolsondisplay 

Mtmbora ol our group IDol<-~ 10 Of'gagO!g In-"'· •alued eJCprOSJion on the Law c..n ... ..,.pus. My guoclanco )'0<1 can pr<)\'<10 would be ......,..,.Y awrocoa:oo. 

Thank you . 

.....,,, Doctor C&ndktale 

GOOigotOwn Unh-&<Sily l.aw C4ontor 

Stall MornbOr 

o-ootown law Journal 

-tFolow 

a... .. Sludont Ce<1le< 
29 


22161A.020

ATTACHMENT #6 
30 


22161A.021

From: Kenrk:k F. R~ >!_!1•,411!11~····· Subject: AE: S1Udenl 

03te: NO\'effibel 

To: Alexandof 

C<: Bew~y L 

Hello Alex. 

KGta.nt Hayes········IIScott Flem•ng 

I apologize rf my original statements to you regarding this were unclear. I will offer further explanation in my 

four points below. 

First. your tabling request was denied because you are not a registered student organization or department at 

the Law Center: furthermore, you are not sponsored by a student organization or department and therefore 

cannot reserve space for your activities. 

Second, as I mentioned when we spoke about this the first time, in regards to your supporting activity of 

Senator Sanders, as a non-profit institution of higher education whose activities are regulated in part by 

Section 501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, Georgetown University (which includes the Law Center) 

must avoid engaging in partisan political campaign activity and must restrict the use of University resources in 

support of such activity. 

Third, even if a group is recognized on campus, student organizations may not use Univers"y resources to 

engage in partisan political campaign activities and must obtain advance approval from the Office of Student 

Life (and the Office of Federal Relations) for any such activities that occur on University premises (which 

includes Law Center premises as well). 

Fourth. as it relates specifically to candidates for office. campaigning and solicitation, including transmission 

of campaign materials over the internet, leaflet distribution, and display of posters, is not allowed anywhere 

on Law Center property or using University servers or equipment. 

You can download and review the policy in its entirety here: Jltt~ync com/18903/files/587087/show. 

If you have further questions, or if I can clarify even further, please let me know. 

Sincerely, 

Kenrick F. Roberts, M.S. 1 Coordinator of Student Organizations 

GEORGETOWN LAW I rn 

Office: 202.662.9272 1 Fax: u.:: oo~ ,~o 1 

~1~1Il!illa! L.i!ll5l:!!!!J 
31 


22161A.022

ATTACHMENT #7 
32 


22161A.023

GEORGETOWN LAW 

STUDENT ORGANIZATION POLICY ON PARTISAN POLITICAL ACl'JVlTLES 

The Georgetown University Law Center encourages and supports the free exchange of ideas and 

political viewpoints. As a non-profit institution of higher education whose activities are regulated 

in part by Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, however, Georgetown University and 

the Law Center must generally avoid engaging in partisan political campaign activity and must 

restrict the use of University resources in support of such activity. 

The follo\\~ng rules govern the use of Law Center facilities and resources for partisan political 

activity. 

Students, Staff and Faculty 

Students, staff and faculty are encouraged to participate in the political process and are ITcc to 

express their individual and collective political views. When doing so, individuals should make 

clear that the views they express arc their own, and should not suggest or imply that they arc 

speaking for or in the name of Georgetown University or Georgetown University Law Center. 

Individuals may not use the Georgetown name, insignia or seal on material that is used or intended 

lor partisan political campaign purposes. 

If University affiliated student organi7Ations engage in activities that support or oppose pa.1icular 

candidates for election to public office, they should do so in a way that does not state or imply 

endorsement of their views by the University. Student organizations generally may not use 

University resources to engage in partisan political campaign activities (with the limited 

exceptions set forth in the Use of George1owll Universify Law Cemer Facilifies (lnd Resources 

section below) and must obtain advance approval from the Office of student Life (and the Office 

of Federal Relations) for any such activities that occur on University premises. 

Student orga.lizations that wish to engage in lobbying in connection with or support of a particular 

cause may do so in some instances. but onl y with advance consultation with and approval from 

the Office of Federal Relations. Student organizations interested in such cause-related activities 

may contact the Office of Federal Relations at 202-687-3455 or by e-mail to 

ssi2Cd>gcorgctown.edu. Of course, individual students are always free to advocate on areas of 

personal interest before Congress or any other governmental entity without involving the 

University provided that University resources arc not utilized in that regard. 

Candida te S peakers and C11mpaigning 

Candidates for public office may appear on campus for a speech or an educational or infonnational 

talk to the Law Center community, but such appearances must be sponsored by a recognized Law 

Center organization and approved by the University. Whcnthe University allows one candidate 

to appear on campus, it generall y must otlcr other candidates in the same election a substantially 

similar oppotttmity to appear. Student organizations should make clear to speakers who are 

candidates for political office that they may not engage in activities such as fundraising, 

Revised 

August20t5 
33 


22161A.024

solicitation, or rallies while on campus. Studem organizations must secure approval for such events 

from the Oflice of Student Life at least two weeks in advance. 

Candidate campaigning and solicitation, including transmission of campaign materials over the 

internet, leaflet distribution, and display of posters, is not allowed anywhere on Law Center 

property or using Uni versity servers or equipment. 

Usc of' Georgetown Univer·sity Law Center· Faci itie.~ and Resom·ces 

Law Center students. organizations and departments generally may use Law Center facilities and 

resources for activities relating to their missions, including politically oriented activities. 

Politically oriented student organizations may book a table in the Chapel Area on the first floor of 

McDonough Hall, but must post a sign that clearly indicates that usc of the table does not imply 

endorsement of any particular political viewpoint from the Georgetown University Law Center. 

All uses of Law Center properties are subjec t to uni versity policies regarding time, place, and 

manner. 

Students, sntdent organizations and depm1mcnts may use campus communications to announce 

political forums and discussions that are sponsored by officially constituted campus groups, but 

may not use University-supported resources. including space on campus, Georgetown's phone 

system, computer networks or servers, or postal service, for partisan political campaign activity. 

Using Law Center resources or the Georgetown name to fund or support a political campaign or 

political action group or committee is strictly prohibited, as is the usc of the University's tax· 

exempt number for purchase of anything ao;sociatcd with partisan political campaign activity. I .aw 

Cenier facilities and services may not be used by or on behalf of an outside organization or omside 

individual whose purpose is to further the cause of a particular political party or candidate. 

Nonpartisan Political Activities 

The University encourages nonpartisan political actJvattes. such as properly organized voter 

registration acti vities, voter education programs and candidate debates, that do not evidence a 

preference for or opposition to a political party or to candidates who have taken a particular 

position and which provide an equal forum for opposing parties and candidates. In order to ensure 

that all legal and university requirements are followed, advance approval for these events must be 

obtained from (and all materials must be reviewed by) the Ollice of Student Lite. 

Revised 

August 2015 
34 


22161A.025

ATTACHMENT #8 
35 


22161A.026

From: AteKanclor Atktne ••••••• 

SUb)~tel . Ra: Student Po1•fiC81 Aclr.My 

Dato. November 9, ?Ot5 at 2:48PM To. _____ _ 

Hey Kervlcl<. 

TIW11< ~tor~ lld<loi>Onal tlCJ)Ianat<>n.IOr dorOCIJng me 10 lht P<>Ocyoo p..,...., P<llxal Acllv"" and lot yow o11et to pro-,..,_ on-and dor'ty I hope )'OU _,,,...,my &si<"''JO -lolow-up q- 11) Who 1onnu1.,.., and drallecllhe Poley"" Pamsan Pco;toOOI ""*'"'"'? 

!2) Is !he promwy ••~on~ behond llle Policy'• •0511iclloos 10 •-•• that GUlC os no< .,....,i\'Od as ongegong 11 panisan political oct/Yily ..nocn 

"'OUid be .nota>"" of 501(cX3)? 

Thank you very much. 

Alox 

Aler3/ldct Atlt.ltt$ 

Juris Dodo<~ .. 

Geolgolawn '-"-Oily law C...IO< 

Slalfo-geoown La·NJoumal 

Rosldent follow 

Gowlrz S~l C....10< 
36 


22161A.027

ATTACHMENT #9 
37 


22161A.028

From Kenrick F. Roberts ~!lll!!l•••••r Subject RE: Student Political Activhy 

Date. November9, 2015 at 3:17PM 

To; Alexander Alk ns(twd ·····-~ 

Hi Alex, 

I am not sure as to the relevance of who drafted/formulated the Policy on Partisan Political Activity; 

nonetheless, it was developed by the University's Office of Federal Relations Since the University is a taxexempt organization, I am confident that your second statement is at least part of the rationale behind the 

policy since engaging in such activity could jeopardize the University's tax status. However, since I am not 

the one who wrote the policy, I cannot speculate as to what other rationales support the policy. If I can be of 

further assistance, please let me know. 

Best. 

Kenrick F. Roberts, M.S. 1 Coordinator of Student Organizations 

GEORGETOWN LAW I .!I!!IJI!!I!!~I!!I!I··-· Office: 202.662.9272 1 Fax: 202.662.9261 W.o.l>sl!<! I flloel><>ok I Tw!!t!!! I tJnM!!Jn 
38 


22161A.029

ATTACHMENT #10 
39 

f 


22161A.030

From. Alexander Atkins ~!!11•••••11" Sublett. Student political actlllily 

Date. ~be 4. 201Sai8:29PM 

TO: - Mitchell Baifin ········~ 

Dean Treanor and Dean Bailin, 

we write to you S()Ckilg clarity on tl'l9law Center's poltcios reg.ard.ng jX)IItcaJ acti\IJ!.y by 1n<fivlduaJ stucJcnts and groups.. 

We are members of a gro'.'ting group of ~udents who are de<Jicating a port100 ol our extra-cvmcular time to wppof1lflg Senator Bemie 

Sanders's campaign for President. We cons•def thiS acti\111Y 10 be meaningful, ptoductivc, Md a natural exteosion of our development as 

lawyets and c:i~ tens. We NC eager to respecHuUy sh.atc our oothu.siastn with our ac:Qdcmic and proiC$Siot'lal community, but our efiOf'IS to dO 

so tla'-e been hindered by poliCies wftich we seek eo fTIOfe thoroughly undefstand. 

TOO Office ol Stu<:tont Ulo has boon kltthoomlng In MS\\'Cting questiOns Md dlrachl'lg us to the ~POliCy on Part1Mn POI1Iical Activiljo$" We 

were somewhat start1ed to dlsoover thM the pOlicy seems to entirely prohibit students from uStng space on campus for political campatgn 

activtty. From what we can tell, the rationale behind this restriction is tied to 50 1(c)(3)'s prohibiUon on tax~empt nonprofils engaging in 

part1$M poltUcs Assuming this is the case, wo are inlerested in exploring reasonable ways !hat we as sludcnts can permissibly engage In 

conduct whic:tlthe institution itsalf Is proscribed fton'l. 

Our group sinoerety appreciates your al1entton to this matter. We look forward 10 gain!ng further Insight into Georgetown's peapective on this 

issue, and fl~ng ways tot our group to engage Jn respectful, valued expfesslon while also comporting with the Universl.,.)"'s polic&es. 

That1k you. 

Alex Atkl.ns 

Oomlnil: Gallucci GeoffG bert 

Matt starr Parker Shetfy 

Alexander Atkins 

Juris Ooccor Candidate 

Goorgetcw1rl Unfvers1ty Law Cooter 

SUIIIM""'ber 

Goorgetcwm La....· Journal 

Resident follow 

Gewirz S:udoont CGntOt 
40 

Chairman ROSKAM. Thank you, Mr. Atkins. 

Ms. Sevcenko. 

STATEMENT OF CATHERINE SEVCENKO, DIRECTOR OF 

LITIGATION, FOUNDATION FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS IN 

EDUCATION 

Ms. SEVCENKO. Good morning, Chairman Roskam, Ranking 

Member Lewis, Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Catherine Sevcenko. I am the Director of Litigation at the Foundation 

for Individual Rights in Education. FIRE is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization devoted to protecting the rights of students 

and faculty on American college campuses. 

I think we all remember our first involvement with a political 

campaign, the camaraderie with the other supporters, the policy 

discussions, the strategy debates, and the euphoria when the candidate did well, and the bewilderment when he or she lost. Having 

that experience while you are in college can spark an engagement 

in politics that will last a lifetime. 

But as you have just heard, the political engagement can be shut 

down at any moment on too many college campuses. As outlined 

in my written testimony, FIRE has intervened with 13 schools 

since 2008 that claimed that they could not allow political activity 

because it would jeopardize their tax-exempt status. These 13 cases 

did not include numerous informal interactions we have had with 

students to explain their rights to them, nor the students who have 

downloaded information from our website. And the number is going 

up. In fact, we received another request for help just a few days 

ago. 

And this is a bipartisan problem. As you just heard, the law 

school of Georgetown stopped students from campaigning for Bernie Sanders. Right at about the same time, American University 

stopped students for campaigning for Rand Paul. And the prize, as 

it were, goes to St. Catherine University in Minnesota that, in 

2008, refused to allow Hillary Clinton, Bay Buchanan, and Senator 

Al Franken to speak on campus. 

Confusion over IRS guidelines is the likely cause of this censorship. General counsels are not going to allow political activity that 

they fear would endanger the school’s tax-exempt status. As long 

as the IRS guidance is ambiguous, censorship will win out every 

time. 

This Subcommittee could be instrumental in solving this problem. Were the IRS to clarify that viewpoint-neutral allocation of resources for political speech does not endanger an institution’s taxexempt status, it would be a huge step forward in preserving free 

speech on campus. 

Justifying silencing speech by invoking tax-exempt status is just 

one tool of censorship. Another is a so-called free speech zone. To 

be clear, free speech zones have nothing to do with free speech. 

They are tiny areas of campus where students are quarantined 

when they want to express themselves on the issues of the day. 

Merritt Burch and Anthony Vizzone, two students at the University of Hawaii Hilo were told they would have to stand ‘‘here’’ if 

they wanted to protest NSA surveillance, because it wasn’t the 

1960s, and they really couldn’t protest like that any more. To vindiVerDate Sep 11 2014 09:25 Mar 02, 2017 Jkt 022161 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\WAYSPS\22161\22161.XXX 22161
41 

cate their rights, they sued and the case was settled after the free 

speech zones in the entire University of Hawaii system were abolished. 

Student Robert Van Tuinen, a veteran, was prevented by campus 

security from handing out copies of the Constitution on Constitution Day. Although he literally had the First Amendment in his 

hand, a Modesto junior college administrator said he could only distribute the Constitution in this free speech zone, a tiny, out-of-theway concrete stage. 

At Blinn College in Texas, Nicole Sanders decided to attract new 

members to the campus chapter of Young Americans for Liberty by 

talking about gun rights. An administrator told her she would have 

to stand in this free speech zone, literally the size of a parking 

space, and she was also told she would need special permission to 

talk about guns. Her lawsuit is ongoing. 

And finally, at Western Michigan University, a student group, 

the Kalamazoo Peace Center, was told it would have to pay for security to have Boots Riley, a rapper and social activist, speak at 

its Peace Week celebration. By taxing Riley’s speech with a fee that 

the students couldn’t afford, WMU effectively banned him from 

campus. Thanks to the students’ lawsuit, WMU can no longer censor speech in the name of security. 

FIRE supported the lawsuits of these students, but legal action 

is time-consuming and expensive. Clear guidance on political activity from the IRS would signal to colleges and universities this Subcommittee’s view that expressive rights must be respected. As the 

primary congressional committee with oversight authority over the 

IRS, you are in a unique position to communicate to the agency the 

urgent need for guidance. 

Yesterday was Super Tuesday. Now is the time to clarify that political activity restrictions do not apply to students or faculty, but 

just to the colleges and universities themselves. Thank you very 

much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Sevcenko follows:] 

42 


22161A.031

WRITTEN TESTIMONY of CATHERINE SEVCENKO 

Director of Litigation, 

Foundation for Individual Rights in Education 

Before the 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

March 2, 2016 Hearing on 

Protecting the Free Exchange of Ideas on College Campuses 
43 


22161A.032

March 2, 2016 

Representative Peter Roskam 

Chainnan 

House Ways and Means Oversight Subconunittee 

B-317 Longw01th House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Representative John Lewis 

Ranking Member 

House Ways and Means Oversight Subcommittee 

1106 Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

RE: Ma•·ch 2, 2016 Hearing on Protecting the Free Exchange of Ideas on College 

Campuses 

Dear Chairman Roskam, Ranking Member Lewis, and honorable members of the 

Subcommittee: 

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE; tbefrre.org) is a nonpartisan, 

nonprofit organization dedicated to defending student and faculty rights on America's 

college and university campuses. l11ese rights include freedom of speech, freedom of 

assembly, legal equality, due process, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience-the 

essential qualities of individual liberty and dignity. Since FIRE's founding in 1999, our 

efforts have won 385 victories on behalf of students and faculty members whose rights 

were unjustly denied at 250 colleges and universities, defeated 223 repressive speech 

codes thereby advancing freedom of expression for more tllan 3.5 million students, 

educated millions about the problem of censorship on campus, and spuned refonns 

across tbe entire California, Hawaii, and Wisconsin state university systems. Eve1y day, 

FIRE receives pleas for help from students and faculty who have found themselves 

victims of administrative censorship or unjnst punishments simply for speaking their 

Ininds. With their fundamental rights denied, they come to FIRE for help. 

I write you today to supplement tbe testimony I will be giving at the "Protecting the Free 

Exchange of Ideas on College Campuses" hearing on March 2, 2016. Thank you for the 

opportunity to offer FIRE's perspective on the serious threats to free expression on 

campus. 

The censorship that student Alex Atkins faced at Georgetown University Law Center 

(Georgetown Law) is not an isolated event but an example of a national problem that 

affects all colleges and universities. This written testimony will further describe how 

institutional misunderstanding of applicable Internal Revenue Service (IRS) guidelines 

regarding political expression on campus inhibits political engagement. I also wiH 

address the broader issue of campus censorship. 
44 


22161A.033

Political Activity on Campus: Private Univenities with 50l(c)(3) Status 

The vast majority of private institutions of higher education operate as nonprofit 

organizations incorporated exclusively for educational purposes and exempt from paying 

federal income tax under U.S. Internal Revenue Code 26 U.S.C. § 50l(c)(3). In FIRE's 

experience, institutions often cite their tax-exempt status to justify batming political 

activity by students on campus or forbiddi11g them to use university resources, broadly 

defined, for political purposes.

1 

Section 50l(c)(3) restricts qualifying nonprofit organizations from participating or 

intervening, directly or indirectly, in a political campaign on behalf of, or in opposition 

to, any candidate for public office. 26 C.F.R. § 1.50 I (c)(3)-l(c)(3)(ii)-(iii). The IRS has 

defmed prohibited political activity as including, but not limited to, candidate 

endorsements, contributions to political campaigns, public statements of favor or 

opposition to a candidate made on behalf of the organization, distributing statements of 

others favoring or opposing a candidate, or allowing a candidate to use an organization's 

assets or facilities if other candidates are not given an equal opportunity.2 Section 

501 (c)(3) also restricts qualifying nonprofits from dedicating a substantial part of their 

activities to attempting to influence legislation. 26 C.F.R. § 1.50l(c)(3)-l(c)(3)(iv). An 

organization found to be in violation risks penalties including loss of its tax-exempt status 

and the imposition of excise taxes. 

Although a college or university may not engage in political expression as an institution, 

university community members remain free to express their personal views.3 The IRS has 

accordingly concluded that the restriction on political activity does not apply to 

individual academic community members.4 In continuing education materials regarding 

"Election Year Issues" released in 2002, the agency made clear that "[i]n order to 

1 UMottunately, this ptoblem is not limited to private institutions. As government instnuneutalities, public 

colleges and universities are also exempt from federal income tax but are granted thai status under Section 

115 of the Internal Revenue Code, although some of them also have 50l(c)(3) status. Association of 

American Universities, Why Are Uuiversities aud Colleges Exempt from Federa/Jucome Taxatiou? (Mar. 

20 13), http://www.aau.edu/WorkArea!DownloadAsset.aspx?id= 14246. 

Aldtoup.h public institutions are botmd by the First Amendment, they, too, curtail student political speech, 

relying on the same justification as private institutions: their tax-exempt status prohibits ibem from 

allowing partisan speech on campus. For sill)plicity, this testimony will discuss 501(c)(3) status in tenns of 

private institutions, but ibe problem of colleges and universities censoring political speech to protect their 

tax-exempt status exists across tbe U.S. higher education system. 2 Internal Revenue Service, FS-2006-l, Election Year Activities and the Prohibition on Polirical Campaign 

Intervention for Section 50 I (c)(3) Orgcmi:alions (Feb. 2006), bttps://www .irs.gov/uac!Eiection-YearActivities·and-the-Prohibitioo-oo-Politicai-Campaign-Intervention·for·Section·501 %28c%29%283%29· 

Organizations. 3 See. e.g .• Roseuberger v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. ofVa .• 515 U.S. 819 (1995). 4 This conclusion is bolstered by Supreme Court rulings making clear ibat student fees distributed in a 

viewpoint neutral way may be used to support political or religious activities because ibe student groups are 

expressing ibeir views, not those of the tmiversity. Bd. ofRegems of the Univ. of Wis. Sys. v. Sowhworth, 

529 U.S. 217, 229 (2000) (expressive activities of student organizations at public university, funded by 

mandatory student activity fees, were not speech by a government actor); Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors 

of the Univ. ofVa .• 515 U.S. 819, 841 (1995) (where university adhered to viewpoint neutrality in 

administering student fee program, student religions publication funded by fee was not speech on behalf of 

university). 

2 
45 


22161A.034

constitute participation or intervention in a political campaign ... the political activity 

must be that of the college or university and not the individual activity of its faculty, staff 

or students." Judith E. Kindell & Jolm Francis Reilly, Election Year Issues, Exempt 

Organizations Continuing Professional Education Technical Instruction Program for 

Fiscal Year 2002, 377- 78 (2002), https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopici02.pdf (2002 

Election Issues). In particular, "(t]he actions of students generally are not attributed to an 

educational institution unless they are undertaken at the direction of and with 

authorization fi-om a school official." !d. at 365. 

The IRS has followed this interpretation in administrative rulings. For example, it 

decided that a university did not engage in campaign activity or attempt to influence 

legislation when it provided funding, facilities, and faculty advisors to a student-run 

newspaper that published student editorials expressing positions on legislation and 

candidates. Noting that the university exercised no editorial control over the content and 

that a statement on the editorial pages made clear the views expressed were not those of 

the university, the agency held that the provision of resources to the paper did not convert 

the publication of student opinions into instiMional acts. Rev. Rul. 72-513, 1972-2 C. B. 

246. 

In another ruling, the IRS decided that a university did not participate in a political 

campaign by offering a political science course that required students to take part in the 

campaign of a candidate of their choice. The IRS held that the fact of offering the course 

and dedicating personnel and facilities to teaching it did not "make the university a party 

to the expression or dissemination of political views of the individual students in the 

course of their actual campaign activities ... . "Rev. Rul. 72-512, 1972-2 C.B. 246. 

Sn1dent groups and organizations may also engage in partisan activities without 

endangering a university's tax-exempt status. A college or university does not generally 

fall afoul of IRS regulations by simply making its facilities and resources available to 

groups supporting a particular candidate, as long as the institution does so on a viewpoint 

neutral basis. The 2002 Election Issues document states that the IRS will decide on a 

case-by-case basis if provision of facilities to a group to conduct political campaign 

activities will constitute participation or intervention in a political campaign. Factors will 

include "whether the facilities are provided on the same basis that the facilities are 

provided to other non-political groups and whether the facilities are made available 

on a n equal basis to similar groups." 2002 Election Issues at 378 (emphasis added). 

Thus, existing IRS continuing education material and revenue rulings regarding political 

activity on campus provide nonprofit college's and universities t\¥0 guiding principles: 

First, university community members and student groups are not presumed to speak on 

behalf of their tmiversities or colleges unless the institution exerts control or influence 

over their message or activity. Second, if the institution has a history of providing access 

to institutional resources and facilities on a viewpoint neutral basis, then the partisan 

views expressed by participating university community members will not be attributed to 

the school. 

3 
46 


22161A.035

College and University Misinterpretation of Section 501(c)(3) 

Despite the existing IRS guidance, many private colleges and universities take an overlycautious, overly-restrictive approach to Section 50l(c)(3) compliance, severely limiting 

or banning student partisan speech on campus or interpreting the use of any university 

resource by a student or sntdent group as implicating the university in the activity. Of 

course, private institutions are not state actors bound to uphold the First Amendment right 

of students to engage in political speech. But most private colleges and universities 

maintain policies or public statements that promise their students the right to free 

expression on campus. As such, sntdents reasonably expect to be able to participate in 

political activities, which involve issues of central importanc·e to our country. Ironically, 

by stifling political speech, private schools undennine their ability to fulfill their 

educational mission, the very purpose for which they were granted non-profit status. 

Indeed, even institutional policies governing student partisan speech commonly begin by 

repeating support for free expression and political engagement. For example, Georgetown 

Law's current policy begins with the statement that the school "encourages and supports 

the free exchange of ideas and political viewpoints."s However, these value-based 

statements are too often followed by restrictions on student speech that universities claim 

are necessary in order to protect their tax-exempt status. 

A university does not "encourage or support" the free exchange of ideas among its 

srudents when it unnecessarily restricts political activity and expression on campus. As a 

nonprofit educational organization, FIRE understands the need to take care in protecting 

institutional tax-exempt status. But universities must be honest with their students. By 

interpreting IRS restrictions too broadly, they undem1ine, discourage, and censor campus 

speech. Some students, like Alex Atkins and his colleagues, have the fortitude to push 

back because political engagement is significant to them. But what about students with a 

passing interest in politics? Their engagement will be lost, and they will have learned a 

deeply unfortunate lesson about civic participation. 

If administrators at Georgetown Law, assisted by some of the most accomplished law 

professors in the country, cannot read the relevant material and be confident that partisan 

activity by sntdents will not jeopardize the institution's 50J(c)(3) status, there is a 

problem. Harvard Law School is apparently also confused. Its current policy concludes 

with a "friendly reminder" to students that it university resources cannot be used "to 

engage in an activity that favors or opposes any candidate for public office including but 

not limited to: Harvard email and/or listservs; Harvard blogs ... ; or the use of 

classrooms, catering services, or media services."6 

Clear guidance from the IRS would solve this problem. A direct statement that students, 

faculty, and staff may engage in partisan political activity as long as they do not claim to 

speak for the college or university would be of lasting benefit to our nation's campuses. 

s Georgetown Law Student Organization Policy 011 Partisan Political Activities, Georgetown University 

Law Center, https://orgsync.com/ 18903/files/587087/download# (last visited Feb. 28, 2016) 

also available at https://www.thefire.org/policy·on-partisan-political-activities-2). 

Policy 011 Campaig11 & Political Activity, Harvard Law School, http:l/hls.harvard.edu/dept/dos/stndentorgs/handbook-for-officers/policy-on-campaign·political-activity (last visited Feb. 26, 2016). 

4 
47 


22161A.036

With greater clarity regarding when partisan speech will be attributed to an institution 

and when conununity use of university resources will implicate an institution, students, 

faculty, and staff will better know what they may say and do, and universities will have 

greater confidence in what they may allow. 

FIRE recommends that Congress encourage the IRS quickly to issue concise guidance on 

a college or university's obligations under Section 50 I (c)(3) with respect to campus 

political speech. The 2016 campaign is already well underway, yet many institutions 

continue to employ overly restrictive policies out of an abundance of caution and fear for 

their tax-exempt status. Campus discourse suffers as a result. Every student or student 

organization told that they cannot sit at a table and hand out infonnation about their 

chosen candidate, that they cannot invite the candidate to campus to speak to other 

sntdents, or that they catmot even use a school's microphone if a candidate does manage 

to make it on campus, loses the opportunity to engage their peers on tbe most pressing 

political issues of the day and to advocate for the change they want to see in the world. 

Colleges and Universities Cite ms Obligations to Justify Censorship 

Specific examples of campus censorship demonstrate that Alex Atkins' experience was 

not an anomaly. Colleges and universities consistently cite their tax-exempt status to 

justify silencing political speech election year after election year. Please remember that 

these are only examples of instances that have come to our attention, either because they 

were covered in the media, or a student or faculty member came to FIRE for assistance. 

Hundreds of colleges and universities across the country maintain policies limiting 

srudent political speech and campaign-related activity. The number of students who, over 

the years, either did not seek assistance after being silenced or who chose not to speak at 

all after reading their school's policies is impossible to know. 

In the last several months alone, FIRE has written to two private universities in the 

District of Columbia, the political heart of the nation, urging them to properly construe 

their Section 50 I ( c )(3) obligations so as to allow the maximum amount of student 

political speech.' At Georgetown Law, Alex Atkins and a group of fellow students who 

support Senator Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign were prevented from reserving a 

table inside the law school or sitting at a table outside the law school to inform students 

about the senator's policies and how to register to vote in the primaries.8 

Last fall, American University refused to recognize the student organization "Students for 

Rand"-a group supporting the presidential campaign of Senator Rand Paul- based on 

the group's affiliation with the national organization of the same name. Until the 

1 Each election year, FIRE receives numerous requests for help from students who, after consulting our 

materials or talking with a FIRE staff member, arrive at an agreement with their university without more 

fonnal intervention. Since last fall, these inquiries are becoming more frequent. 8 Mary Lou Byrd, S/1/dems at Georgetown Banned From Handing Out Campaign Materials Supporting 

Bernie Sanders, THEW ASH. FREE BEACON (Feb. 2, 2016, I 0:30 AM), 

bttp:/lfreebeacon.com/issues/georgetown-banoed-baoding-campaign·materials·beruie-sanders; Lisa 

Burgos, GULC Under Fire For Campaign Policy, THEHOYA (Feb. 9, 2016), 

bttp:/lwww.theboya.com/gulc-under-fire-for-campaign-policy. 

5 
48 


22161A.037

university reversed its decision after being contacted by FIRE,9 the group was denied 

certain privileges extended only to recognized student groups, including the ability to 

reserve meeting space on campus or reserve tables in designated areas of campus. In the 

university's response to FIRE, Vice President of Campus Life Gail Short Hanson wrote: 

"The Internal Revenue Service provides limited guidance to assist in detennining 

whether or not a particular activity may constitute a prohibited political campaign 

intervention. Therefore, the University cru·efully considers whether to pennit on-campus 

political activities and events on a case-by-case basis."10 

In 2013, Saint Louis University (SLU) administrators prohibited the College Republicans 

from hosting former senator Scott Brown on campus, claiming that doing so would 

jeopardize their tax-exempt status. Todd Foley, then an assistant director of SLU's 

Sn1dent Involvement Center, stated that Brown's "appearance here would be a violation 

of our Tax Exempt status as a 50l(c)3 .. . . Since Scott Brown has made comments about 

possibly running for office in NH ... the IRS would consider him as a candidate-thus it 

being in conflict with our tax exempt stants." 11 

Leading up to the 2008 election, the College of St. Catherine (now St. Catherine 

University) in Minnesota denied requests to allow on-campus speeches by Hillary 

Clinton, Bay Buchanan, and Senator AI Franken. JustifYing its denial, the administration 

cited the requirement that nonprofit institutions maintain neutrality vis-a-vis candidates 

for public office, although that restriction does not apply to students, as discussed 

above.12 

Even public universities, which are bound by the First Amendment, unnecessarily and 

unjustly invoke their tax-exempt stants as a justification for shutting down partisan or 

politically charged student speech. For example, in 2014, the Student Government 

Association at Montclair State University in New Jersey- to which the university 

delegates the authority to distribute student activity fees to student organizationsimposed budgetary sanctions on the Montclair Sn1dents for Justice in Palestine for 

distributing pamphlets on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict because they contained 

"offensive and political wording."13 In its sanctions letter, the Association's "attorney 

general" admonished the group that it was to be a cultural organization, not a political 

one. Citing the Association's tax-exempt status, she wrote: "We have strict rules from the 

government on how to run the organization while remaining in non-profit status .... Part 

9 FiRE Leiter to American University Presidem Neil Kerwin, Nov. 2, 2015, https://www.Lhefire.org/fire1elter-to·american-uuiversity-presideut·ueil-kerwin. 10 Response Leiter to FIRE/rom Americau University Vice Presidem of Campus Life Gail Short Hmrsou, 

Nov. 12, 2015, https:l/www.thefire.org/response-letter-to-fn·e-froru-aruericau-university-vice-president-ofcampus-1ife-gai1-short-hanson/ 11 Eli Yokley, St. Louis University nixes Scou Brown appearance on campus, POLITICMO (Oct. 30, 2013), 

bttp:llpoliiicmo.com/20 13/ 10/30/st-louis-truiversity-uixes-scott-browo-appearance-on-carupus. 12 Paul Walsh & Jeona Ross, Mouths taped, St. Kate's studems protestmle on speakers, STAR TRIBUNE 

(Oct. 29, 2008), http://www.startribune.comlmouths-taped-st-kate·s-students-protest-mle-on· 

speakcrs/33354009. 1 Leiter of Sanction from Montclair State University Swdelll Govemment Association Allomey General 

Demi M. Washillglonlo Momclair Studemsfor Justice in Palestine, Sept. 25, 2014, 

https:l/www.tbeftre.org/letter-sauction-montclair-state-uuiversity-attorney-general-derui-m-washington. 

6 
49 


22161A.038

of the list of things we catmot be associated with is any political or lobbyist 

organization."14 After FIRE wrote to the Montclair State University administration on the 

student group's behalf, the Association's then-president rescinded the sanctions. 15 

And during the 2008 election cycle, the University of Oklahoma (OU) administration 

sent an email to the entire university community informing them that university email 

accounts "may not be used to endorse or oppose a candidate, including the forwarding 

of political humor/commentat·y. " 16 The email reasoned that even the personal use of 

university email accounts "may not include political issues outside of the educational 

context as it places the University at risk oflosing its tax exempt status."

17 Only after 

extensive public criticism did OU president David Boren rescind the previous email, 

noting that community members should merely refrain from purporting to speak on 

behalf of the university in support of a candidate.18 

l11e censorship of political speech does not arise solely from colleges' and universities' 

interpretations of their tax-exempt stan1s. Year round, administrators and student 

govemments rely on any number of university policies and conduct codes to suppress 

political expression. Election cycles tend to give rise to repeated examples of the 

censorship of political speech, likely because election season is when sn1dents are most 

excited to advocate for their candidate and engage their peers. 

For example, in 2012, Ohio University forced a student to remove a flyer from her 

dotmitory door that criticized both presidential candidates Barack Obama and Min 

Romney, citing a policy (fortunately now defunct) prohibiting students from displaying 

political posters outside their rooms until within fourteen days of the election date. 19 

Administrators relied on policies regulating displays in residence halls in demanding that 

students remove a banner supporting fonner representative Ron Paul at Auburn 

University in 201120 and signs from donnitory windows supporting then-senator Barack 

Obama at the University of Texas at Austin in 2008.21 

14 /d. 

IS Response Letlerto FIRE from Momclair State University General Counsel Mark J. Fleming, Oct. 9, 

2014, bnps://www.thefire.org/response-montclair-staie-tuliversity-general-counsel-mark-j-fleming-fire/ 

(enclosing Oct. 8, 2014 response letler to FIRE fiom Studeul Governrueut Associalion President Kristiu M. 

Bunk). 16 Response Leuerto FIRE from U11iversity of Oklahoma Pres idem David L. Boren, Oct. 13, 2008, 

bllps://www.lhefire.orglletler-to-frre-from-uuiversity-of-oklaboma-presideut-david-l-boren (emphasis 

added). 

17 Jd. 18 Email from David L. Boren, University of Oklahoma President, to University of Oklahoma Community 

(Ocl. 27, 2008, 6:54PM), hnps://www.thefue.org/email-fiom-ou-president-david-l-boreo-to-university-ofoklahoma-commtmity-oclober-27-2008. 19 Foundation for Individual Rights iu Educa6on, Wilh Election Day Close, Ohio University Ends Political 

Censorship in Dorms, THE TORCH (Oct. 9, 2012), https:/lwww.thefire.org/with-elec6on-day-close-obiouniversity-ends-political-censorship-in·donns-2. 10 Adam Kissel, Double Standard at Aubum: Ron Paul Banner Bmmedfrom Dorm Room Window While 

'Total Ban' Goes Unenforced, SCSU-AAUP (Jan. 17, 2012), http://www.scsuaaup.org/double-standard-ataubum-ron-paul-banner-banned-from-domt-room-wiudow-while-lolal-ban-goes-unenforced. 21 KHOU Staff, UTstudents ptmislted for hanging political signs in donn windows, KHOU (Oct 26, 2009, 

I 0:57 AM), http://www.khou.com/story/uews/20 14/07110/ 11177704. 

7 
50 


22161A.039

Also leading up to the 2012 presidential election, administrators at Christopher Newport 

University (CNU) relied on an overly restrictive policy regulating campus demonstrations 

to deny a srudent group's planned protest of a campus appearance by vice-presidential 

nominee Representative Paul Ryan. CNV refused to waive the policy's ten-day notice 

requirement for demonstrations, despite the fact that Ryan's speech was announced only 

two days before it took place.

22 

Ahead of the 2010 mid-tenn congressional elections, Grambling State University (GSU) 

in Louisiana sent an email to the university conmmnity advising members to delete any 

email containing a political campaign solicitation and not to forward such emails through 

university accounts. To do so, GSU explained, "may be viewed as utilizing university 

resources for solicitation purposes, a violation of state policy[.)"23 A university 

spokeswoman justified the ban on political emails under its email use policy prohibiting 

distribution of"dismptive or offensive messages" based on a number of protected 

characteristics, including " political beliefs."24 Driven by misunderstanding and fear, 

colleges and universities too often censor political speech on campus-a problem that the 

IRS has the power to correct. 

Other Forms of Campus Censorship Silence Political Speech 

Unfortunately, instirutional confusion regarding the obligations of tax-exempt 

organizations is not the only cause of campus censorship. Overly broad and vague 

"speech codes," tiny and onerously regulated "free speech zones," and other fonns of 

speech-restrictive polices are common and hinder srudents' ability to be politically active 

on campus.2

s These regulations prevent srudents from becoming the engaged citizens we 

need for our democracy to thrive and progress. 

Campus censorship can extend to the simple act of giving someone a copy of the 

Constirution. On September 17,2013, Constitution Day, a security guard and campus 

administrator at Modesto Junior College in California told srudent Robert Van Tuinen, an 

Army veteran, that he could not hand out copies of the U.S. Constinltion because he was 

not standing in the campus's tiny "free speech zone."26 Furthermore, because the free 

speech zone was "booked," he was told he would have to wait two weeks before he could 

do so. Van Tuinen had to sue Modesto Junior College (with FIRE's help) before the 

22 Greg Lukianoff, Editorial, Feigning Free Speech on Campus, N.Y. TIMES (Oct. 24, 2012), 

http://www. nyt imes.com/20 12/ 1 0/2 5/opinion/feigniug-free-speech-on-campus.htm I?_ r-0. 23 Stephen Clark, Grambling State University Bans Political E-Mai/s, Cites Stnte Law, Fox NEWS (Sept. 

22, 20 I 0), http://www .foxuews.com/politics/20 I 0/09122/university-louisiaua-bans-political-e-mails-drawsfree-speech-advocates.hnnl. 2< /d. 

l$ FOUNDATION FOR INDNIDUAL RIGHTS IN EDUCATION, SPOTLIGHT ON SPEECH CODES 20 16 4-5 (20 16), 

https://www.thefire.org/spotligbt/reports. 26 Photo included in supplemental materials. 

8 
51 


22161A.040

college abolished its free speech zone and admitted U1at fue First Amendment applied on 

campus.27 

In 2014, Blinn College student Nicole Sanders advocated for gun rights outside the 

Student Union to support concealed carry legislation then pending in the Texas 

legislature. But a campus administrator, accompanied by three amted police officers, told 

Sanders she needed "special permission" to talk about guns. Further, if she wanted 

display signs and recruit sntdents for the Young Americans for Liberty student group she 

was organizing, she would also have to be in the school's free speech zone, which was 

roughly the size of a parking space.Z8 Willi FIRE's assistance, Nicole filed a First 

Amendment lawsuit to vindicate her rights.29 We are hopeful for a settlement. 

Also in 2014, Western Michigan University (WMU) refused to let the rapper and social 

activist Boots Riley participate in a ' 'Peace Week" organized by the student group 

Kalamazoo Peace Center (KPC). Campus police decided that Riley's participation in the 

Oakland, California "Occupy" movement made him a potential security tlu·eat. When 

KPC objected, WMU imposed a fee for security that the group could not pay, in essence 

taxing controversial speech. KPC had to file a lawsuit for WMU to refom1 its policies.30 

Public universities may not violate fue First Amendment and private universities must 

honor their protnises of freedom of expression. Uncertain guidance from the IRS is no 

excuse for violating students' speech rights. This Subcommittee may help solve the 

persistent problem of campus censorship by recommending to the IRS that it issue a 

simple statement clarifying that students and faculty may engage in political activity 

without endangering institutional tax-exempt stants. Thank you again for granting FIRE 

the opportunity to discuss the importance of protecting the free exchange of ideas on 

campus. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Catherine Sevcenko 

Director of Litigation 

Foundation for Individual Rights in Education 

777 North Capitol Street NE, Suite 802 

Washington, DC 20002 

(215) 717-3473 

catherine@fuefire.org 

27 Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, Victory: Modesto Junior College Seu/es Student's First 

Amendment Lawsuit, THE TORCH (Feb. 25, 20 14), bttps:/fwww.theftre.org/victOI)'-DlOdesto-junior-collegesettles-students-ftrst-amendment-lawsuit. 28 Photo included in supplemental materials. 2

' Maxim Lott, Tectas swdent sues after college bans gun rights sign, Fox NEWS (May 28, 201 S), 

http :llwww .foxoews.com/us/20 15/0S/28/texas-student -sues-after-college-bans-guo-rigbtssign.html?intcmp=latestnews. 30 Rex HaU, Jr., WMU to pay $35,000 to seuleft"ee-sp eech lawsuirjiled by Kalama:oo Peace Center, 

MLIVE(May4, 2015, 5:47 PM), 

http :1/www .m live.com/newslkalamazoo/inde>t.ssf/20 15/05/wmu _ to _pay_ 35000 _ to_ settle_ fre .btm I. 

9 
52 


22161A.041

ATTACHMENT A 
53 


22161A.042

Since irs foundillg, FIRE has routinely intervened when colleges and universities restrict political 

speech on campus. Here are examples from the past two election cycles. 

Private Instjtutioo§ 

Georgetown University Law Center: L1 February 2016, Georgetown University Law Center 

prohibited the unregistered student g roup, Students for Bernie, from renting a table on campus' 

American U niversity: Last fall, American University refused to recognize the student organization 

"Students for fulnd"-a group supporting the presidential campaign of Senator Rand Paul-based 

on d1e group's affiliation with the national organization of d1e same name. Until the tuuversity 

reversed its decision after being contacted by FIRE, the group was denied certain privileges 

extended only to recognized student groups, including the ability to reserve meeting space on 

campus or reserve tables ln designated areas of campus. 

Saint Louis University: In 2013, Saint Louis University (SLU) demanded a student group hold an 

event featuring former ll•fassaclmsetts Senator Scott Brown at an off-campus location.• SLU justified 

its wrongfi.u decision to prevent Brown from appearing on campus by ci!U1g misguided concerns 

over its tax-exempt status. FIRE sent a letter to SLU in November 2013, and again u1 January 2014 

after d1e university defended its actions.} 

College of St. Catherine: L1 d1e fall of 2008, College of St. Catberit1e (now St. Catherit1e 

Uni,•ersity) disuwited a number of speakers u1cludu1g Bay Buchanan, Senator A1 Franken, and 

iormer senator and current presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.< 

1 Mary Lou Byrd, Sl11dtll!J o/ Geotgt!OJJ'II Bn1111td Fro111 Ho11di11g 011! Co,rpoigll Motnio/s 

S11pportittg Bemie So11ders, THEW ASH. FR£E BEACON (Feb. 2, 2016, I 0:30 AM), 

http:// freebeacon.com/ issues / georgetown-banned-handlllg-campaign-materials-bernie-sanders/ ; 

Lisa Burgoa, GULC Undtr Fi,. FcrCo111poig;t Policy, THE HOYA (Feb. 9, 2016), 

Imp:/ / www.dlehoya.com/ gulc-under-fire-for-campaign-policy/. 2 Eli Yokley, St. L(JIIiJ UnivtrJity nixts StOll Bro111n ap~oratJ~ 011 tMtpJif, PouncMo (Oct. 30, 

2013), 

http:// politicmo.com/ 20 13/ I 0/ 30/ st-lonis-university-nixes-scott-brown-appearance-on-campus / . 3 Peter Bo1ulla, Saint Lo11is Unh~rsity Kitks Politico/ S~erh O.ffColltplls, TH£ TORCH (Apr. 9, 

20 14), Imps:/ /""vw. thefue.org/ saint -louis-tlluversity-kicks-political-speech-off-campus/ . 

• Paul Walsh & Jenna Ross, Mo11ths toptd, St. Kate's st11dmts protest mit on sptoktrs, STAR 

TR.mtiN£ (Oct. 29, 2008), 

http:/ /www.srartribune.com/ mouths-raped-st-kare-s-students-protest-ntle-oll-speakers / 33354009/. 
54 


22161A.043

ATTACHMENT B 
55 


22161A.044

Public Institutions 

Montclair State University: In 2014, Montclair State U•uversity (MSU) Student Government 

.Association (SGA) Attorney General Demi Washington penalized the Montclair Students for Justice 

in Palestine (MSJP) organization five percent of irs semester budget and ordered cl1e group to cease 

all political activity after receiving complaints cl1at the group had hwded out "political" and 

"offensive" pamphlets.' Washington also admonished cl1e group clut ir was only ro focus on 

Palestinian culture and nor to rake positions on political issues.

2 In October 2014, FIRE sent a lerter 

to MSU demanding that cl1e SG.A rescind its s:u1ctions against MSJP and respect its student groups' 

ability to distribute literature of a political nature-' Five days later, SGA President Kristen Bw1k 

reversed rhe s:u1ctious and reassured MSJP members cl1at students and organizations have a right to 

e.-<press political views ou campus.' 

Brooklyn College: L1 Febmary 2013, an event entitled "BDS Movement .Against Israel" sparked 

controversy after it was revealed the ev·eut was co-sponsored by several sntdent groups as well as 

Brooklyn College's political science department. Some--includu1g New York City public 

officials-criticized the college's sponsorslup as constituting an official endorsement of the event 

and the views of its speakers by Brooklyn College.s 

Christopher Newport University: In September 2012, Christopher Newport University (CNU) 

censored student speech by preventU1g cl1e Fenllillst Alli:u1ce, a sntdent group, from protesting a 

campus appearance by Representative Paul Ryan, who was a vice presidential nomu1ee at the tUne.• 

CNU refused to waive a 10-day notice requuement for srodent groups wishu1g to engage u1 

1 HlUUllUl .Adely, MMklnir Stnlt Ullittrsif)• tllldtllf nuo<intio11 mtrstt ptnnllitt on pro-PnlttlinitJJt rl11b's 

J>a1llphlttmittt, THE RECORD (Oct. 9, 2014, 8:39 PM), 

hrtp:/ / www.northjersey.com/ news/ montclair-state-wtivers.ity-student-association-reverses-penalties 

-on-pro-palesti.Uan-club-s-pamphleteer<ng-1.11 06383. 2 Letter of Sanction from D enli M. \\lashU1gton, Attorney General, Montclau State University 

Sntdetll Government, to Molltclair Students for Justice in Palesti.1e and Executi'"e Board (Sept. 25, 

2014), 

https:/ / www.cllefire.org/ letter-sanction-montclair-state-university-attorney-geueral-denli-m-waslling 

ton/. 3 Letter from .Aci Z. Colu1, Program Officer, Legal and Public Advocacy, Foundation lor Individual 

Rights u1 Education, to Susan .A. Cole, President, Montclair State University (Oct. 3, 2014), 

Imps:/ / www .thefire.org/ fire-letter-mon tel air-state-university-president -susan-cole/. 

• Letter from Mark. J. fleming, University Counsel, Montclair State University, to .Aci Z. Cohn, 

Program Office r, Legal and Public Advocacy, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (Oct. 

9, 2014), 

hrtps:/ / www .thefice.org/ cesponse-montclaic -state-university-general-counsel-mack-j-fleming-fire/ . 

s Editorial, Brook!Jn College dtpnrl111t11f is shoJJ'iJ'!, distincllnrle of tOIIJtJgt, N.Y. DAILY NE\'I:'S (Feb. 5, 2013, 

4:00 .Al\1), http:/ / www.uydailynews.com/ opuuon/ spuleless-brooklyu-article-1.1255307. 6 Greg Lukiwoff, Editocial, Ftignil'!, Frte Spmh on Cn111j>11t, N.Y. TIMES (Oct. 24, 2012), 

http:// W\vw.nyti.nes.com/ 20 12/ 1 0/ 25/ opinion/ feiguing-free-speech-ou..eampus.html. 
56 


22161A.045

"demonstrations" on campus, despite the fact that Representative Ryan's September IS appearance 

was only publici)' atutounced two days earlier.' 

Michigan State University: In 2012, Associated Students of Michigan State University (ASMSU) 

rejected the College Lbertatians' request for funding, claiming that the university could not " fund 

grot•ps with politicalagendas."8 FIRE wrote to ~lichigan State University in October, explaining that 

the school could not make such viewpoint-based funding decisions and urging ASMSU's ti.•nding 

board to reverse its decision.• On October 23, the board did just that, and the event was able to 

move forward.' 0 

Northern Virginia Community College: In February 2012, the fully recognized student group 

Smdents for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP) sought permission to attend a national conference. SSDP 

Presidettt Chris McMillon was told by college administrator Patricia Gordon dtat the college was 

"unable to fund any sntdettt organizations widt a political agenda."" FIRE asked dte college to 

revise dtis uncorlStimtional policy ul accordance with dte Fiest Amendment rights of sntdent groups 

likeSSDP.12 

Ohio University: In 2012, Ohio University (OU) blocked a sntdent from putting a notice on her 

door arguing dtat neither President Obama nor Mitt Ronu•ey were fit for office." FIRE wrote to 

7 0\fU ro11sidm <hat'&e lo proltsl policy, DAILY PREss (Sept. 23, 2012), 

http:// articles.d:Ulypress.com/ 2012-09-23/ news/ dp-nws-ctime-notebook-0923-20 120923 _l_studen 

ts-kevin-hughes-protest-policy-student-protests. 8 Peter Bonilla, Michiga11 Stalt & vmu Dedsio11 &jtcti''& Fret-Market S<holar's Spetrh, THE TORCH (Nov. 

16, 2012), 

https:/ / """"· dtefue.org/ micltigan-state..reverses-decision-rejecting-free-market-scholars-speech-3 /. 9 Letter from Peter Bonilla, Associate Director, Individual Rights Defense Program, Foundation for 

Individual Rights in Education, to Lou Anna K. Simon, President, Michigan State University (Oct. 

19, 2012), 

https:/ / www.thefue.org/fue-letter-to-micltigan-state-tmiversity-presideot-lou-anna-k-simon-october 

-19-2012/. 10 Letter from Dettise B. Maybank, Ph.D. I nterim Vice President tor Student Affairs., Mi.cltigan State 

u.,;,,ersity, to Peter Bonilla, Associate Director, Individual Rights Defense Program, Fotmdation for 

Individual Rights in Education (Nov. 9, 2012), 

https:/ / www.dtefire.org/ response-to-fue-from-interim-vice-president-for-sntdent-affaics-deni.se-ma 

ybank-november-9-2012/ . 

11 Em:Ul from Patricia Gordon, Nordtern Vicgutia Community College, to Chris Me~.vlillon (Feb. 26, 

2012, 11:21 Al\1), 

https:/ / www.dtefue.org/em:Ul-&om-patricia-gordon-to-chris-mcmillon-febmary-26-2012/ . 12 Letter from Peter Bonilla, Assistant Director, Individual Rights Defense Program, Foundation for 

Individual Rights in Education, to Peter Mapluunulo, Provost, Nord1ern Virginia Community 

College (May 11, 2012), 

Imps:// www. dtefue.org/leuer-from-fue..to-nordlern-virgiitia-conumutity-coUege-may-11-20 12/. 13 Peter Bouilla, 1J?ith Elertio11 Day Close, Ohio U11i•~rsity E11ds Politirol Ct11sonhip ,;, Domu. THE TORCH 

(Oct. 9, 2012), 
57 


22161A.046

OU President Roderick McDavis on September 28, reminding OU of its legal obligation as a public 

univers.ity to respect sntdent First Amendment rights.' ' 

University of Cincinnati: ltl2012, UniversityofCulcillllati (UC) told UC's Young Americans for 

Liberty (Y AL) chapter it could not gather signatures or talk to sntdents about support of a statewide 

"right to work" ballot initiative." FIRE secured the assistance of Ohio's 1851 Center for 

Constitutional Llw for Y .AL's lawsuit. In June 2012, United States District Judge Timothy S. Black 

held that the policy "violates the FU:st Amendment and cannot stand" and issued a prelimu1ary 

injtUlction ag.U1st irs enforcement. 16 

Aubum University: In November 2011 , .Auburn University student Eric Philips was reqnired to 

remove a banner supporting former Representative Ron Paul's presidential camp:Ugn from the 

inside of his dormitory willdow. Despite Aubum's policy prolubiting all wu1dow decorations in its 

residence halls, Philips documented numerous examples of the policy not be.ll1g enforced agaillst 

other sntdenrs.

11 

Grambling State University. In 2010, university officials prohibited its students and faculty from 

t:rans.m.itti.ng any '<campaign solicitations" via the unive.rsity's email system? a b::tn dut included any 

message d>at implied one's support for a particular political canrlidate.'8 

hnps:/ / www.thefire.org/with-electioa-day-close-oluo-university-ends-political-censorslup-in-dorms 

-2/. 

14 Lener from Peter Bonilla, Associate Director, L1dividual Rights Defense Program, Foundation for 

Inrlividual Rights ul Education, ro Roderick J. McDavis, President, Oluo University (Sept. 28, 20 12), 

https:/ / www .d1efire.org/ fire-letter -to-ohio-university-septem her -28-20 12/ . 15 Em:W from Conference & Event Services, University of Cincil1nati, to Chris :tvlorbitzer, President, 

Young .America.ns for Liberty cl>apter of d1e University of Cincinatti (Feb. 10, 2012, 8:05 .AJ.\1), 

hnps:/ / www.thefire.org/email-from-conference-·and-event-services-to-raJ-ue<hapter-president-chri 

stopher-morbitzer-febmary-10-2012/ ; tee also Tyler Kingkade, U11ivtrsity OfCimiffffati Fret Spttrh Zo11u 

&t!td Umvmstilutionol By Ftdem/ j11dge, HUFFINGTON POST: HUFF POST COLLEGE 0 w1e 14, 2012, 3:28 

PM), 

http:// \V'.Vw.hu ffingtonpost.com/ 2012/ 06 / 13/ tuuversity-of-eUlcUl!lati-free-speech-zone_u_159497 

t.html. 

'

6 Univ. of CmcUlnati Chapter of Young Ams. for Liberty v. Williams, No. 12-cv-00155, 2012 U.S. 

Dist. LEXlS 80967, at *2 (S.D. Oluo June 12, 2012). 17 Adam Kissel, Do11blt S tondard at A11b11m: R011 Pa11! Banmr Bmmed jl'()lfJ Dor111 ~"' l'l?indow ll?hilt Total 

Ban' Gou Uu.,ift>~·ml, SCSU-AAUP Qan. 17, 2012), 

hnp:/ / \V'.Vw.scsuaaup.org/double-standard-at-aubum-ron-paul-banner-banned-from-clorm-room-wi 

ndow-while-total-ban-goes-tulenforced/ . 18 Stephen Clark, Gmmbling Stott Uni•·mi!J Bmu Politiral E-Mails, Cites State um; Fox News (Sept. 22, 

2010), 

http:/ / www.foXIlews.com/ politics/ 2010/ 09/ 22/ uruvers.ity-louisiana-batlS·political-e-mails-draws-fr 

ee-speech-advocates.htnU. 
58 


22161A.047

Iowa Western Community College: L1 2008, Iowa Westero Community College banned 

indi,·idual srudents from distributing campaign handbills and b:uu1ed postings of campaign materials 

where other postings were allowed." 

University of Illinois: In 2008, the University of illinois Ethics Office issued a statement that went 

too far i.n banning political e.-<pressio n and patticipation on Unive rsity oflll.inois campuses.20 FIRE, 

d1e American Association of University Professors, d1e ACLU, d1e National Association of 

Scholars, and d1e IJJ.inois Association of Scholars firmly criticized the administration's statement2 1 

University of Oklahoma: In d1e weeks prior to d1e 2008 presidential election, d1e University of 

Oklahoma (OU) notified students and faculty iliat "d1e forwarding of political humor/ commentary" 

using their university email accounts was prohibited." After FIRE wrote OU President David L. 

Boren, explaining that d1e policy violated the right to freedom of speech, Boren replied d1at d1e 

policy was intended to be applicable only " to d1e extent discussions are attributable to d1e University 

as endorsing or opposing a political candidate."23 Boren issued a mliversity-wide statement on 

October 27, 2008, fully rescinding d1e earlier email and stating that OU policy "does not linlit d1e 

right of anyone to express individual views."2

• 

University ofTexas: L1 2008, the Utliversity of Texas at A11stio (tJl) baru1ed two srudents from 

posting political signs in support of d1et1-Seoator Barack Obama's presidet1tial campaigo oo d1eir 

dornlitory door and window, in order to avoid d1e appearance d1at UT was supporting a caodidate.zs 

19 Will Creeley, With EltttiM Wuks All'!)', PolilictJI SpetdJ Undtr A/lack 011 Almrict1's Ca!!lJ>IIstt. THE 

TORCH (Oct. 15, 2008), 

https:/ / \\'WW.d1efue.org/ widl-electioo-weeks-away-political-speecll·under-attack-oll-americas-camp 

uses/. 

20 Scott Jascllik, B•11'11rt I he 811tton Politt, INSIDE HIGHER Eo (Sept. 24, 2008), 

Imps:// www .insideltighered.com/ news/ 2008/ 09/ 24 / buttons. 21 Adam Kissel, Unit•erri!J ojllli11ois &spo111ls to 117idnprtad Co11lJ>Ini11ts Agaimt Ban on Politict1l Attivi!J, 

THE TORCH (Oct. 6, 2008), 

https:/ / www.thefue.org/mu,,ersity-of-illUlois-respallds-to-widespread-complaims-againsr-ban-on·p 

olitical-accivity/ . 22 Charles C. Haynes, In hig!Jer ,d/({rlfion, lou' loltroll~ for Jne speech, F'lRsT AMENDMENT CENTER (May 22, 

2014), http:/ / www.firstamendmeotcenter.org/in-lligher-education-low-tolerance-for-free-speech. 

23 Letter from David L. Boren, President, U11iversiry of Oklahoma, to Adam Kissel, Director, 

Individual Rights Defense Program, Fotuldation for Individual Rights in Education (Oct. 13, 2008), 

bttps:/ / www.thefue.org/letter-to-fue-from-mliversity-of-oklalloma-president-david-l-boren/. 

" Email from D avid L. Boren, President, University of Oklahoma, to Uruversity of Oklahoma 

comnuUlity (Oct. 27, 2008, 6:54 PM), 

https:/ / www.d1efire.org/ email-from-ou-president-david-1-boren-to-mliversity-of-oklahoma-commu 

nity-october-27-2008/ . 

2S UT st11dt11ts pnnishtd for hangu~,gpolitirol signs in dor111 u·indo11·s, KHOU (Oct. 26, 2009, 10:57 Al\ol), 

http:/ / www.kllou.com/ story/ news/ 2014/ 07 / 10/ 111 77704/ . 
59 


22161A.048

ATTACHMENT C 
60 


22161A.049

-res 

·-c: 

'-

0 

'+-

·- Q) -res 

c:u 

oN Q) ... bO ... Q) .s::._ 

vQ) 0 

Q)U 

Q.'-

V) 0 

Q) ·-c: 

Q) ::J 

'-...., u.. 

~ 0 

otJ 

Cl) 

Q) 

""C 

0 

~ 
61 


22161A.050

-ns 

·-c: 

""" 

~ ·-

-

0 

u 

""" 0 

·-
62 


22161A.051

.-. 

.J: 

fa 

+"' 

QJ ::J 

c: ._. 

0 > 

N +"' 

... ·-(/) ... ~ .J: QJ u 

QJ > 

QJ ·-c: 

C.::J 

V) QJ QJ +"' 

QJ fa ~ +"' 

LL V) ... 

... QJ 

·-)( 

·-c 
63 


22161A.052

0 

-·-:::z:: 

cu ...., c: nJ 

0 ·- N "(ij 

~ ~ .c: nJ 

~:::z:: cu'+-

c.o 

V') > 

cu -~ cu V) ~ ~ 

u. cu 

::; > 

·-c: 

::J 

22161A.053

11Free Speech" Zone 

Blinn College (Texas) 

• After recruiting new 

members for Young 

Americans for Liberty 

(YAL) outside the 

Student Unio

n, Nicole 

was told that she could 

only do so in the "Free 

Speech" Zone, two 

squares of pavement, 

11 x 16 feet in area. 

22161A.054

Blinn College (Texas) 

\ S\v.v-4 for 

'oo:,o.IASc. \!> -\'nt. Wrocl!-

SoCitrh1· 

• If Nicole wanted to talk abo

guns that would require 

special permission, which 

Nicole probably couldn't ge
f 


22161A.055

Western Michigan University 

• The Kalamazoo Peace Center (KPC) at 

Western Michigan University found out 

that censorship comes in many forms 

when it invited rapper and activist Boot

Riley to campus. 

• School officials first refused to allow the 

rapper and social activist on campus 

because he was allegedly a "threat/1 to 

public safety and then decided he could 

appear only if KPC paid for private 

security, which it cou ldn't afford. 
67 

Chairman ROSKAM. Thank you. 

Mr. Zuckerman. 

STATEMENT OF JOSHUA ZUCKERMAN, STUDENT, PRINCETON 

UNIVERSITY, AND FOUNDING MEMBER OF THE PRINCETON 

OPEN CAMPUS COALITION 

Mr. ZUCKERMAN. Thank you. I would like to begin by thanking 

Chairman Roskam and Ranking Member Lewis and the Members 

of this Subcommittee for holding this hearing and inviting me to 

testify. It is an honor to have the opportunity to help raise congressional awareness of threats to open dialogue and to free speech on 

our college campuses. 

I am a cofounder of the Princeton Open Campus Coalition—that 

is POCC for short. We are a nonpartisan group of conservative and 

liberal undergraduates dedicated to protecting the diversity of 

thought and the right of all students and professors to advance 

their academic and personal convictions in a manner free from intimidation. We believe that the protection of free speech is vital to 

the academic flourishing of the university. 

Student protestors at Princeton have recently demanded cultural 

competency training for the faculty, mandatory classes on so-called 

marginalized peoples, and affinity housing for students interested 

in black culture. As I explained in my written testimony, POCC opposes each of these ideas, due to their destructive effects on the 

free flow of speech and thought. These ideas, if implemented, would 

create university-sanctioned orthodoxies. Those who defy these 

orthodoxies will be publicly slandered and labeled as racists. This 

is not mere speculation; it is already happening. 

Members of POCC, since formally opposing these demands, have 

been subjected to senseless ad hominem attacks that would effectively silence many members of the campus community. In a 

Facebook post a black POCC cofounder criticized the demands for 

advocating, in his words, ‘‘self-segregation and censorship.’’ He was 

then effectively labeled a race traitor. Someone asked him, ‘‘Why 

don’t you post something supporting your people, instead of trying 

to bring down those trying to uplift blacks?’’ 

Similarly, a white POCC cofounder wrote an op ed in the campus 

newspaper in which she pointed out the hypocrisy of anti-racism 

protesters making these race-based judgments. In response to this 

article, a groups of protestors screamed obscenities at her, while 

demanding that she not be allowed to participate in a public open 

forum due to her allegedly racist beliefs. They sought to prevent 

her from espousing her ideas. 

Numerous other students have privately confided to POCC that 

they also oppose the demands, but are afraid to speak out for fear 

of being publicly subjected to these vicious ad hominem attacks. 

Now, these attacks go far beyond personal insults. For instance, 

a student who wrote an article in defense of free speech in the campus conservative magazine woke up to find a shredded copy of the 

magazine taped to her door. Someone went out of their way to find 

out where she lived, and to try to intimidate her. 

This is what we are seeing at Princeton today, and these demands haven’t even been implemented. Imagine what would happen if the university itself were to vindicate the protestors’ world 

68 

view, thereby reinforcing this notion that those who disagree need 

to be re-educated. 

The student protestors are attempting to portray POCC’s concern 

with free speech as misguided. This could not be further from the 

truth. Consider this excerpt from an op ed written by a protest 

leader in the student newspaper. She wrote, ‘‘If your freedom of 

thought means that I, a black student, do not have the luxury of 

feeling safe on a campus that I have worked my entire life to get 

to, it should have no place in universities or any other beloved institution.’’ 

As this excerpt demonstrates, protestors seek to purge the university of ideas that make them feel unsafe. But no one at Princeton is unsafe. There has not been a single instance of violence, and 

no one has called for the subjugation of minorities. Anyone who did 

would be unanimously and instantly condemned, and everyone 

knows that. These attempts to bully students into silence—and, 

when that fails, to demand the creation of policies that will have 

similar effects—are utterly intolerable. 

Speech at Princeton currently enjoys robust protection. The status quo, as far as things go nationwide, is pretty good. Protestors 

seek to change that. 

As I mentioned, POCC opposes each demand, and respects the 

right of all students to advance their personal convictions. Naturally, this does include advocacy for the aforementioned demands. 

POCC has helped lead the fight against these proposed policies. We 

have met with the president of Princeton and members of the 

board of trustees. We have written several op eds in campus and 

national newspapers, participated in public debates, and appeared 

on national news. 

Today, POCC would like to call on our political leaders to reaffirm the importance of free speech on college campuses. President 

Obama rightly condemned students who feel a need, as he said, ‘‘to 

be coddled and protected from different points of view.’’ You 

shouldn’t silence speakers by saying, ‘‘You can’t come because I am 

too sensitive to hear what you have to say.’’ 

We hope Congress and all of our elected officials will follow 

President Obama’s example and unite in condemnation of students 

and administrators who seek to restrain or to prevent those who 

advance controversial views from exercising their fundamental 

right to free speech. The importance of this issue transcends partisan and ideological divisions, and should unite all Americans in 

defense of our universities, our principles, and our future. Thank 

you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Zuckerman follows:] 

69 


22161A.056

I am a co-founder of the Princeton Open Campus Coalition (POCC), a nonpartisan and ideologically heterogeneous group of undergraduates dedicated to 

protecting diversity of thought and the right of all students and professors to 

advance their academic and pe1·sonal convictions in a manner free from 

intimidation. POCC believes that the fundamental goal of the liberal arts university 

is devotion to the principles of academic excellence and the search for truth. This 

consists of far mor e than mere knowledge. The successful university will equip its 

students wit.h the skills to reconcile factual knowledge with human reason: rhetoric, 

debate, r esearch, logic, writing, and analytical thought processes. It will provide its 

students with valuable experiences that enable intellectual maturation. Students will 

be exposed to the unknown, learn from their failures, and adapt to meet future 

challenges. Perhaps most importantly, the university builds character and virtues 

such as open-mindedness, honor , mental fortitude, perseverance, and toler ance for 

others' cultures, backgrounds, and opinions. 

Discourse lies at the center of academic excellence. Indeed, it is through the 

discussion of reasoned arguments that students learn to develop and defend the 

merits of their own position and to scrutinize and criticize the flaws of opposing 

viewpoints. As such, the protection of free speech, r estrained only insofar as 

r easonable lime, place, and manner considerations necessitate, is vital to the 

academic flourishing of the university. 

The Faculty of Princeton University wisely recognized the importance of the 

free flow of ideas in its adoption of the University of Chicago's free speech policy on 

April 6, 2015: 
70 


22161A.057

"In a word, the University's fundamental commitment is to the principle 

that debate or deliberation may not be suppressed because the ideas put 

forth are thought by some or even by most members of the University 

comtmmity to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wmng-headed. It is for 

the individual members of the University community, not for the 

University as an institution, to make those judgments for themselves, 

and to act on tlwse judgments not by seeking to suppress speech, but by 

openly and vigomusly contesting the ideas that they oppose. Indeed, 

fostering the ability of members of the University community to engage 

in such debate and deliberation in an effective ami responsible manner 

is an essential part of the University's educationalmission."1 

We are unfortunately living in an era of out-of-control political correctness in 

which ideas that ar e subjectively and sometimes unreasonably deemed offensive a re 

considered dangerous and therefore deserving of restraint, suppression, or 

correction. Interestingly enough, it is students rather than university bureaucracies 

that are behind the latest movements to subdue speech on campus. Following 

similar protests at Yale University and the University of Missouri, Princeton 

students led by the Black Justice League (BJL) occupied President Christopher 

Eisgruber's office in November 2015 and issued numerous demands, three of which 

will have especially chilling effects on academic discourse if in1plemented. In 

response to these demands and student desires to maintain Princeton's vibrant 

intellectual culture, I helped found POCC, which has led the light against these 

fundamental threats to Princeton's r obust and vibrant academic culture. 

One of these demands calls for "cultural competency training for all staff and 

faculty.": According to the BJL, "requiring cultural competency training for faculty 

1 This exctrpt from Princeton Univ~rsity's Rights. Rules, a11d Responf.·ibilities section 1.1.3 is available online at 

h~jb.irt'tiRDla~~ah~i~@eJt~~!BJ)l~ition}onlineathn:p..i.://www.c an~p~ 

u.o~dminjstrarion oc:a!J)~Ju-me t-blaclc-student-
71 


22161A.058

is not imposing a particular doctrine onto Princeton's faculty.'"' This could not be 

further from the I ruth. Cultural competency training programs at other universities 

seek to purge the classroom of the dissemination of perfectly innocuous ideas that 

are arbitrarily declared politically incorrect. Consider, for instance, a publication 

called Diversity ifl the Classroom, UCLA Diversity & Faculty Developmeflt, 2014. It 

contained a guide instructing faculty thai the certain statements "communicate 

hostile, derogatory, or negative messages to target persons based solely upon their 

marginalized group membership." Examples of "hostile" statements included: 

"America is a melting pot," "I believe the most qualified person should get the job," 

and "Affirmative action is racist.'' II encouraged faculty to both refrain from 

espousing these views and to condemn students who do so. • This inanity also 

surfaced in the University of New Hampshire's ''Bias-Free Language Guide," 

(published in July 2015 but rescinded after public uproar) which in an effort to 

"invite inclusive excellence" employed social pressure to eliminate terms such as 

'American' 'Senior citizen,' ' healthy,' 'rich,' and ' poor.' 5 Cultural competency 

training seeks to eliminate terms and ideas that are wrongly considered ha rmful by 

the easily offended. 

The second of these demands was that "classes on the history of marginalized 

peoples (for example, courses in the Department for African American Studies) be 

added to the list of distribution requirements."6 If accepted by the University, this 

demand will provide immense power to curriculum-designing committees and to the 

3 The 81Lddendcd cultur.ll compN~ncy training in an tditorial in the Wosbington Post (henceforth BJL WaPo). available online 

at ht!W/www was ina onR2i!&Q.m/ ews~ooin t/ o/20 5/1 /0 /.P..rinceton-P.:rOtesters·w y~s.:.nnd-sa sp.apesand·why·hon.oring•woodi"'w•wilson•IS•Spitting•ln•o ur•fares/. 

• 1"hc guide is available at b!!R;//advancc. ci.ed...!!L OV NC~ 0P s/Ciima_!Y icroagg,msi ns__t:xa rnP- ts 2~_,P- 1 

s See h!._fP.://campusreform.org/?10=6697. 

• BJL Petition 
72 


22161A.059

professors who will teach these mandato1·y classes. Firstly, the committee must 

grapple with the highly political question of which peoples are marginalized. There 

is no societal consensus on tWs issue, and any determination by the committee will 

impose the subjective findings of (predominantly leftist) ivory-tower theorists as 

objective fact. These classes would be taugbt by ah'eady politicized departments 

such as the Department of African American Studies and the Program in Geude1· 

Studies, thereby promoting groupthink and the imposition of liberal orthodoxies. 

Even if such classes were taught by fait· and objective professors, their very premise 

that some demographic groups are marginalized and oppressed by American 

society ser ves to indoctrinate students as to the truth of what is at best a dubious 

p1·esupposition and at worst highly biased propaganda. This, of course, raises the 

question of what will happen to the students who oppose the University-sanctioned 

narrative and deny the marginalization of "marginalized" peoples. Grading bia5 

and derision from professors very real possibilities. 

The third of these demands called for a "cultut·al space on campus dedicated 

specifically to Black students." 7 With no consultation of the student body 

whatsoever, the University has already surrendered to this demand and assigned 

"temporary affinity rooms" to black, African-American, Latino, Asian, A~ia · 

American, Arab, and Middle-Eastern stndents.8 The assignment of these rooms is in 

itself questionable (e.g. all of Asia's diverse cultures are r epresented in a single 

room, why do Arabs get a room when Indians do not?). In theory, the rooms arc 

spaces dedicated to the celebration of minority and foreign cultures and will offer a 

7 1bid, 

• The Daily Princetonian reported on the creation ofthe$e rooms: b __ ttp:LLdillJ)!J)ri1J~etontaf!,_g>mLnew~L20!§LQ1L.ten:ul2.tatX: 

affinlty·rooms-asslened-at-fie!ds-center/.. 
73 


22161A.060

refuge to students who feel marginalized and oppressed by mainstream campus life. 

In r eality, they are but safe spaces that will insulate students from ideas. The 

proponents of these rooms claim that all students will be welcome. If we buy into 

this, we must ask how students with dissenting opinions will be treated. What will 

happen when a white student, in an effort to meet Arab peers and learn about Arab 

culture, enters the room and r espectfully condemns certain aspects of said culture? 

What will happen to a black student who ente1·s the black affinity room and tells her 

peers that they are neither oppressed nor marginalized? To ask these questions is to 

answer them. Certain ideas will be unwelcome in these rooms, which will undermine 

the University's commitment to facilitating dialogue on society's most important 

issues. 

Similarly, BJL has also demanded affinity housing for students interested in 

black culture. The same problems abound. Affinity housing would be de facto 

r acially segregated and would thus balkanize the University. Students who deny the 

institutionalized narrative of black students as marginalized and oppressed will be 

accused of invading their peers' home with the intention of bullying or intimidating 

them. Atrmity housing undermines the University's commitment to diversity and 

will create a community that is ideologically and politically heterogeneous, thereby 

decr easing the likelihood that students will develop their skills and char acter via 

exposure to those who disagree. This is anathema to IJ1e core mission of the 

University. POCC believes ther e should be no space at a university in which any 

member of the community is "safe" from having his or her most cherished values 
74 


22161A.061

challenged. It is the very mission of the university to seek truth by subjecting all 

beliefs to critical, r ational scrutiny. 

POCC opposes each of these demands, as they will either create a Universitysanctioned orthodoxy or will cr eate zones in which certain ideas will not be 

tolerated. While none of these policies would lead to outright censorship or 

punishment of those who advance "offensive" ideas, they nevertheless would 

produce immense social pressures to conform to a certain narrative of race in 

America. Students would be afraid to speak out for fear of being slandered. POCC 

has already witnessed this both at Princeton and beyond (see Attachment 1), as 

numerous st dent~ have confided in us that they oppose the BJL's demands but ar e 

afraid of publicly taking a stand for fear of being labeled a racist. 

Members of POCC have been subjected to senseless ad hominem attacks that 

would effectively silence many members of the campus community. Josh Freeman, a 

liberal, black POCC co-founder, was excoriated in a public Facebook comment 

(Attachment 2) after condemning the BJL fo•· advocating "self-segregation and 

censorship." He was told his white friends did not care about him and was 

effectively labeled a race traitor: "Josh, why don't you post something supporting 

your people instead of trying to bring down those trying to uplift blacks?" 

Similarly, Devon Naftzger, a white co-founder of the POCC, describes her 

experience in an article she and I co-authored fo•· the National Review (Attachment 

3): 

I felt compelled to speak out against their demands and tactics. In an oped in Princeton's student newspaper, titled ''We can do better," I point 

out the hypocrisy of anti-racism protesters' making race-based 

judgments: uAs a fundamental principle of equality, the weight of a 
75 


22161A.062

person's opinions should not be a function of their skin color but rather 

the quality of their arguments." This article alone caused a group of 

protesters to scream profanities at me while accusing me of being racist 

and request that I not be allowed to attend an open forum to voice my 

opinion.9 

Destiny Crockett, a BJL leader, further engaged in this race-baiting in an op· 

ed in the Daily Princeton ian in response to a piece written by POCC co-founder Beni 

Snow that defended a Yale professor who sparked controversy by arguing that he•· 

university should not regulate "offensive" Halloween customs: ' 'Beni, you, as a 

white person who benefits from (gasp!) white privilege, do not have to worry about 

many of the things students of color worry about on a daily basis, so your "worry" 

in this case is of miniscule value [ ... ]your opinion on what students of color at Yale 

or any other institution ask of their peers and administration is moot." 10 

Even without the institution of BJL's policy demands, students at Princeton 

are being vilified, slandered, and portrayed a~ racists simply because they have the 

audacity to respectfully advance their personal beliefs. The BJL publicly purports 

to value freedom of speech. It ''is a mar k of civil life and should be vigorously 

defended." The BJL hypocritically says, " if freedom of speech is defined a5 the 

ability to vilify," as it and its supporters so often do to their opponents, "this 

definition does not align itself with the noble idea of civility."" Apparently, 

vilification is only a permissible tactic when used by the BJL and its allies. 

' The editorial written by Ms. Naft7.ger and I can be found at http :[Lwww nationalrev ew.comLartic;_leL4290~}fr~·imeech· 

pOnseton.:.UIQteyter$-

'' Ms.. Crockett's Op·ed can be found at http;[hlaily_princetonian.com12_pinionL20 S1J li rcs~~..:JO·In·tht_dcfenst:'-of·t ~ 

christakises/. 11 BJLWaPo. 
76 


22161A.063

Despite their professed allegiance to the principles of free speech, BJL 

leaders seek to purge Princeton of those who disagree with their worldview. In her 

op-ed in the Daily Princetonia II, Ms. Crockett wrote, 

"if your freedom of thought [emphasis added] means that I, a 

Black student, do not have the luxury of feeling safe on a campus that 

I have worked my entire life to get to, it should have no place in 

universities or any other beloved institution." 

As Ms. Naflzger and I observed in our NatiQnal Review editorial, Ms. 

Crockett is "employing hyperbole in an attempt to demonize dissent." Ther e has not 

been a single instance of racial violence at Princeton, nor has there been any call for 

the subjugation of minorities. Either of these, of course, would be instantly and 

unanimously condemned-and everyone knows that. Nevertheless, Ms. Crockett 

wi~ es to ban free thought (not to mention free speech), simply because it somehow 

threatens her safety. 

As I have explained at length, some Princeton undergr aduates are 

attempting to cr eate an atmosphere of hostility in which those who disagree with 

their beliefs will be publicly intimidated, personally slander ed, and subjected to 

vicious ad hominem attacks. University adoption of cultural competency training, 

creation mandatory courses in the study of "marginalized" peoples, a nd 

establishment of affinity housing would only exacerbate these problems. 

POCC strives to counter act these recent trends by promoting a culture in 

which academic discourse and reasoned argument can thrive. While we certainly 

have our own firm convictions, we do not seek to impose our beliefs on others. We 
77 


22161A.064

believe the role of the wtiversity is to teach students how to think rather than what 

to tltink. We respect and fight for the rights of all students to advance their personal 

convictions-whatever they may be. Naturally, this includes advocacy for the 

aforementioned demands. 

Since our founding only a few months ago, we have led the movement to 

defend the principles at the core of the university's mission. Our open lettet· to 

President Eisgruber (Attachment 4) generated considerable national attention. Our 

co-founders have met with President Eisgruber and members of the Board of 

Trustees. We have appeared on nationally televised news programs, written 

editorials for numerous publications, led public debates at Princeton, and inspired 

the creation of similar Open Campus Coalitions at Duke and Brown Universities. I 

will be speaking about my experiences with POCC at the Conservative Political 

Action Conference on Mar ch 6. 

I would like to conclude with an account of my own experiences at Princeton. 

I have truly enjoyed and cherished my time at this university. I have had the 

opportunity to take classes from conservative professors and liberal professors, all 

of whom have been fair and open-minded and have treated disagr eeing students 

with the utmost respect. The same has been true for most, but not aU, of my peers. 

I have written for the Princeton Tory, a magazine of conservative political 

thought, for four years. To say the least, our conser vative magazine is rather 

unpopular on a predominately liberal campus. When I wrote an article critical of 

feminism, no one called me a misogynist. When I belittled the notion of racial 

microagressions, I was not referred to as a racist. Instead, people (for the most part) 
78 


22161A.065

respectfully rebutted my ideas or just dismissed them as ridiculous. No one 

attempted to intimated, demean, or slander me. 

My classmates overwhelmingly display the virtues that are vital to the 

functioning of the university: open·mindedness, candor, respect, tolerance, and 

erudition. They demonstrate a willingness to evaluate an a rgument based on its 

merit rather than the identity of its advocate. Until last year, I had witnessed only a 

handful of isolated incidents of intolerance for others' viewpoints. Since then, I have 

seen numerous disturbing instances of closed-mindedness and unwillingness to 

tolerate dissent. Most disturbing among these was when a student who wrote a pro· 

free speech article for the Tory woke up to find a shredded copy of the magazine 

taped to her door. 

It is because of my love for my soon-to-be alma matter that I fear for its 

future. The university must, in addition to refusing BJL's destructive demands, take 

affirmative measures to protect diversity of thought and foster a community in 

which all students can advance their views without fear of intimidation. Other 

universities must follow suit. 

Although I am skeptical that governmental intervention is the proper way to 

solve the current crises on private college campuses, our political leaders must 

reaffirm the importance of free speech as a core American value. President Obama 

rightly condemned students who feel a need ''to be coddled and protected fr om 

different points of view. You shouldn't silence [speakers] by saying, 'You can't come 

becatL~e I'm too sensitive to hear what you have to say."" POCC calls on our elected 

officials, liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican, to follow our 

uSee http;//the ill,c;om/Q. Qgs/hlo_g:b..r e..fl g.:toom/ ewsj_25364l oba a-hi!s·cocldled·llber~l·college-stude..nt.s. 
79 


22161A.066

president's example and unite in condemnation of students and university 

administr ators who seek to restr ain or prevent those who seek to exer cise their 

fundamental human right to free speech, especially that which is perceived as 

tasteless or offensive, for it is the most offensive speech that r equires the most 

protection. 

Attachment 1 
80 


22161A.067

Aetlont • ,.• X 

---~~OUr POCC, I'm a studena at Wesleyan Urwertaty where I speak Olf'ly 

aftat glancing (Nat bolh lhcdderl, II\ hushed tone., and Wlltl .. many 

qud!!ert as I can !honk of It ~ me hope to ... you~ let!., 10 your 

Ul'liYarllty prelldant, that there are atuden1s who are •c:omr.g our .n 

oppotitJon to c:a~ lntimidaLon I '-1 I'm i'Mg In a vat110n of 

1084, tnJiy I came to WMiayan aliwal, and haw grown lncrauingty 

waryandaftaldoftho~ ~ ~ol 

fi)a(aJ ttn. I woc1c on camput and 

I h8d to undergo •IOCiaJ ]UstJoe sensatMty training' We Wale told these 

woutd be honest, vulnerable c:onvetUIIOnt fOf ut 10 6g deep and 

undetltand our biaMs The truth was that each or us .-.c:a:ect linea 

This was not open dialogue, ~ d know the ICI'Ipt In a Catde. one 

after another, students laid what they knew wa expected of ~ a 

if honest revelabOnl Socaal ~ le P'elat'ltod as a toenoe, Lke, 

we'Ve r.gured hoolllhngtlhould woc1c and ~we w im~ thoM 

l'tndingl on you Anyway, lhank you thank you lhanlt you, 1 f ... leu 

afraid! 

w attj)ly 

Attachment 2 
81 


22161A.068

Josh Freeman 

Nol'.l""'llJer 19 .&1. 

Self-segregatlon and censorship, that is how BJL chose to "fix" raclallssuos 

on campus. Good job BJL, you all still don't have my support . 

• Uka • Comment 

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitnd eo Olh8fs like lin. 

----~ Josh. why don\ you post tomethlng 811JPPC)t1lng your people .nslead of 

trying 10 bnng down those !tying to upL.'t blacks (whether you clsagree With their 

methods of 1'10()? 

Or at least show eome 111ppon tor black people gang througn struggle wtllle you 

suppon France. a country that is supponed by CIOion.aJ taxes from A!r>ca 

Lite Reply ~6 NO' 19 ~ '~111'"1 r.g 

LJ==:::::;;;;:;:;:;;;;;;t:::Jis rtgtl. We gotta stanc11n soidarty With each 

other. AI the end of the day, we orly got us Nobody f1V911oved us except 

lot us. 

Lke Reply 6 2 "'''b4 3 1), 

Josh F,..man That does not rMall I'm obl.9aled 10 agree Wtth you all 

Like Reply 619 "ooTTI t a.8 

LJ==::::;;;:::;;;:;Jm 0000 to P'11Y lor you Bacause you are a bl8ck 

person, 1 cant abOut you And I prom.se these wtlite people do not about 

you as miJCh as we do. So stay If woke 

Uce Reply t Qv 9 

Josh F,..man You'\'e a great I don, need you toO pray lor 

me. I'm awake enough 10 have my own opinions and not see this \IIOIId 

as an us vs. them. Coopefation and dlalogue, not divisal and fonnang 

factions. are the best ways lorwatd. 

rm mote woiUt than you thiAA. 

Lice Reply 644 .vm.... 911824prn 
82 


22161A.069

Attachment 3-National Review Article 

Last month, a group of student protesters led by an organization called the Black 

Justice League occupied Princeton University president Christopher Eisgruber's office 

for 32 hours and refused to leave umil he had signed a watered-down version of their 

demands. These demands included instituting a "safe space" on campus, renaming the 

Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and the Wilson residential 

college because of President Wilson's racist beliefs, mandating "cultural competency" 

training for faculty, instituting a distribution requirement that would force students to 

take a course on "marginalized peoples," and providing de facto racially segregated 

"affinity housing" (disguised as housing for students interested in black culture). 

There has been lots of controversy on campus about whether the protesters can be 

credited with promoting dialogue or stifling it. While the group stated publicly that it 

supports free speech, some members' words and actions contradict this claim. Protesters 

purport to seek diversify, but what they really want is conformity. 

For example, some protesters publicly shame and stigmatize those who question 

their demands and methods, thus promoting a campus culture of intimidation. Many nonblack students who opposed the protest refrained from voicing their criticism out of fear 

of being labeled as racists and subjected to ad hominem attacks. Some students resorted 

to an anonymous forum called Yik-Yak to post statements like, "It's alarming how few 

people publicly oppose BJL [protesters] even though I've gotten the impression that most 

people don't support them," to which another person replied, "If you publicly speak out 

against BJL people fear being labeled as a racist." 

Many students have witnessed that detrimental labeling firsthand. After auending 

the protest, I (Devon) was so shocked by what I saw that I felt compelled to speak out 

against their demands and tactics. Tn an op-ed in Princeton's student newspaper, titled 

"We can do better," I point out the hypocrisy of anti-racism protesters' making race based 

judgments: "As a fundamental principle of equality, the weight of a person's opinions 

should not be a function of their skin color but rather the quality of their arguments." This 

article alone caused a group of protesters ro scream profanities at me while accusing me 

of being racist and request that I not be allowed to attend an open forum to voice my 

opinion. A Black Justice League leader reinforced this fear when she responded to 

another student's article by writing that because of his "white privilege" his opinion was 

"moor" and "of miniscule value." By focusing on the race of an opponent or portraying 

him or her as racist, protesters seek to shut down debate rather than engage them with 

legitimate points of disagreement. 

Minority students are also subjected to this racially divisive and stigmatizing 

rhetoric. For instance, after posting a Facebook status questioning protesters' demands, a 

dissenting black sophomore was told by a protest leader to suppress his opinion and 

instead "stand in solidarity" and support "your people." He was told that white people did 

not care about him and that his black peers would pray for him - as if his free thought 

were a mortal sin. It is appalling that anyone in our nation, let alone a college student 
83 


22161A.070

who cherishes academic debate, is treated like a traitor or "white sympathizer" for simply 

expressing thoughts contrary to those of other students of his race. Similarly, Hispanic 

and black students who oppose the protesters have been called "tokens" of their white 

peers. The message is clear: Conformity to the protesters' worldview is required; there is 

no room for diversity of thought. 

In response to this toxic campus culture, we helped found the Princeton Open 

Campus Coalition (POCC) to protect diversity of thought and promote the right of all 

students to advance their academic and personal convictions in a manner free from 

intimidation. We seek to COlmteractthe politically correct culture on college campuses 

that victimizes both liberal and conservative students by pressuring them to hold certain 

beliefs depending on their gender, sexuality, ethnicity, race, or other demographic traits. 

A key element of the protesters' strategy is to "reeducate" minority students who do not 

think of themselves as victims. A black POCC member was told at a public debate that 

her well-reasoned opposition to the protesters' tactics and demands was simply " a result 

of internalized oppression." This is an underhanded attempt to avoid meaningful 

engagement with her ideas by auempting to create a victim complex within a student who 

does not believe that she has been discriminated against or persecuted at Princeton on 

account of her race. 

Students on Princeton's campus, and any campus for that matter, should have the 

intellectual freedom to espouse whatever idea they choose, especially if it is controversial 

or uncharacteristic, for it is controversial ideas that tend to generate the most robust and 

productive debate. As POCC wrote in our letter to President Eisgruber, "there should be 

no space at a university in which any member of the community, student or faculty , is 

'safe' from having his or her most cherished and even identity-fomling values 

challenged." 

Yet protesters request insulation from controversial and potentially offensive 

conversations by demanding affinity housing and a "safe space" where they can seek 

shelter from the ''danger" posed by ideas. This insularity contradicts the core mission of 

the university. A Black Justice League leader's opillion piece argued: 

"If your freedom of thought means that/, a Black student, do nor have the 

luxury of feeling safe on a campus that I have worked my em ire life to get 

ro, it should have no place in universities or any other beloved 

institution." 

She appears to be arguing that allegedly offensive thoughts somehow threaten the 

physical safety of minorities. Never mind that she ignores the difference between feeling 

threatened and being threatened. Never mind that she cannot cite a single instance of 

actual racial violence at Princeton, or even a credible threat thereof. While we certainly 

respect the author's right to voice her opinion, her call to pm·ge Princeton of "freedom of 

thought" is antithetical to the mission of the unjversity and auathematic to its search for 
84 


22161A.071

truth and wisdom. 

It's clear that a call for the subjugation of, or genuine violence towards, minorities 

at Princeton or any other mainstream American university would be met with forceful 

and near-unanimous condemnation. Those who believe otherwise and claim that 

offensive or un-p.c. views at Princeton actually jeopardize sn1dents' safety are employing 

hyperbole in an attempt to demonize dissent. 

In shying away from sharing opinions on "touchy subjects" such as this that may 

offend other students, we do a disservice to students who came to Princeton to improve 

their intellects and be exposed to diverse perspectives - which includes having their 

ideas scrutinized. We also worked our entire lives to get into Princeton, and we, unlike 

some of our peers, came here to think and to have our ideas challenged, not to be coddled 

and protected from those who blaspheme against the post modern orthodoxies of the sort 

protesters are seeking to enforce at Princeton and across the nation. 

The Black Justice League has indeed done a service to Princeton by raising the 

issue of President Wilson's racism and inspiring a passionate philosophical debate about 

veneration. As a precursor to student debates on issues like this, however, the right to 

exercise freedom of thought and expression must first be protected for all students. No 

group should dictate what student traits (especially demographic ones) are prerequisites 

for debate participation; instead, all opinions should be invited, considered, and 

challenged in a civil manner. When all students, regardless of race or ideology, feel 

welcome to participate in the campus conversation, arguments will inevitably be 

advanced that make most people uncomfortable. Good. Offense and discomfort are signs 

that one's preconceived notions are being challenged. That is what is supposed to happen 

in a university worthy of the name. 

- Devon Nicole Naftzger and Josh Zuckerman are seniors at Princeton University. 
85 


22161A.072

Attachment 4: Open Letter to President Eisgruber 

Dear President Eisgruber, 

We write on behalf of the Princeton Open Campus Coalition to request a meeting 

with you so that we may present our perspectives on the events of recent weeks. We are 

concerned mainly with the importance of preserving an intellectual culture in which all 

members of the Princeton community feel free to engage in civiJ discussion and to 

express their convictions without fear of being subjected to intimidation or abuse. Thanks 

to recent polls, smveys, and petitions, we have reason to believe that our concerns are 

shared by a majority of our fellow Princeton undergraduates. 

Academic discomse consists of reasoned arguments. We simply wish to present 

our own reasoned arguments and engage you and other senior administrators in dialogue. 

We will not occupy your office, and, though we respectfully request a minimum of an 

hour of your time, we will only stay for as long as you wish. We will conduct ourselves 

in the civil manner that it is our hope to maintain and reinforce as the norm at Princeton. 

This dialogue is necessary because many students have shared with us that they 

are afraid to state publicly their opinions on recent events for fear of being vilified, 

slandered, and subjected to hatred, either by fellow students or faculty. Many who 

questioned the protest were labeled racist, and black students who expressed 

disagreement with the protesters were called "white sympathizers" and were told they 

were " not black." We, the Princeton Open Campus Coalition, refuse to let our peers be 

intimidated or bullied into siJence on these--or any--impo11ant matters. 

first, we wish to discuss with you the methods employed by protesters. Across 

the ideological spectrum on campus, many people found the invasion of your office and 

refusal to leave to be troubling. Admittedly, civiJ disobedience (and even law-breaking) 

can sometimes be justified. However, they ca1mot be justified when channels of 

advocacy, through fair procedures of decision-making, are fully open, as they are at our 

University. To adopt these tactics whiJe such procedures for debate and refonn are in 

place is to come dangerously close to the line dividing demonstration from intimidation. 

It is also a way of seeking an unfair advantage over people with different viewpoints who 

refuse to resort to such tactics for fear of damaging this institution that they love. 

Second, we welcome a fair debate about the specific demands that have been 

made. 

We oppose efforts to purge (and literally paint over) recognitions of Woodrow 

Wilson's achievements, including Wilson College, the Woodrow Wilson School of 

Public and International Affairs, and his mural in Wilcox Dining Hall. As you have 

noted, Wilson, like all other historical figures, has a mixed legacy. It is not for his 

contemptible racism, but for his contributions as president of both Princeton and the 

United States that we honor WiJson. Moreover, if we cease honoring flawed individuals, 

there will be no names adorning our buildings, no statues decorating our courtyards, and 

no biographies capable of inspiring future generations. 
86 

f 


22161A.073

We worry that the proposed distribution requirement will contribute to the 

politicization of the University and facilitate groupthink. However, we, too, are 

concerned about diversity in the classroom and offer our own solution to this problem. 

While we do not wish to impose additional distribution requirements on students for fear 

of stifling academic exploration, we believe that all students should be encouraged to take 

courses taught by professors who will challenge their preconceived mindsets. To this end, 

the University should make every effort to am-act outstanding faculty representing a 

wider range of viewpoints--even comroversial viewpoints--across all departments. 

Princeton needs more Peter Singers, more Cornel Wests, and more Robert Georges. 

Similarly, we believe that requiring cultural competency training for faculty 

threatens to impose orthodoxies on issues about which people of good faith often 

disagree. As Professor Sergiu Klainerman has observed, it reeks of the reeducation 

programs to which people in his native Roma rtia were subjected under communist rule. 

We firmly believe that there should be no space at a university in which any 

member of the commUJtity, student or facuJty, is "safe" from having his or her most 

cherished and even identity-forming values challenged. It is the very mission of the 

university to seek truth by subjecting all beliefs to critical, rational scmtiny. While 

students with a shared interest in studying certain cultures are certainly welcome to live 

together, we reject University-sponsored separatism in housing. We are all members of 

the Princeton conmumity. We denounce the notion that our basic interactions with each 

other should be defined by demographic traits. 

We hope that you will agree to meet with us. We will be happy to make ourselves 

available to meet in your office at your earliest convenience. We are also requesting a 

meeting with the Board of Tmstees. For reasons you have articulated in your recent 

message to the commUJtity, there is no time to waste in having these discussions. 

Unlike their counterparts at other universities, Princeton undergraduates opposed 

to the curtailmerll of academic freedom refuse to remain silent out of fear of being 

slandered. We will not stop fighting for what we believe in. 

Thank you very much for your consideration. We look forward to your reply. 

-The Legislative Committee of Princeton Open Campus Coalition 

Allie Burton ' 17 

Evan Draim '16 

Josh Freeman ' 18 

Sofia Gallo ' 17 

Solveig Gold ' 17 

A11dy Loo '16 

Sebastian Marotta ' 16 

Devon Naftzger ' 16 

Beni Snow ' 19 

Josh Zuckerman '16 
87 

Chairman ROSKAM. Thank you, Mr. Zuckerman. 

Professor George. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT P. GEORGE, MCCORMICK PROFESSOR OF JURISPRUDENCE, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY, AND 

VISITING PROFESSOR OF LAW AT HARVARD UNIVERSITY 

Mr. GEORGE. Thank you, Chairman Roskam. Ranking Member 

Lewis, honorable Members of the Committee, I am delighted to be 

here, and glad that you are holding this hearing. 

In my written testimony I go into some detail, based on my 31 

years of experience teaching at Princeton and at Harvard, about 

what I believe the causes of campus illiberalism are. In my testimony this morning I want to focus more on what I regard as the 

solutions. How do we solve the problems? 

In the written testimony I identify the ways in which a lack of 

viewpoint diversity among faculty on college campuses abets the 

problem of campus illiberalism, and I think viewpoint diversity is 

actually the solution. And I want to give a couple of examples this 

morning of the value of viewpoint or intellectual diversity on campuses. 

One is the James Madison program at Princeton, which I have 

the honor to direct. The program was founded 15 years ago, and 

its impact on the intellectual culture of Princeton by helping to 

bring viewpoint diversity to our community has really been remarkable. It gives me enormous satisfaction that this opinion of 

mine is shared by many of my liberal colleagues who share none 

of my other opinions. They praise the Madison program for turning what might have been campus monologues into true dialogues, 

benefiting everybody in the process. The presence on campuses 

of initiatives like the Madison program ensure that students will 

hear a wide range of opinions from thoughtful and accomplished 

scholars. 

Diversity of opinion confers a great benefit on an intellectual 

community. It ensures that people cannot simply suppose that 

everybody in the room shares the same assumptions or holds 

the same views. People know that they have to defend their premises because those premises will be challenged. That makes for a 

deeper, more serious kind of intellectual engagement, a kind that 

profoundly enriches the intellectual life of the entire community. 

Now, the second example is the experience I have had of teaching with my friend and colleague, Professor Cornel West. Professor 

West is a man of the left. I am on the conservative side of the political spectrum. But we regularly teach together at Princeton. 

Our most recent seminar included readings from Sophocles, Plato, 

St. Augustine, Marx, Mill, Newman, Kierkegaard, Hayek, Solzhenitsyn, John Dewey, C.S. Lewis, Reinhold Neibuhr, and Gabriel 

Marcel. What happens in our seminars is magical, and the impact 

on our students is amazing. 

What you have here is a genuine collaboration. Professor West 

and I cooperate across the lines of ideological division and political 

difference in the common project of seeking truth, seeking knowledge, seeking wisdom, engaging with each other and with our students in a serious, respectful, civil manner, striving to understand 

each other and to learn from each other, treating each other not 

88 

as enemies, despite our differences, but as partners in the common 

project of seeking truth, seeking knowledge, seeking wisdom. 

Whether the readings for the next meeting of our seminar are 

Machiavelli’s Prince, Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, Du Bois’ 

Souls of Black Folks, Gramsci’s Prison Notebooks, or Strauss’ Natural Right and History, we can’t wait to be in the classroom every 

week with our students, and our approach is the opposite of antiquarian; we look for the timeless meaning, but also the contemporary significance of the text we assign. We consider existential, 

moral, religious, and political questions, including contemporary 

political questions that are important to us and to our students in 

the context of the readings. 

And here is what really matters. The students learn. And they 

learn how to learn. They learn to approach the intellectual and 

moral matters that we are considering critically, engaging the most 

compelling points to be adduced in favor of the positions on both 

sides of the question. They learn the value and importance of mutual respect and civility. They learn from two guys with some very 

strong opinions, neither of whom is shy about stating those opinions, that the spirit of truth-seeking, like the spirit of liberty, in the 

famous words of the great jurist, Learned Hand, ‘‘is a spirit open 

to the possibility that one may, in fact, be wrong.’’ 

Let me be a little more specific, because what Professor West and 

I do really is, I believe, part of the cure for campus illiberalism. I 

have prided myself for my entire career on being a teacher who can 

represent the views of the other side very, very well, so that I am 

not indoctrinating my students. And Professor West feels the same 

way. He feels he can present the views of the other side very well, 

and he does a great job. 

But what we have learned in the seminar is neither of us can 

do it as well as we can do it when we are together. And what that 

teaches me, whether two professors are together in a classroom, or 

whether they are just in separate courses around the campus, is 

that students can’t really learn and appreciate the process of learning and the need to hear diverse viewpoints unless they have diversity of viewpoint among the faculty on campuses. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. George follows:] 

89 


22161A.074

Testimony of Robert P. George 

Colleges and universities have three fundamental purposes: the pursuit 

of knowledge; the preservation of knowledge securely obtained; and 

the transmission of knowledge. Of course, there are other desirable 

ends that colleges and universities legitimately seek while also pursuing 

these purposes, but these three are the fundamental, constitutive, 

defining purposes of academic institutions. All the other things such 

institutions legitimately do are founded upon them, and anything they 

do that undermines these purposes they should not be doing. So, for 

example, though I support college athletics, I support them only insofar 

as they do not damage the academic program-the transmission of 

knowledge. When, or to the extent, that they harm the academic 

program, they need to be reformed or, if reform isn't feasible, 

abolished. 
90 


22161A.075

There are certainly colleges and universities today, as in the past, which 

place too much emphasis on athletics, to the detriment of the academic 

program. But athletics are not the greatest threat to the integrity of 

our colleges and universities today. A far greater and graver threat is 

posed by the politicization of the academy. The problem is most vividly 

manifest in the phenomenon of campus illiberalism. By that, I mean 

the unwillingness of so many members of college and university 

communities to entertain, or even listen to, arguments that challenge 

the opinions they happen to hold, whether the opinions have to do 

with climate science, affirmative action and racial or ethnic 

preferences; abortion and the sanctity of human life; welfare policy; 

marriage and sexual morality; U.S. foreign and defense policy; the 

international economic order; or the origins of human consciousness. 

Speaking invitations to dissenters from campus orthodoxies are not 

often issued. Or, if they are issued, dissenting speakers are sometimes 

"disinvited" under pressure from opponents of their views. Or, if they 
91 


22161A.076

are not disinvited, they may be pressured to withdraw under the threat 

of disruptive forms of protest. Or, if they do not withdraw, they may be 

interrupted by abusive protestors and even shouted down. And it is 

not just visitors to campuses. Faculty and student dissenters within 

campus communities are subjected to abuse and intimidation. Efforts 

are made to ensure that they are denied opportunities to speak their 

minds or are intimidated into silence. 

I do not wish to paint with too broad a brush here. The situation is 

better or worse at different institutions. As it happens, it is not at all 

bad at my own institution. I am in my 31st happy year at Princeton 

University, where I have never been subjected to intimidation or abuse. 

But anyone who is paying attention knows the cases that I have in mind 

at colleges and universities around the country. 

But in referring to these cases of campus illiberalism you may have 

noticed that I spoke of this illiberalism as the way the problem I am 

concerned about "is most vividly manifest today." In other words, the 
92 


22161A.077

denial of speaking opportunities, the disinviting of speakers due to their 

opinions, the disruption of meetings and shouting down of dissenting 

speakers, are what get the attention of the public. But these are merely 

some manifestations. The core of the problem is this: Many institutions 

are letting the side down when it comes to the transmission of 

knowledge by failing to ensure that our students, at every level, are 

confronted with, and have the opportunity to consider, the best that is 

to be said on competing sides of all questions that are in dispute among 

reasonable people of goodwill. They are permitting prevailing opinions 

on campus to harden into orthodoxies, orthodoxies that go largely 

unchallenged, leaving students with the false belief that there are in 

fact no disputes on these matters among reasonable people of 

goodwill. At the core of our problem is the toxic thing that provides an 

environment in which illiberalism flourishes and can be expected to 

manifest itself in the ways it manifests itself today, namely the 

phenomenon of groupthink. 
93 


22161A.078

We fail to understand the depth of problem, or appreciate the danger it 

poses to intellectual life, if we take a static view of knowledge, thinking 

of it as information that is passed into the mind of the recipient who 

records it there and draws upon it as needed. This is worse than an 

oversimplification. The transmission of knowledge very often goes 

beyond the acquisition of information (or skills) and requires the 

engagement of the knowledge seeker with competing perspectives and 

points of view. It also requires certain virtues, including openminded ness, respect for what Mill called "liberty of thought and 

discussion," intellectual humility-humility of the sort one can possess 

only insofar as one appreciates, and not merely notionally, one's own 

fallibility-and love of truth. It is the task of colleges and universities, 

precisely as institutions of learning, to expose students to competing 

points of view and to foster in them those virtues. That is necessary not 

because there are no truths to be attained, but, rather, because the 

pursuit of truth and the deeper appropriation of truths and their 

meaning and significance, requires it. 
94 


22161A.079

You see, then, that whatever is to be said about claims that the 

predominance of certain views and their proponents on campuses, and 

the exclusion of others, the problem I am calling attention to here is 

less about unfairness than it is about the need to avoid and, where it 

has set in, overcome groupthink in order to fulfill a constitutive purpose 

of academic institutions. We owe that to our students-whether they 

like it or not. It is a scandal when students are graduated from liberal 

arts colleges and university liberal arts programs with no understanding 

(or, worse yet, grotesque misunderstandings) of the arguments 

advanced by serious scholars and thinkers who dissent from campus 

orthodoxies on issues such as those I mentioned a few minutes ago. 

Even if the opinions the students happen to have acquired in an 

environment of "political correctness" happen to be true, students' 

ignorance of the arguments of dissenters will prevent them from 

understanding the truth as deeply as they should and actually 

appropriating it-that is to say, understanding why it is so and why 
95 


22161A.080

competing views have nevertheless attracted the attention and even 

the allegiance of serious thinkers. 

I believe it was the great jurist Learned Hand who said that "the spirit of 

Liberty is the spirit of being not too sure one is right." In making that 

point, Hand was not endorsing radical skepticism or relativism or 

anything of the sort. Rather, he was pointing to the need for the virtue 

of intellectual humility in light of the inescapable reality of human 

fallibility. His focus was on the need for that recognition and its 

corresponding virtue in the project of establishing and maintaining 

republican government and respect for freedom. But what he says 

about the spirit of liberty is also true of the spirit of truth seeking-a 

sense of one's own fallibility, a sense that one could be wrong, even in 

one's basic premises and most fundamental beliefs, an openness of 

mind, a willingness to entertain criticism and to engage critics, all of 

these things are essential to the truth seeking project, too. And that 
96 


22161A.081

means that they must be cultivated in institutions whose mission 

includes the pursuit and transmission of knowledge. 

That is not to say that we should not be advocates of our points of 

view, or that we should not be engaged politically. I would be a gross 

hypocrite, at best, if I were to suggest any such thing. I myself am 

highly engaged politically. Now there are people who see political 

engagement as incompatible with the scholarly vocation. My friend 

Harry Frankfurt, the distinguished philosopher, inclines to that view. 

But he has not persuaded me. So I have no problem with scholars 

speaking out on political issues and getting involved in political causes. 

But politically engaged scholars, like all scholars, need to be highly 

cognizant of their own fallibility-even on matters about which they 

care deeply, and even when it comes to causes in which they are 

profoundly emotionally invested. Even as advocates, we must cultivate 

intellectual humility and a willingness to entertain the other guy's 

arguments in a serious way. One must never imagine that one cannot 
97 


22161A.082

possibly be wrong about this or that cherished conviction, or that one's 

political adversaries and intellectual critics cannot possibly be right. 

That is fatal to the truth-seeking enterprise. 

I think the proper attitude for us to hold is the attitude Plato teaches us 

to adopt, especially in his great dialogue we know as Gorgias. Socrates' 

attitude in that dialogue strikes me as exactly the one we need to 

emulate if we are to be good scholars and teachers. We must always 

be on the lookout for, and be open to, the true friend, that is to say, the 

person who will confer upon us the inestimable benefit of showing us 

that we are in error, where in fact we are in error. The true friend, in 

correcting our mistakes, does us the very best service. We need to see 

that, and we need to help our students to see it. The person who sees 

his intellectual adversary as an enemy to be defeated, rather than as a 

friend joined with him dialectically in the pursuit of a common aim, 

namely, knowledge of the truth, is already off the rails. He is in grave 

danger of falling into the ditch of sophistry. 
98 


22161A.083

So openness to argument, to having one's premises and most 

fundamental beliefs and values challenged, is vitally important to the 

knowledge-seeking mission that defines liberal arts institutions (and 

professional schools that share the knowledge-seeking aspirations of 

liberal arts institutions) as the kinds of things they are. A spirit of 

openness to argument and challenge, where it flourishes in an 

academic culture, is what immunizes academic institutions against 

groupthink and chases the groupthink away when it comes knocking at 

the door. 

Part of the problem, of course, is that once groupthink has taken hold, 

folks who are caught up in it don't recognize the problem. When is the 

last time you met somebody who said, "yeah, you know what, my 

problem is that I'm caught up in groupthink. I tend to just think like 

everybody else around me thinks." I've heard someone say that only 

one time in my life-and she didn't put it quite that starkly. The trouble 

with groupthink is that when you're in it, you generally don't know 
99 


22161A.084

you're in it. You may realize that not everyone shares your views, but 

you will suppose that those who dissent from them are irrational or illmotivated. You will imagine that anyone who disagrees with you is a 

rube or a bigot or a tool of nefarious interests-a fool or a fraud. When 

someone is in groupthink, he could pass a lie detector test claiming that 

he is not in groupthink. But that doesn't mean he's not in groupthink. 

And wherever ideological orthodoxies settle into place and are not 

subjected to serious questions and challenges, you have to worry about 

groupthink setting in. And that's true whether or not campus 

illiberalism manifests itself in the more visible ways we are now seeing 

so frequently, with dissenting speakers being excluded from campus or 

being shouted down, or whatever. 

Now it seems to me that viewpoint diversity or what we might call in an 

academic setting intellectual diversity has its value as a kind of vaccine 

against groupthink, and as an antidote to groupthink when it begins to 

set in. Diversity of views, approaches, arguments and the like is the 
100 


22161A.085

cure for campus illiberalism. People who have the spirit of being not 

too sure that they are right, people who want to be challenged because 

they know that challenging and being challenged are integral and 

indispensable to the process of knowledge-seeking, such people 

(whatever their own personal views) will want intellectual diversity on 

campus in order for the institution to accomplish its mission. 

Now of course we all know that it's pretty hard to get this intellectual 

diversity. And I think there are a number of reasons for that. While in 

my own experience it's true, and some of my more liberal colleagues 

tell me that in their experience it's true, that there is sometimes 

blatant, conscious, obviously deliberate discrimination against people 

who dissent from campus orthodoxies in hiring and promotion, I 

happen to think that blatant, conscious, deliberate discrimination is not 

the heart of the problem. 
101 


22161A.086

In fact, I think conscious, deliberate discrimination, though plainly it 

exists and needs to be dealt with, is comparatively rare. I believe the 

more fundamental challenge is something else. 

In this vale of tears, we human beings, fallen and frail creatures that we 

are, have a lot of trouble appreciating meritorious work and even good 

arguments when they run contrary to our own opinions, especially 

when we're strongly emotionally attached to those opinions. As I see it, 

this isn't a liberal problem, or a progressive, or a left wing problem. It's 

a human nature problem. Anytime an intellectual or political orthodoxy 

has hardened into place-it doesn't matter whether it's a left wing 

orthodoxy or a right wing orthodoxy-it's going to be very difficult for a 

lot of people to draw the distinction between "work I disagree with 

despite its being really very good and challenging, and interesting, and 

important," and "work that goes contrary to what I just know to be true 

on issues that are important and critical to me and bound up with my 

sense of who I am as a, fill in the blank: [progressive, conservative, 
102 


22161A.087

feminist, libertarian, Christian, atheist, or whatever]." People will 

experience challenges to the dominant opinions as outrageous attacks 

on truth, indecent assaults on essential values, threats to what is good 

and true and right and just, intolerable violations of the norms of our 

community. 

Now among my fellow critics of progressivism there are thoseperhaps the majority-who disagree with my claim that the problem is 

a human nature problem, not a problem with the particular ideology 

that happens to dominate contemporary academic culture. The 

eminent historian of the Enlightenment Alan Kors of the University of 

Pennsylvania, with whom I almost always find myself in agreement, and 

I once debated this question for a few minutes on a radio broadcast on 

which the two of us were being interviewed. Professor Kors argued 

that the fundamental problems is, in some essential way, a left-liberal 

problem-a problem with progressive ideology itself-not a problem 

rooted in what in other circumstances we might call original sin. He 
103 


22161A.088

maintained that the dominant political-cultural perspective on 

campuses today is inherently illiberal. Perhaps he is right about that. I 

remain unconvinced. Still, I think that even if Professor Kors is right 

about the inherently illiberal nature of campus progressivism, it is also 

true that there is a human nature problem that we need to bear in 

mind-a problem that can be counted on to arise and to threaten the 

integrity of intellectual life anytime there is an absence of dissenting 

opinions against an ideological orthodoxy in an academic institutionespecially when it afflicts most academic institutions, and most 

especially when it prevails at the wealthiest, most prestigious, and 

therefore most influential ones. 

So I ask myself the question: Well what should we do? Of course, as a 

dissenter myself, and a member of a tiny minority, I'm not in a position 

of having much power to do anything. But I would say something to my 

friends who are on the more liberal or progressive side of the 

ideological street, and who perceive the problem as I do, and who think 
104 


22161A.089

something needs to be done about it. I would say, well, number one, of 

course, we need to expose and protest against any conscious 

discrimination based on viewpoint; and number two, by both precept 

and example, we need strongly to encourage our colleagues and 

students to be rigorously self-critical. 

We need to encourage people to be self-critical in ways that would 

enable them honestly to say, as I might say about the work of, for 

example, my colleague at Princeton, Peter Singer. "Well, you know, I'm 

really scandalized by his defense of the moral permissibility of 

infanticide, but there's an argument he makes that's got to be met. And 

the burden is on me to make the argument that our dignity as human 

beings comes by virtue of our humanity-our status as rational 

creatures, beings possessing, at least in root form, even in the earliest 

stages of development, the capacities for the types of characteristically 

human activities that give human beings a special kind of standing and 

inviolability. The burden is on me in other words to meet his challenge. 
105 


22161A.090

I want my colleagues on the other side to take the same position about 

work by more conservative scholars, especially in these hot button 

areas. But I acknowledge that it's hard to do. And it's especially hard to 

do when orthodoxies have hardened into place and one is not even 

hearing arguments against one's own positions. And when one is not 

hearing them, and everybody one knows, and everybody in one's circle, 

tends to think the same thing about that body of issues, no matter how 

much diversity there is on other stuff, we're likely headed for 

groupthink. 

When one is hearing the same thing from everyone whom one 

respects-when one is being reinforced in one's own opinions by all 

one's friends and colleagues, whether one is a student or faculty 

member-the motivation to think more critically tends to be very hard 

to work up. It really is. Working it up is so much easier when one is 

regularly, in the normal course of things, being challenged by 

thoughtful people who do not always see things just as one does 
106 


22161A.091

oneself. So it's best for us not to get ourselves into this fix in the first 

place by permitting ideological orthodoxies to form on college and 

university campuses. But if they have formed, then our challenge is to 

help our colleagues to appreciate work-and be willing to say that they 

appreciate work-that is meritorious even when they do not agree with 

the arguments or positions being advanced. 

I want to give a couple of examples of the value of viewpoint, or 

intellectual diversity, again from my own experience. One is the James 

Madison Program at Princeton University, which I have the honor to 

direct. The program was founded 15 years ago. Its impact on the 

intellectual culture of Princeton, precisely by bringing viewpoint 

diversity into our community in a serious way, has been remarkable. It 

gives me enormous satisfaction that this opinion of mine is shared by 

many of my liberal colleagues who share none of my other opinions. 

They have praised the Madison Program for turning what might have 

been campus monologues into true dialogues-benefitting everybody 
107 


22161A.092

in the process. The presence on campus of an initiative like the 

Madison Program ensures that there are people around who think 

different things, even about fundamental issues that everybody cares 

about, and which many people assume all academics are on one side 

of. 

That's great, because it means that in general discussions across the 

university, and not just at the Madison Program's own events, people 

cannot simply suppose that everybody in the room shares the same 

assumptions or holds the same opinions. People know that they have 

to defend their premises-because they will be challenged. That makes 

for a different, and much better, and more serious, kind of 

engagement-a kind of engagement that profoundly enriches the 

intellectual life for the entire community. 

The second example, again from my own experience, is the experience 

I've had teaching with my dear friend and colleague Cornel West. Now 

Cornel and I really are on opposite sides of the ideological street. But 
108 


22161A.093

we regularly teach together at Princeton. Our most recent seminar 

included readings from Sophocles, Plato, St. Augustine, Marx, Mill, 

Newman, Kierkegaard, Hayek, Solzhenitsyn, John Dewey, C.S. Lewis, 

Reinhold Niebuhr, and Gabriel Marcel. What happens in our seminars 

is magical and the impact on our students is amazing. What you have 

here is a genuine collaboration. Professor West and I collaborate across 

the lines of ideological and political difference in the common project 

of truth-seeking, knowledge-seeking, wisdom-seeking, engaging with 

each other and our students in a serious, respectful, civil manner, 

striving to understand each other and learn from each other, treating 

each other not as enemies but as partners in the dialectical process of 

seeking truth, knowledge, wisdom. 

Whether the book for the week is Machiavelli's Prince, Tocqueville's 

Democracy in America, DuBois' Souls of Black Folk, Gramsci's Prison 

Notebooks, or Strauss's Natural Right and History, all of which we have 

taught in previous seminars, we can't wait for Wednesdays to come 
109 


22161A.094

each week so that we can be back in the classroom together. We have 

a wonderful time together, which is nice, and we learn from each other. 

Our approach is the very opposite of antiquarian: We look for the 

timeless meaning and contemporary significance of the texts we assign. 

We consider existential, moral, religious, and political questions that 

are important to us and our students in the context of the writings we 

examine. 

And here is the thing that really matters: The students learn, and they 

learn how to learn. They learn to approach intellectual and political 

matters dialectically-critically engaging the most compelling points to 

be adduced in favor of competing ideas and claims. They learn the 

value and importance of mutual respect and civility. They learn from 

two guys with some pretty strong opinions, neither of whom is shy 

about stating them publicly, that the spirit of truth-seeking, like the 

spirit of liberty, is a spirit open to the possibility that one is in serious 

error. 
110 


22161A.095

Let me be more specific. I want you to understand what I'm saying 

here because what Cornel and I do really is, I believe, part of the cure 

for campus illiberalism. Now, I've always prided myself as a teacher on 

being able to represent, accurately and sympathetically, moral and 

political views I myself do not share. So if I'm teaching about abortion, 

or something having to do with affirmative action, or marriage, or 

religious freedom, or campaign finance and the First Amendment, or 

the Second Amendment right to bear arms, or whatever it is, in my 

constitutional interpretation classes or my civil liberties classes, I like to 

think that if someone came in who happened not to know which side I 

was on, they wouldn't be able to figure it out from my presentation of 

the competing positions and the arguments for and against them. 

Now, that's not because I think professors should hide their views or 

anything like that. Outside the classroom, I certainly do not hide my 

views! It's just that I don't think that classrooms should be used to 

proselytize or push a moral or political agenda or recruit adherents for 

one's causes. There is a place for catechism classes and the like, but 
111 


22161A.096

that place is not the college or university classroom. The classroom is 

for exposing students to the best that is to be said for the competing 

views so that they can learn to think more carefully, critically, and, 

perhaps above all, for themselves. So, as I say, that is why I always, 

without fail, regardless of how much I care about an issue, present the 

very best arguments, not only for my own positions but for positions I 

strongly reject. 

What I have learned in teaching with Cornel, though, is this-as good as 

I think I am at this, I am not good enough. The evidence for that is 

simply that time after time in the course of our seminars I have found 

Cornel saying something, or making a compelling point in response to a 

point that I or one of the more conservative students has made, that 

simply would not have occurred to me-a point that needs to be 

seriously considered and engaged. Had Cornel not been there, even 

doing my best to represent his side, the point would not have been 

made, and the benefit to be conferred on all of us in grappling with it 
112 


22161A.097

would not have been gained. And Cornel tells me that he has had 

precisely the same experience, time and time again. He has found me 

making points or developing lines of argument that, he says, he has 

never considered and which simply would not have occurred to him, 

despite the fact that he shares my aspiration to represent as fully and 

sympathetically as possible positions and arguments from across the 

spectrum. 

Now that, it seems to me, is a very good argument for promoting 

intellectual diversity. By the way, I think it's a very good argument for 

team teaching. I think team teaching is a wonderful thing to do, 

especially if you have people who disagree about things teaching 

together. And the things in dispute do not have to be political things. 

The disagreements might be about the proper interpretation of 

Shakespeare or the Bible, or any of a range of other subjects, especially 

(but not exclusively) in the humanities and social sciences. But it's a 

very valuable thing to do, and more of it should be done. But the truly 
113 


22161A.098

important thing is this: A healthy intellectual milieu is one in which 

students and scholars regularly encounter competing views and 

arguments, where intelligent dissent from dominant views is common 

and the value of dissent is understood and appreciated, where beliefs 

that can be supported by arguments and advanced in a spirit of 

goodwill are common enough that they do not strike people as 

reflections of ignorance, bigotry, or bad will, and people who do not 

share them do not experience them-because they seem so alien-as 

personal assaults or outrages against the community's values. It's great 

to have competing views among instructors in the classroom; I realize, 

however, that such a thing is a luxury that most institutions cannot 

afford to provide on a regular basis. But diversity among faculty on 

campus, even if not in the same classroom, helps to cure campus 

illiberalism. It voids the tendency of people-students and faculty 

alike-who hold positions that happen to be dominant to suppose that 

the college or university is theirs, and is for people like them, not for 

people who disagree with them. It sends a message that all who seek 
114 


22161A.099

knowledge of truth and wish to pursue it in a spirit of civility and 

mutual respect are welcome here as insiders sharing the truly 

constitutive values and goals of the community, not outsiders who are, 

at best, merely to be tolerated as if they were present in the 

community only on sufferance. 

Am I advocating "affirmative action" for conservatives? Not at all. I'm 

advocating attitudes and practices that will cure campus illiberalism 

without the need to "recruit conservatives" or give conservative 

scholars preferences in hiring and promotion. If conscious and 

unconscious prejudice against people who dissent from prevailing 

orthodoxies were defeated, if intellectual diversity were truly valued for 

its vital contribution to the cause of learning, the hiring problems would 

take care of themselves. A historian such as Allen Guelzo would be at 

Yale or Stanford-hired by vote of a group of people few or none of 

whom happened to share his conservative politics or evangelical 

Christian faith. Harvard or the University of Chicago would be offering 
115 

f 


22161A.100

to triple Jim Ceaser's salary to induce him to move from Charlottesville 

to Cambridge or Hyde Park. We would not have departments of 

sociology or politics or history with forty-three liberals and one 

conservative (or, more likely, one libertarian). Nor would we have the 

embarrassments, and the tragedy, of campus illiberalism. 
116 

Chairman ROSKAM. Thank you. 

Professor Hill. 

STATEMENT OF FRANCES R. HILL, PROFESSOR OF LAW AND 

DEAN’S DISTINGUISHED SCHOLAR FOR THE PROFESSION, 

UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI SCHOOL OF LAW 

Ms. HILL. Thank you, Chairman Roskam. Good morning, Mr. 

Lewis. And to the Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today regarding the tax issues implicated in the 

question before the Committee. 

The issue, as I see it as a matter of tax law, is whether speech 

or action of particular officials or employees or students or other 

persons affiliated with the university are properly treated as 

speech or action by the university as a tax-exempt entity. Because, 

as we all should fully understand, section 501(c)(3) does not apply 

to the students, the faculty, or the administrators. It applies to the 

university as a tax-exempt entity. So the question before us is 

whether our various affiliations with the university mean that our 

various actions taken in various capacities of our lives will be attributed to the university as a tax-exempt entity. 

This, of course, to a tax lawyer, immediately raises the need to 

discuss the tax concept of attribution. You must have looked at this 

testimony and thought, ‘‘Oh, my goodness, I am back in law school 

again.’’ And this is part one of the testimony that takes you 

through a range of Supreme Court cases that establish two important points, I think, for the Members of this Committee today. 

One is there is in tax law a presumption that entities are separate. It is called the separate identity principle. So if a corporation 

has a subsidiary and it owns 100 percent of the stock, never mind. 

The subsidiary is separate. The same is true at a university. If it 

operates through many entities, all the actions of each entity will 

not be attributed to the core university. 

The second principle is that the separate identity principle can 

be overcome when there is evidence of agency, where one entity is 

the agent of another. And I have listed, in professorly, tax-lawyerly 

fashion, a variety of authorities and Supreme Court determinations 

relating to this issue. 

But the heart of our matter today is part two of the testimony. 

When is there attribution of the actions of those of us affiliated 

with universities to our university? Now, there may be no actual 

instance at all where one or another administrator at a university 

wants to even acknowledge that we are part of his university. But 

they, of course, have little choice to do that. 

A university is a group of broadly affiliated people filling broadly 

different roles. So the university acts only through the speech and 

activity through each of us. The question then before us is whether 

our various positions in the university support the separate identity principle or lead to a presumption of agency, meaning that we 

could bind the university and be taken as speaking for the university. 

The IRS has made it abundantly clear that only in the rarest of 

circumstances would a student be considered the agent of a university, and they have issued revenue rulings dealing with a political 

science course that involved going out and working in campaigns. 

117 

And as long as the students could choose which campaign they 

wanted to work in and fulfill the other requirements of the course, 

like writing a paper—which doesn’t seem so onerous—this is not 

attributed to the university. 

Even more interesting is the student newspaper. Student newspapers endorse—are free to endorse, under this guidance from 

1972, candidates for public office, and that is not attributed to the 

university. 

So, the testimony goes through other instances where the IRS 

has written quite clear guidance. It is interesting to me that the 

guidance that the IRS indicates that suggests the greatest danger 

of attribution is where senior administrators take positions and do 

not clearly state that they are acting in a personal capacity, but try 

to maybe act for the university. 

And these are the references to a president of a university who 

wrote a ‘‘My View’’ column in a university presentation, and endorsed a candidate for elective office. That is a problem, because 

when a president of a university is speaking, everything that president does in an official publication of the university will be attributed to the university, unless there is a broadly public disavowal, 

as public as that statement. 

So, I would urge the Committee today to look carefully at all the 

guidance that is already out there—some of it is nonprecedential, 

but all of it is widely used in the tax profession—and consider what 

can be achieved by having organizations make sure they are informed of what is already there, and take steps to educate their 

own lower-level administrators or their president about what they 

can and cannot do. Students can do almost anything. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hill follows:] 

118 


22161A.101

Committee on Ways and Means Subcommittee on Oversight 

Of the United States House of Representatives 

Hearing on Protecting the Free Exchange of Ideas on College Campuses 

March 2, 2016 

Statement of Frances R. Hill 

Professor of Law and Dean's Distinguished Scholar for the Profession 

University of Miami School of Law 

Coral Gables, Florida 

Section 50l(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, provides than an 

organization will be exempt from federal taxation if it is organized and operated "exclusively" 

for certain enumerated exempt purposes, including "education" and "which does not participate 

in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign 

on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office." Section 50l(c)(3) focuses on 

the activities of the organization. Exemption from taxation applies to the university. Yet, an 

entity acts and speaks only through the individuals affiliated with it, whether as employees or 

students. 

The issue before the Subcommittee today is whether the speech or actions of particular 

officials or employees or students or other persons affiliated with a university are properly 

treated as speech or action by the university as a tax-exempt entity Under what circumstances, if 

any, will the actions of an individual or group be attributed to a university for purposes of 

determining whether the university is operating as an organizations described in Section SOI(c)) 

(3)? When an individual or a group affiliated in some way with a university speaks, does that 

speech remain the speech of the individual or group or does it become the speech of the 

university for purposes of Section 50 I ( c )(3 )? 

This issue implicates the concept of attribution. Part I of the testimony addresses the 

concept of attribution in tax law. Part II discusses the concept of attribution as it has been 

applied in guidance from the Internal Revenue Service (the "Service") on the question of 

attribution of political speech by individuals affiliated with an exempt organization to the 

organization itself. 

I. Exemption and Attribution 

Issues of attribution arise in complex structures of multiple entities. The core principle is 

that each entity maintains its separate identity for federal income tax purposes. Tax planning 

using complex structures rests on maintaining affiliation among entities while avoiding 

attribution of activities from one entity to one or more other entities. Exempt entities, including 

universities, now operate as complex structures of multiple types of exempt and taxable entities. 

These various entities will be controlled by the board of the core exempt entity through its 
119 


22161A.102

authority to appoint the boards of directors of the component exempt entities and ownership of a 

controlling equity interest in taxable entities. This kind of affiliation does not support attribution 

of the activities of the affiliated organizations to the core exempt entity. This separate identity 

principle was defined for federal income tax purposes in Moline Properties v. Commissioner, 319 

U.S. 436 (1943). 

An entity acting as the agent of the entity that controls it can provide an exception to the 

separate identity principle. This was the issue in National Carbide Cmp. v. Commissioner; 336 

U.S. 422 (1949). Although the Supreme Court held that the facts in National Carbide did not 

support a determination that the subsidiaries were agents of the parent corporation, it did identifY 

"some of the relevant considerations in determining whether a true agency exists." National 

Carbide Cmp. v. Commissioner; 336 U.S. at 437. The six factors listed by the Court are: (I) 

whether the subsidiary operates in the name and for the account of the parent as principal; (2) 

whether the subsidiary has the ability to bind the principal by its actions; (3) whether the 

subsidiary transmits money received to the principal; ( 4) whether the subsidiary uses employees 

and assets of the parent: (5) whether the subsidiary's relationship with the principal depends on 

its ownership by the principal; and (6) whether its business purpose is to conduct the normal 

duties of an agent. The Court emphasized that agency must be determined without reliance on 

factors of ownership and control. National Carbide Cmp. v. Commissioner; 336 U.S. at 439. 

Mere affiliation or control does not establish agency. This principle was further consolidated in 

Commissioner v. Bollinger; 485 U.S. 340 (1988), which interpreted National Carbide as 

consistent with the separate identity principle of Moline Properties. 

The separate identity principle applies in the case of exempt entities as well as the case of 

taxable entities. Formal control expressed in the authority to appoint another organization's 

board of directors does not in itself support attribution of the controlled organization's activities 

to the controlling exempt organization. Attribution arises from evidence of control of daily 

operations. Mere control over policy is distinguished from the requisite operational control. The 

overlap of officers provides evidence of the kind of operational control that results in attribution. 

Private Letter Ruling 8606056 (Nov. 14, 1985). Some overlap of officers will not support 

attribution if the majority of the board of directors consists of outside directors. Private Letter 

Ruling 8352091 (September 30, 1983). Sharing facilities and services rarely support attribution. 

The relationship between affiliation and attribution is discussed in greater detail in Frances R. 

Hill and Douglas M. Mancino, Taxation of Exempt Organizations at Chapter 27, "Complex 

Structures" (Thomson Reuters/Warren, Gorham & Lamont 2002 with cumulative supplements 

published twice each year). 

The principles of attribution that have long applied in the context of the complex 

structures through which exempt entities, including most universities, operate are analytically 

similar to the principles that preclude attribution to an exempt entity of the speech and action of 

individuals affiliated with it. As discussed in the following section, individuals do not forego 

their rights to speak by mere affiliation with an exempt entity, including a university. By the 

same token, an exempt entity has no basis in Section 50l(c)(3) for seeking to claim that any 

speech by any individual affiliated with it in any capacity will be attributed to the exempt entity 
120 


22161A.103

and could, in the case of certain political speech, jeopardize the exempt status of the exempt 

entity. 

II. Attribution of Speech or Actions of Individuals or Groups Affiliated with an Exempt 

Entity 

In nonprecedential but widely relied upon guidance, the Service has stated 

unambiguously that "[t]he prohibition on political campaign activity applies only to IRC SOl( c) 

(3) organizations, not to the activities of individuals in their private capacity." ! At the same 

time, the Service noted that "since an IRC 50l(c)(3) organization acts through individuals, 

sometimes the political activity of an individual may be attributed to the organization." 2002 

CPE Text at 364. In general, students are more likely to be acting in their private, personal 

capacity, while senior officials of a university will be acting in their officials capacities or at least 

appear to be doing so. Issues involving students are likely to center on their access to university 

resources, while issues involving university officials are likely to center on the greater scope of 

their official role and thus relatively smaller role for actions taken in their private capacities. 

As in the case of the complex structures discussed in Part I, affiliation does not itself 

trigger attribution of the speech by an individual or a group to the exempt entity. The Service has 

developed practical principles that can be applied in a number of situations involving political 

speech by individuals or groups affiliated with exempt organizations, including universities. 

A. Political Speech by Students or Student Organizations 

The Service has taken the position that "[t]he actions of students generally are not 

attributed to an educational institution unless they are undertaken at the direction of and with 

authorization of a school official." 2002 CPE Text at 365. 

The two revenue rulings issued by the Service dealing with political speech by students 

or student organizations both find that attribution does not arise simply from their affiliation with 

the university as students even if they use some university resources in connection with their 

political speech. Revenue Rule 72-512, 1972-2 C.B. 246 deals with a political science course 

that requires students to participate in the campaigns of a candidate of their own choosing. The 

course is open to any student. It is offered for academic credit and is graded. It consists of 

several weeks of work in the classroom followed by two weeks of participation in a political 

campaign of a candidate of the student's choice. Revenue Ruling 72-512 states that "[t]he 

university does not influence the student in his choice of a candidate or control his campaign 

work." Revenue Ruling 72-512 concluded that "this university is not participating in political 

campaigns on behalf of candidate for public office within the meaning of section 50 I( c )(3) of the 

Code." Revenue Ruling 72-512 explained the result in the following terms: 

The course described above is exclusively educational in nature since it is 

provided as part of the university's political science program solely for the 

purpose of improving or developing his capabilities. 
121 


22161A.104

The student activities in question represent a bona fide course of conduct in 

fulfillment of a formal course of instruction conducted by the university. Where 

the extent and manner student participation in the actual political process in such 

cases is reasonably germane to the course of instruction, the fact that such course 

is a part of the university's curriculum and that university personnel and facilities 

are employed in its conduct does not make the university a party to the expression 

or dissemination of political views of the individual students in the course of their 

actual campaign activities within the intendment of section 50l(c)(3). 

In subsequent nonprecedential guidance, the Service commented that the conclusion in Revenue 

Ruling 72-512 would have been different if the students had not chosen the campaigns that they 

worked for in the course. The Service observed that "[h ]ad the faculty members specified the 

candidates on whose behalf the students should campaign, the actions of the students would be 

attributable to the university since the faculty members act with the authorization of the 

university in teaching classes." 2002 CPE Text at 365. 

Revenue Ruling 72-513, 1972-2 C.B. 246 deals with a student newspaper that endorses 

candidates for public office. The university provides office space and financial support for the 

publication costs. Several professors at the university serve as advisers to the student editors. 

Revenue Rule 72-513 states that 

Editorial policy is determined by a majority vote of the student editors. Neither 

the university administration nor the advisors exercise any control or direction 

over the newspaper's editorial policy. A statement on the editorial pages makes it 

clear the views expressed are those of the student editors and not of the university. 

In customary journalistic manner, from time to time there are editorials taking a 

position on pending or proposed legislation and candidates for public office. 

In this ruling, too, the Service determined that the university was not attempting to influence 

legislation or participate in political campaigns on behalf of candidates for public office. The 

Service reasoned as follows: 

The publication and dissemination of the editorial statements in question are acts 

and expressions of opinion by students occurring in the curse of bona fide 

participation in academic programs and academic-related functions of the 

educational institution. In such circumstances, the fact that the university 

furnishes physical facilities and faculty advisors in connection with the operation 

of the student newspaper does not make the expression of political views by the 

students in the publishing of the newspaper the acts of the university within the 

intendment of section 50l(c)(3) of the Code. 

These two situations do not specifically address the case at the center of this Hearing, but 

they do provide relevant guidance. The facts in this matter provide no basis for attribution of the 

student's political campaign activity to the university. The student did not claim any authority to 
122 


22161A.105

speak for the university. There was thus no basis for concern that the student's political 

campaign activity could reasonably be attributed to the university, which is the only way that 

political campaign activity undertaken by an individual affiliated with a university could 

jeopardize the university's exempt status. None of the principles identified in National Carbide 

as creating an agency exception to the separate identity principle of Moline Properties apply to 

the student distributing leaflets at his university. The requirements of Section 50l(c)(3) provide 

no basis for prohibiting political speech by a student under these facts. Although the student had 

applied for use of a table reserved for student activities, that alone would not have supported 

attribution of his political campaign activities to the university. He never claimed any status at 

the university other than the status of a student. This status does not create the kind of implied 

authority that would support attribution of the student's political activities to the university. If a 

student newspaper operated by students but using significant university resources, including the 

name of the university in its masthead, can endorse candidates for public office in its editorials 

based on a vote of the student editorial board without having this action attributed to the 

university as was the case in Revenue Ruling 72-513 , then certainly one student distributing 

leaflets urging the election of a clearly identified candidate for public office will not be attributed 

to the university and thereby jeopardize the university's exempt status. 

B. Political Speech by Faculty Members 

Faculty members can certainly engage in political speech in their private capacities, but 

the scope and nature of their private capacity when fulfilling their teaching roles and when using 

the array of university resources routinely available to them raises issues. Faculty members 

cannot under the ordinary scope of their authority bind the university to a course of action. If 

faculty members also occupy roles in academic administration, such as roles as department 

chairs or deans, then they have sufficient authority to speak for the component of the university 

for which they have administrative responsibility. 

Issues raised by faculty status involve the scope of their authority as teachers. This does 

not give faculty members authority to use their classrooms to support or oppose clearly identified 

candidates for public office. Faculty may not use their classrooms to endorse or urge the election 

of particular candidates. Faculty members should not signal their support by displaying indicia 

of their personal political choices in their classrooms. Time spent with students in a classroom 

should focus on the material that students enrolled in the course to learn. Using a classroom for 

political campaigning when the faculty member is acting within the scope of his or her authority 

in the university could well be attributed to the university. A greater problem is that using class 

time for political campaigning means that class time is diverted from the exempt educational 

purpose of the university to the private, personal preferences of the faculty member. 

A faculty member has access to a range of university resources including business cards 

and stationery bearing the university's name and logo, a well-equipped office, and staff 

assistance. All of these assets are provided to a faculty member to enhance performance of the 

teaching and research that define the scope of their faculty authority consistent with the 

educational purpose of the university. Diverting any of these resources to personal uses not only 
123 


22161A.106

diverts such resources from their use in exempt educational activities but also raises issues of 

attribution of these non-educational activities to the university. 

The university should have administrable policies in place that advise faculty members of 

these issues. Such policies should also serve as a disavowal of routine, perhaps unintentional, 

misuse of university resources by faculty members. In more extreme cases, a university needs to 

disavow the specific behavior of the particular faculty member to avoid attribution. 

C. University Administrators 

University administrators retain their personal right to become involved in political 

campaigns in their personal capacity. Delineating the personal capacity of a university president 

or the dean of a college requires specific action. If a senior administrator wishes to sign an 

endorsement of a specific candidate, the senior administrator should take care that the use of the 

university affiliation is accompanied by the disclaimer that the university's name is used solely 

for purposes of identifYing the individual. See Revenue Ruling 2007-41 , Situation 3. If a senior 

administrator writes an editorial in an official university publication urging that a particular 

candidate should be elected, that statement will be attributed to the university even if the 

president pays for that portion of the cost of producing the publication. See Revenue Ruling 

2007-41 , Situation 4. This example should be interpreted as requiring that a private action such 

as paying for the portion of the cost of the publication is an insufficient disavowal of a public 

endorsement. The university's disavowal should be as public as the endorsement. 

The positions of senior administrators are particularly sensitive because these senior 

administrators have the type of broad authority over the operation of a university that is 

discussed in Part I of this Statement. This authority is similar to the elements of the agency 

exception to the separate identity principle set forth in the National Carbide case discussed in 

Part I. 

Senior administrators are entrusted with the operation of a tax-exempt university in a 

manner consistent with its exempt educational purpose. It is reasonable but not sufficient to 

assume that senior administrators understand the potential issues arising from their own 

behavior. The actions of a senior administrator in endorsing a candidate for public office or the 

candidates of a particular political party will be attributed to the university and thus require an 

appropriately public disavowal by the university. Senior administrators are in a position to make 

significant contributions to the organizations that they lead. They are also in the position of 

potentially doing significant harm to their universities or other tax-exempt organizations. Tax 

law offers practical, useful guidance on how to avoid such harm. 

D. Boards of Directors and Major Contributors 

Other persons who occupy positions of responsibility or who are in a position to 

influence the actions of a university or other tax-exempt entity should consider carefully the 

steps required to ensure that they do not invoke their roles or relationships with the university to 
124 

f 


22161A.107

support or oppose one or more candidates for public office. 

In addition, the board of directors should ensure that senior administrators have 

developed appropriate policies that ensure that political campaign participation by persons 

affiliated with the university but acting in their personal capacities are not limited by university 

policies or actions and should not invoke Section 50l(c)(3) inappropriately to do so. 

* * * * 
125 

Chairman ROSKAM. Thank you, Professor. For the benefit of 

those who are watching and participating today, we have an email 

address that we have set up that—we are interested in hearing 

about cases. So the Committee wants some input. And the email 

address is campus.speech@mail.house.gov. I will repeat that: The 

email address is campus.speech@mail.house.gov. So if you are a 

student or a faculty member or an administrator, and you have the 

sense that your free speech has been suppressed on campus, this 

Subcommittee would appreciate you getting that information to us. 

Thank you to the witnesses. You did a great job, in terms of timing, and you were clear and insightful. And now we have an opportunity to inquire of you. And I will recognize Mr. Meehan for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. MEEHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks, our distinguished panel, for your various perspectives. I am struggling to 

get my arms around this issue, so I am—you know, I—Ms. Hill 

closed her testimony with a statement that students can do almost 

anything. 

And, you know, I am struggling to understand that concept, because it is not so much the ability for students to articulate a political position necessarily on campuses, but it is the sense that the 

schools themselves—and I recognize there are 650 civil rights attorneys in the Department of Education alone that are holding colleges accountable, to some extent, if for some reason a particular 

student perceives that another student’s speech offends them in 

some manner. And I am seeing this more and more frequently, and 

that is the part that I am trying to understand, quite honestly. 

This is an interesting month, if you happen to be Irish. And you 

begin to see things done on college campuses in which they will 

say, ‘‘Saint Patrick’s Day, celebrate with a beer.’’ And at what point 

in time does the student that begins to promote some kind of activity on campus that says, you know, ‘‘Come to a Saint Patrick’s Day 

event’’ that has beer all over it begin to create the image that all 

Irishmen are drunkards? And I find that offensive. And at what 

point in time can I step forward and say on this campus, under the 

speech code, because I find it offensive that your articulation of 

something that would depict an Irishman as a potential drunk is 

wrong, and it must be stopped on this campus? 

Ms. Sevcenko, am I missing something in that particular position 

on college campuses? And under the law, does somebody on a college campus have any different standard of protection than they 

would if they were walking down a street, to be protected from 

speech that would be considered to be harassment? 

Ms. SEVCENKO. Thank you, Congressman. Let me address a 

couple of things. One is the difference between public universities 

and private universities. 

Mr. MEEHAN. Let’s go with private universities. I am more interested in those that are creating these special codes in addition 

to—— 

Ms. SEVCENKO. Well, unfortunately, public universities create 

them, as well. But, in terms of private universities, they are not 

directly bound by the First Amendment, but they are bound by the 

promises that they make. And it is a very rare university that has 

up on its website disclaimer, ‘‘Come here, check your free speech 

126 

rights at the door.’’ They all proclaim, ‘‘Come here, experience,’’ you 

know, ‘‘diversity of ideas, intellectual, rigorous debate,’’ so on and 

so forth. 

So, to answer your question, in terms of you being able to object 

to a poster depicting a drunken Irishman, you can do that the 

minute you see it. You can write a letter to the editor, you can address the group that has put it up. That is what the university is 

for. 

Mr. MEEHAN. But should the university at that point in time 

require that all students who have participated in the creation of 

that poster be disciplined for violating my sensitivities? 

Ms. SEVCENKO. There is no constitutional right not to be offended. And if the school has promised free speech, then no, the 

university should not, because then they would be in violation of 

the promises they have made, and their moral obligation to keep 

that. There is no bait and switch. 

Now, there are a few colleges who have said that, ‘‘Community 

is more important to us than free speech. So when you come here, 

you need to be very careful about what you say, and you will be 

disciplined if you say something that offends others.’’ 

Mr. MEEHAN. Would it be any different if I said it was a tequila 

party, and I was going to wear a sombrero, bring a sombrero? 

Ms. SEVCENKO. I mean it doesn’t—the principle remains the 

same. 

Mr. MEEHAN. So speech—and I looked at this, and I tried to— 

speech, in order to be unprotected, it has to be so severe, pervasive, 

and objectively offensive and undermining, it detracts from the victim’s educational experience, that the victims, students, are effectively denied equal access to an institution’s resources and opportunities. 

I would suggest to you that it is just not any speech that I find 

offensive which is protected—— 

Ms. SEVCENKO. Yes. What—yes. What you have just cited is a 

Supreme Court case. 

Mr. MEEHAN. Yes, I did. 

Ms. SEVCENKO. David v Monroe. So that is the standard that 

the Supreme Court has set for harassment. 

Mr. MEEHAN. And is it any students, or is it a reasonable 

student—what is a reasonable student’s expectation in that—— 

Ms. SEVCENKO. It is, yes, an objective standard, so a reasonable person standard. And it has to be pervasive. That is, if somebody says something egregious once, then that probably doesn’t 

meet the standard. If it happens over and over again, then yes, the 

university under that standard should step in. 

Chairman ROSKAM. Thank you. 

Mr. Lewis. 

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to 

take a moment to thank each one of you for being here, and thank 

you for your testimony. 

I am trying to get a sense of whether the stakes for colleges are 

big, or if this is a minor issue. Professor Hill, what are the stakes 

for a college or university if it engages in banned campaign activity? What sanction does the Tax Code impose for this type of violation by a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt entity? 

127 

Ms. HILL. In this case, Congressman Lewis, the Internal Revenue Code, which prohibits in 501(c)(3) participation or intervention in political campaigns, including the publishing or distributing 

of statements—any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition 

to any candidate for public office. But as I have said, one has to 

run this through whether—the question of whether the university 

is speaking. 

Now, the sanctions in this area are severe. They are an—not just 

for universities, but all 501(c)(3) public charities, which means they 

are publicly supported under section 509 of the Internal Revenue 

Code. And, in that case, what happens if an organization has been 

engaged in political campaigning is they are in jeopardy of losing 

their tax-exempt status. 

Now, why does that matter so much? It matters for two reasons. 

If they are not tax-exempt, they lose the subsidy represented by 

the entities not having to pay taxes. Number two, their contributors lose their section 170 charitable contribution deduction made 

for contributions to the university. 

And so—and that contribution, I will just remark, is deductible 

on the mere basis of the university or other organization being a 

501(c)(3) organization in good standing. So if somebody would want 

to give a university $3 million for an endowed chair for a professorship in organic chemistry, they can still give the money, but the organization can only, in a sense, validate the section 170 charitable 

contribution deduction if the university itself is tax-exempt. 

And I will just add that many public universities also seek 

501(c)(3) tax-exempt status precisely because their contributors 

want to see a determination letter from the Internal Revenue Service assuring them, as contributors, that their contribution to the 

university will be deductible. So it is, on the tax side, a little more 

complex than just a public-private divide. 

So universities care about their exempt status. They care about 

preserving it. They care about reconciling it with an atmosphere in 

which students can learn and professors can teach and write, and 

administrators can do whatever it is that administrators do—we on 

the faculty often are not quite sure. 

[Laughter.] 

But nobody, nobody, could do more harm to a university than an 

ill-informed senior administrator or a willful senior administrator, 

because of the difficulty of disavowing those acts of political participation. 

That is why I said, Congressman Meehan—just to sort of in a 

sense, address your comment—that students can do almost anything with respect to political advocacy in a nonviolent way, which 

is certainly what we are talking about today. And the chances of 

that jeopardizing the exempt status of a university are very low, 

as the existing guidance so amply and clearly understands. 

Mr. LEWIS. Professor Hill, before we run out of time, are you 

aware of any university losing its tax-exempt status because of 

campaign activity? 

Ms. HILL. Mr. Lewis, I am not. I have not undertaken empirical 

research on my own on this question. But I think I might have 

heard about instances of it, although maybe I haven’t. But I have 

not heard of an instance. 

128 

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROSKAM. Mr. Holding. 

Mr. HOLDING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate you 

holding this hearing. You know, the institutions that we are looking at today, these issues, you know, the institutions and their endowments under 501(c)(3), under the Tax Code, they get enormous 

taxpayer support. And I think it is clear that we have jurisdiction 

to look at these issues. 

But, Ms. Sevcenko, I want to get you to clarify a few things. Most 

private schools are tax-exempt under 501(c)(3), correct? 

Ms. SEVCENKO. I believe so, yes. 

Mr. HOLDING. The—are there any public colleges that are exempt under 501(c)(3)? 

Ms. SEVCENKO. Yes, I believe so. But Professor Hill would be 

better able to address that. 

Mr. HOLDING. But most of them are public institutions. They 

don’t have to use 501(c)(3), correct? 

Ms. SEVCENKO. Yes, they are exempt under section 115. 

Mr. HOLDING. So, when you are talking about the First Amendment and applying it to public colleges, how does the First Amendment apply? 

Ms. SEVCENKO. The First Amendment applies to public colleges because they are government instrumentalities. So the First 

Amendment applies to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment incorporation. And then, because the schools are State government entities, the First Amendment applies to campus. 

Mr. HOLDING. Now, when we are talking about the First 

Amendment, how does it apply to private colleges, as opposed to 

public colleges? 

Ms. SEVCENKO. The First Amendment does not directly apply. 

That is where we look to the—what the college has said about its 

own intentions. And there are, in fact, some State courts that have 

said that if a college promises free expression and then censors a 

student, that could be considered breach of contract. 

Mr. HOLDING. But it is not a First Amendment right, it is a 

breach of contract. 

Ms. SEVCENKO. Yes, because there is a First Amendment right 

of association, as well, so that if I want to have a college that is 

the, you know, don’t say anything that will offend anyone college, 

I am able to do that. 

Mr. HOLDING. So, are private colleges and universities allowed 

to restrict speech and political activity on campus? Just to be clear 

on that. 

Ms. SEVCENKO. Yes, yes. I mean, I think Alex here is a perfect 

example of that. 

Mr. HOLDING. So why should tax-exempt private colleges and 

universities not restrict political activity on campus? That would be 

toward, you know, their marketing and so forth, as you mentioned. 

Ms. SEVCENKO. So why should they not? I mean—— 

Mr. HOLDING. Why should they not? I mean what would be the 

reason that they not do that? 

Ms. SEVCENKO. Because they were granted tax-exempt status 

because they have an educational mission. And I think it is deeply 

ironic that the universities, in an attempt to preserve their 

129 

501(c)(3) status, are in fact censoring people, censoring students, 

which is undermining the very purpose that they are there for. 

And this is not a minor problem. We survey every year 450 universities. We look through all of their speech codes. And in our latest spotlight report—a copy here—50 percent of the colleges and 

universities that we look at have openly unconstitutional speech 

codes. 

Mr. HOLDING. So why do you think they do that? What do you 

think the impetus is behind the people making those decisions to 

restrict free speech in a tax-exempt institution? 

Ms. SEVCENKO. I think there are various reasons that they do 

it. Administrators do not like confrontation. They want things to 

stay, you know, on an even keel. They like to have control, they 

like to know what is going on. That is why we see the free speech 

zones—oh, we will just send, you know, troublemakers like Alex 

here over to that corner, so that they, you know, won’t attract attention. 

There are government regulations. The Office for Civil Rights at 

the Department of Education, as you know, has been very active 

in issuing title IX Dear Colleague letters. They issued a blueprint 

a couple of years ago, what they called the blueprint, with what we 

consider to be a blatantly unconstitutional definition of sexual harassment as unwelcome conduct, including verbal conduct of a sexual nature. That can encompass just about anything. 

So there are various things going on. But mainly, the administrators, they want to avoid trouble. That is why the general counsels 

will say, ‘‘No, let’s just be on the safe side and tell the students not 

to have political activity, not to campaign for Bernie Sanders, because’’—— 

Mr. HOLDING. Right. 

Ms. SEVCENKO [continuing]. ‘‘The election will be over soon, 

they will graduate, but we have to be’’—— 

Mr. HOLDING. Well, thank you very much, and I appreciate the 

examples that you showed us. And I hope, Mr. Chairman, that we 

get some participation from folks who have experienced this, and 

they email into us. Thank you. 

Chairman ROSKAM. Thank you. 

Mr. Crowley. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, and 

welcome to each of you this morning. 

Professor Hill, while the First Amendment prohibits colleges and 

universities from restricting speech, the First Amendment generally does not apply at private colleges and universities, because 

the First Amendment regulates only government conduct. Is that 

correct? 

Ms. HILL. Yes. 

Mr. CROWLEY. It is kind of similar to the give-and-take most 

recently by my colleague, Mr. Holding, and with Ms. Sevcenko, is 

that correct? 

Ms. HILL. Well, it is broadly correct. I mean that would—if we 

go beyond that we are going to fall into the swamp of the State Action Doctrine under the Fourteenth Amendment, which is—— 

Mr. CROWLEY. But you do agree with Ms. Sevcenko, in terms 

of her—— 

130 

Ms. HILL. Yes, I agree with—— 

Mr. CROWLEY. And Georgetown University is a private university, is that correct? 

Ms. HILL. As far as I know. 

Mr. CROWLEY. It is a private university. 

Ms. HILL. Yes. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Georgetown University also has been working 

with the aggrieved parties in this particular case being discussed 

today in an attempt to resolve their differences. I am not asking 

for your comment, I am making a statement of fact. 

In fact, Georgetown University—that letter has been entered into 

the record—to this Subcommittee, informing us that, based on 

those discussions and a review of their internal policies, the university, Georgetown University, is adjusting their policies to make 

very clear that all of the members of the community will be able 

to make reasonable use of the university, the private university 

and its resources, to express their political opinions. 

Additionally, I would like to submit for the record—I don’t believe it has yet been submitted—a list of the political speakers and 

events at Georgetown, a private Catholic college that is not bound, 

again, by the First Amendment. And you will see a wide variety— 

diversity of opinions and believes, from Mike Huckabee to Bernie 

Sanders. And I have that here, Mr. Chairman. I would like to submit that for the record. 

Chairman ROSKAM. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The submission of The Honorable Joseph Crowley follows:] 

131 


22161A.108

~O I~ I' Wz.,' :-o:IVI~RS 'Y 

LIST OF POLITICAL SPEAKERS & EVENTS 

Main Campus: 

March 2, 2016 Mike Huckabee (R) - Former· Governor of Arkansas, 2016 

Presidential Candidate 

March 1, 2016 Congressman Mick Mulvaney (R-SC) 

February 29, 2016 Co ngre~swoman Grace Meng (0-NY) 

February 2, 20 16 Congressman Chris Gibson (R-NY) 

January 29, 2016 Robert McDonald - Secr-etary of Veterans Affairs 

January 28,2016 Jon Huntsman (R)- Former Governor of Utah, 2012 Presidential 

Candjdutc 

J anuary 21,2016 Gary Soiseth (Mayor- Tur·lock, CA) 

January 21,2016 AJvin Brown (former Mayor- ,facksonville, FL), Nan Whaley (Mayor 

- Dayton, OH), Sly James (Mayor- Kansas City, MO), Muriel 

Bowser (Mayor - OC) & Mick Cornett (Mayor - Oklahoma City, OK) 

January 20, 2016 Barry Bennett & Doug Watts (former Ben Carson campaign staff) 

January 19, 2016 Ben Rhodes (Assistant to President Obama and Deputy National 

Security Advisor for Strategic Communications) 

December 16, 2015 Vice President J oe Bid en (D) 

December I, 2015 S.E. Cupp (NY Times), Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), 

Amanda Carpenter (Fmr. Staffer - Ted Cruz), Mindy Finn (fmr. 

Ri'IC) 

November 19,2015 Senator Bernie Sanders (T-VT), 2016 Presidential Candidate 

November 3, 2015 Valerie J ar·rctt- Senior Advisor to President Obama 
132 


22161A.109

October 20, 2015 .John Kerry, Secretary of State 

October 19,2015 Ernest Moniz, Secretary of Energy 

October 16,2015 Tarja Halon en- former President of Finland 

October I, 2015 Atifcte Jahjaga (President of Kosovo) & Madeleine Albright (former 

Secretary of State) 

September 30, 20.1.5 Mitt Romney (R) - former Governor of Massachusetts, 2012 

Presidential Candidate 

September 29,2015 Micbael Steele - former chairman Republican National Committee 

September 24, 2015 James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence 

September 17,2015 King Felipe VI and Queen Letizia of Spain 

September 10, 2015 AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka 

September 10,2015 Chelsea Clinton 

September 8, 2015 Dan Pfeiffer (former White House Communications Director and 

Senior Advisor to President Obama) 

J uly 1, 2015 EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy 

June 19,2015 UNESCO Director General Irina Bokova 

May 16,2015 UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon 

May 16,2015 Former Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao 

May 14,2015 Congressman John Lewis (D-GA) 

May 12,2015 Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) 

May 12, 2015 Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) 

May 8, 2015 President Barack Obama (D) 

Apri1 28, 2015 Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) 

April 23, 2015 Tony Blair, former UK Prime Ministet· 
133 

f 


22161A.110

April 22, 20 IS Hillary Rod ham Clinton (D) - Former Secretary of State, 2016 

Presidential Candidate 

April22, 2015 Ashton Carter, Secretary of Defense 

April 21,20 15 Former President Bill Clinton (0) 

April 21, 2015 Congr·essman Hakccm Jeffries (D) 

Apri116, 2015 Mnttco Renzi, Prime Mi.nister of Italy 

April 6, 2015 Former USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah 

March 19,2015 World Bank President Jim Yong Kim 

March 17,2015 Rep. JeffFortenber·ry (R-NE), former Sen. Sam Nunn (0-GA), 

former Sen. Richard Lugar (R-11'1') & Des Rrowne (former UK 

Defense Minister) 

February 27,2015 Shei.kh Tamim Bin Hamad Al-Tbani- Emir of Qatar 

February 19, 2015 Ruta Ghani - First Lady of Afghanistan 

February 12, 2015 FBI Director· James Corney 

February 11,2015 Congressman Ke.ith Ellison (D-MN) 

Law Center: 

February 24,2016 Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito 

November 18, 2015 Supreme Court Justice Anton in Scalia 

November 5, 2015 .Jeh Johnson- Secretary of Homeland Security 

October 30, 20 LS Senator Richard Durbin (D-lL) 

May 17,2015 Claudia Paz y Paz Bailey (former Attorney General - Guatemala) 

March 24, 2015 Senior White House Advisor Alice Hill 
134 

Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you. What we are seeing today, in my 

opinion, is this Subcommittee is really searching for a problem 

where no problem exists. 

Georgetown University isn’t bound by the First Amendment, but 

they are, on their own initiative, revising their policies to ensure 

full inclusivity for all of their students. They are doing that for academic diversity, and not because they are being compelled by the 

government or by this Subcommittee’s hearing today. I want to 

make it clear, Georgetown University is one of the preeminent universities in our country because of this type of policy. 

Essentially, they are showing the true spirit of a liberal arts 

school: Being open to debate and adopting policies that best reflect 

their students and the needs of that student body. This Subcommittee should be praising Georgetown University for their actions, and not bashing the Nation’s preeminent Catholic institution 

of higher learning. 

We are also seeing this Subcommittee walk into this issue at the 

last minute, providing no value added, in my opinion, when there 

are a number of other issues we should be examining in our role 

on oversight. I would suggest our time be better spent on a hearing 

discussing the impact of the budget cuts on customers and consumers and the services at the IRS. Or a hearing on the ongoing 

and escalating threat of taxpayer identity theft, where criminals 

are literally stealing someone’s identity to file an income tax return 

and claim someone else’s refund. It is going on right now, while 

this Committee is discussing this issue. This real impact on lives 

of Americans is going on while we dither on this issue. 

I think Congress should get back to focusing on the needs of the 

people back home, and not the special interests here in Washington, D.C. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back the 

balance of my time. 

Chairman ROSKAM. Thank you. 

Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH OF MISSOURI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this hearing. I am pretty amazed with the testimony that we 

have not heard of any comment of the University of Missouri. That 

is the university that I graduated from. It is from our State. 

And one point of concern where I think it really hits home, especially where Mr. Atkins and Mr. Zuckerman kind of hit some 

points on free speech, is that it was publicized quite a lot of a professor at the university that tried to halt a reporter from taking 

photos and being assembled in the area where there was some protesting going on back in November. And, unfortunately, a week ago 

today she was fired. But it took several months before that firing 

took place, and it was actually a four-to-two vote by the board of 

curators to even fire her. 

And I was just looking through, during this discussion, a Washington Post article that showed some statements made during that 

whole process of basically muzzling freedom of speech. And we are 

talking about a public institution, not a private one, like Georgetown. The University of Missouri is a public institution. And in the 

Washington Post it was said that this professor approached this reporter, who was just wanting to take photos, and it was there the 

professor said, ‘‘I can’t hear you, hey, hey, ho, ho, the reporter has 

135 

got to go,’’ and just kept chanting, and then also asked for ‘‘some 

muscle to come over.’’ That was their statement which was in the 

video that—a lot of people said. 

And so, when we are talking about freedom of speech, it needs 

to be freedom of speech. And I think that this is a very important 

hearing, because no one’s freedom of speech should be muzzled, regardless of what your speech is going to be, especially at a public 

institution. 

So, I applaud the Chairman for holding this hearing—— 

Mr. CROWLEY. Will the gentleman yield just for a moment? 

Mr. SMITH OF MISSOURI. Yes, I will. 

Mr. CROWLEY. You said ‘‘especially at a public institution.’’ We 

understand that at a private college that does not—that doesn’t 

apply. 

Mr. SMITH OF MISSOURI. I am talking about a public college. 

Mr. CROWLEY. For the record. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. SMITH OF MISSOURI. I understand there are different 

mechanisms between a private university and a public one, but I 

am talking about a real problem that has faced a public university. 

So—and this is quite a big issue. 

So, I would also like—I may not say your name right—you know 

exactly who I am talking to, thank you. 

[Laughter.] 

Could you give me a—I noticed in your testimony, I believe, that 

there was mentioned a university that prevented some folks from 

releasing—you know, handing out the Constitution. Could you go 

into more detail on that? 

Ms. SEVCENKO. I believe you are referring to Modesto Junior 

College at which an Army veteran, Robert Van Tuinen, wanted to 

hand out copies of the Constitution to celebrate Constitution Day. 

He had been doing that for approximately 10 minutes when a security guard came up to him and told him that he needed to stop 

doing that. If he was going to be engaging in any public expression, 

he needed to be in the free speech zone. And, in order to get to the 

free speech zone, you have to sign up for it. 

So he then went to the administrator, who took out a book, 

which is an appointment book like you would see at the dentist’s 

office, you know, where they sort of rifle through and see when an 

appointment might be available. He was told that the free speech 

zone, which holds two people, was booked until the beginning of 

October. 

So if he wanted to come back at the beginning of October, he 

could stand in the corner and try to hand out his Constitutions. 

And he said, ‘‘But today is Constitution Day,’’ and that didn’t matter. 

Mr. SMITH OF MISSOURI. Quite interesting. In your experiences, have you seen that some types of views are more likely to 

be censored than others? 

Ms. SEVCENKO. As I said in my statement, this is a bipartisan 

problem. We see all sorts of speech being censored. It can be from 

the right, it can be from the left. Nicole wanted to talk about gun 

rights in Texas. The administrators wouldn’t let her. We are engaged in litigation on behalf of the National Organization for the 

136 

Reform of Marijuana Laws at Iowa State University. They wanted 

to put a pot leaf on a tee shirt; they were told—— 

Mr. SMITH OF MISSOURI. And I think we saw that with the 

gentleman to your right, as well. 

Ms. SEVCENKO. Yes. 

Mr. SMITH OF MISSOURI. So it is different spectrums, politically. So I agree. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROSKAM. Mr. Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I too want to thank the witnesses for coming. 

Mr. Chairman, given the focus of the hearing, I wish to raise a 

serious concern about the possible misuse of 501(c)(3) status by certain for-profit colleges that converted to non-profit status, while 

still operating to the for-profit benefit of the former owners. And 

so I ask to submit for the record a report by the Sentry Foundation 

on this issue that documents questionable activities by some former 

for-profit colleges that appear to violate the legal requirements of 

501(c)(3). 

Chairman ROSKAM. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The submission of The Honorable Danny Davis follows:] 

137 


22161A.111
138 


22161A.112

--::- THE CENTURY - FOUNDATION 

ISSUE BRIEF 

THE COVERT FOR-PROFIT 

How College Owners Escape Oversight 

through a Regulatory Blind Spot 

Robert Sh<reman I October 6. 201 s 

Over the past decade. abuses by colleges operating 

In the for-profit education sector have been well 

documented.' Buoyed by a tide of government· 

enabled financing. these for-profit colleges expanded 

their enrollment from 1990 to 2013 more than ten 

t1mes faster than did nonprofit or public school~' and 

they widely engaged in aggressive and misleading 

recruitment and other predatory practices'-all to fill 

programs that had abysmally low completion and job 

placement rates. Many students that had enrolled 

in for-proflt colleges were left with huge student 

loan debts and little else to show for their education 

investment. Meanwhile, taxpayers shelled out billions 

of dollars in flnancing and tax breaks for these schools, 

with little accountability to ensure that their students 

were getting an education that would lead to gainful 

employment. 

Today. many of these for-profit institutions find 

rhemrelves on the defensive and are now being 

scrutinized more closely, both by the government 

The Century Foundation I tc{.org 

agencies that finance them and by consumers who may 

seek. instead, to enroll at public and other nonprofit 

institutions. High-profit, high-enrollment schools such 

as ITI Tech, DeVry, and the University of Phoenix are 

allowed to continue to participate in the federal loan 

program. but under even stricter rules.' 

Recently. a new trend in the abuse of college students 

and federal education dollars may be under way: the 

creation of the covert for-profit The owners of some 

for-profit institutions have sought to switch their schools 

to nonprofit status, freeing them from the regulatory 

burdens of for·proflt colleges, while continuing to reap 

the personal financial beneflts of for-profit ownership. 

Prompted by news of several recent con~rsions 

of for-proAt colleges into nonproflts, The Century 

Foundation has obtained IRS and U.S. Department of 

Education records and communications that call 1nto 

question the legitimacy of some of there conversions. 

Through four case studies. based on hundreds of pages 
139 


22161A.113

of documents obtained from government agenciesthe examination reveals a dangerous regulatory blind 

spot with the two federal agencies each assuming. 

wrongly. that the other is monitoring the integrity of the 

"nonprofit" claims of these colleges. 

This report begins by describing the role of nonprofit 

governance in promoting good stewardship in 

education and the problems that have resulted 

from unrestrained profit-seeking in American higher 

education. The case studies then lay out four instances 

of possible covert for-profits- where owners have 

managed to affix a nonpro~t label to their colleges 

while engineering substantial ongoing personal 

t.nancial benefits for themselves. The report concludes 

with specit.c steps government regulators should take 

to prevent illegitimate claims to nonprofit status and to 

protect students and the public interest. 

THE PUBLIC TRUST PURPOSE 

OF NONPROFITS 

An enterprise organizes itself as ·nonprofit" to provide 

some assurance to customers and donors that while the 

organization needs money to pursue its mission. the 

ultimate goal is nor financial. Two core requirements 

are designed ro offer that assurance. First. anyone who 

is paid is. ultimately. answerable to someone who is 

not. Those unpaid overseers are often called "trustees" 

because they are entrusted with the responsibility of 

ensuring rhar the organization is pursuing a charitable 

or educational goal rather than simply financial gam. 

They are unpaid (except in special circumstances) 

so rhar their judgment of what is best for students or 

society is not skewed by a personal financial interest 

Second. any money that is earned by the organization 

beyond what is needed to pay expenses (the amounts 

that would be profit in a for-profit entity) is reinvested in 

the organization. In other words. no one owns stock or 

shares that can be sold or earn dividends. The trustees 

control the organization in the same way that owners 

would. but they cannot take the money for themselves.' 

The Century Foundation I tc{org 2 

Nonprofits are common in ventures that involve goals 

that are difficult to measure or populations that are 

vulnerable. such as public health, caring for the poor. 

the arts. religious or spiritual fulfillment-and education. 

In return for serving society's interests above private 

interests. nonprofit organizations ate favored in 

providing certain types of services and are granted t.ax 

exemptions that can be substantiaL 

The unpaid trustees are seen as such a bulwark against 

abuse that the organizations are, in some cases. 

allowed to engage in practices that would be illegal 

in a for·proAt context. Many nonproAts, for example, 

involve vast numbers of people who work for free as 

volunteers, a practice that is highly restricted in the forprofit environment. Imagine a supermarket or snack 

food chain enlisting two million underage girls to sell 

cookies: the operation would be shut down and the 

companies would be prosecuted. Yet the nonprofit Girl 

Scouts do exactly that every year. selling 175 mrllton 

overpriced cookies baked by for-prot.t contractor 

bakeries. This "child labe<" is not illegal because 

the Girl Scouts councils are nonprofit: their unpaid 

boards are trusted to engage in this cookie selling. 

which they believe benefits the girls and is consistent 

with the values of the organization. Compared to the 

supermarket owner or cookie baker. the Girl Scout 

councils are far more likely to make decisions that truly 

benefit the girls-because council members do not have 

a persona/ financial interest. They are not allowed to 

keep the money for themselves. 

The nonproAt organization that runs Wokipedia offers 

a different type of example of how being a nonprofit 

affects the decisions that are made. While Facebook. 

Google. and other investor-owned Internet companies 

have all decided to take and sell our personal data 

for profit. Wokipedia has. remarkably. respected users 

anonymity. Wall Street types. salivating over Wikipedia's 

billions of page views and massive troves of salable 

user data. think the people who run the organization 
140 


22161A.114

arc completely nuts. One analyst detailed all of the 

ways that Wi!cipedia could eam money, from selling 

advertisements to t·shrts. and cakulated the wd>site's 

lost revenue at S2.8 b41~on a )"!ar-forty·SIX tomes the 

organizution"s currenf income.• 

Who would leave rhar land of money on the table? 

P~ who are nor allowed to take it If WOOpedia 

had owne<s instead of trustees. the temptation to 

grab nearly S3 billton would be impossible to resist. 

even though it would destroy Wikipedia as we know 

ot Instead Wikiped•a has kept consumers interests at 

the fo<efront because rt•s a nonproRt organrzation.lt is 

a different beast •s a result of being strucrured without 

owner .. 1nvescors. 

Putt"'9 non-owners in control serws as an internal 

regulatory mechansm. mut"'9 the te<nptahon to "cut 

corners on quality or otherwise take advantage of user 

vulnerability," economists say. A. a result, nonprolits 

"are more immune against moral hazards than for· 

profit firms would be under """"'' orcumstances. ~ 

FOR-PROFIT OWNERSHIP'S BAD 

HISTORY IN HIGHER EDUCATION 

ln many contexts. a for-profit buSiness structure 

operates beautifully. amost miraculously. leading to 

posotive outcomes for prollider and consumer alike. In 

educatoon. however, because of the nature of the goal 

and "customer" (both students and society). the results 

of for-profit prOVIsion have frequently proved one· 

sided Theabt.tyoforwestorstopocketwhatever(often 

raxpayer·suppl'oed) funds that are not o~eody spent, 

or to buy and sell shares in the business orgMization. 

can prompt noticeably dtfferent choices on a range of 

institutoonal deasion pomts. such as: 

• Which students to recruit ar'id enrol: whether 

• Whether and how fast to grow enrollment, 

given the nc>ed to maintain qualtty. 

• How much to charge which students (pricing 

and aid/discounts). 

• Who to h~e as onstructors ar'id staff. 

• How much to rely on fufl ~me versus adjunct 

faCtJity. 

• How much to defer to faculty expe<tise. 

• The type of information and advice to prollide 

to potential students. 

• 'v'lhtch programs (majors) to cr~are. expand 

0< contract. 

• How stanc:lord•zed the curriculum should be. 

• How and where to advemse: what infonnation 

to put on the wd>site. 

• How much to spend on recruitment of 

applicants. 

• What level of student perfonnance " 

adequate to pass a class or to receive a degree 

At every rum on the educational enterprise. the owne<'s 

profit motJYe can distort the educ•tional mission. 

rMking O'..ne<·ope<ated schools more aggressive and 

s•ngly·focused on maXImizing rerurn. even to the point 

of self-deception. And In f~ct. the presence of profit in 

htgher education over the y<!a<s has led to a series of 

scand.lls-..nd resulting att......,ts at ~form. 

to enroll students who are on the borderline of When the G. I. B,JI (the Servicemen's Readjustment 

academic qualtfications. Act of 1944) was enacted for soldiers returning from 

The Century Foundlltoon I tr{org 3 
141 


22161A.115

World War II. the funds they received could be used at 

any t:ype of school. By 1949, more than five thousand 

new for-p ro~t schools had spi'\Jng up. Investigations 

revealed that many of the schools were inflating 

tuitions. extending the length of courses. t:nrolling 

too many students." and keeping students on the 

attt:ndance rolls long after they had stopped attending.• 

To address the problems. Congress adopted a paying· 

customer requirement: schools would need to show 

that someone other than veterans was enrolled so that 

the schools could not simply price their programs to 

milk whatever maximum amount taxpayers offered 

up. It was a market test called the 85- 15 rule because 

no more than 85 percent of the students in a program 

could be veterans Rnanced by the government.' 

Sobered by the G.l. Bill experience. Congress, when 

creating the ~rst national student loan program in 1959. 

restricted funding to public and nonprofit institutions.'• 

When for-profits were later invited in. it was through 

what was considered a narrow and limited exception: 

loans would be available only for job-specific training. 

leading to "gainful employment in a recognized 

occupation."" Experts had assured Congress that 

occupational programs were a safe role for schools with 

owne<s because the programs would lead to graduates 

earning "sufficient wages so as to make the concept 

of student loans to be (repaid] following graduation a 

reasonable approach to take:" Unlike a broader libe r~ 

arts education. which is difAcult to measure. it would 

be easy to tell if a for-profit school is not offering valid 

training for a Job. 

The narrow vocational exception wori:ed well for a 

while. But colleges were allowed to self-certify that a 

particular program was occupational in nature. While a 

program labeled as liberal Arts or Philosophy might be 

rejected by the US. Department of Education. in most 

cases the companies assertions were not challenged. 

As a result. over time. the colleges broadened and 

The Century Foundation I tcforg 4 

extended their offerings while continuing to check the 

box-dedaring that each program "leads to gainful 

employment in a recognized occupation" - to gain them 

access to federal grants and loans. The career schools 

slowly but decidedly started thinking of themselves as 

no different from public and nonprofit colleges-even 

though the financial incentives and C0<1t<ol structures 

were different in critically important ways. 

In the 1980s. an explosion of student loan defaults led to 

what President Reagan's secretary of education William 

J. Bennett called "shameful and tragic" actions by for· 

profit institutions, evidence of "serious. and in some 

cases pe<vasive. structural problems in the governance. 

operation. and delivery of postsecondary vocational· 

technical education." Releasing a report to Congress 

about the problem, Bennett said. "The pattern of 

abuses revealed in these documents is an outrage 

perpetrated not only on the American taxpayer but, 

most tragically, upon some of the most disadvantaged. 

and most vulnerable members of society." The head of 

the trade association representing for-profit pledged 

to work with the secretary and the Congress to ·dose 

down any institution that is not operating in an ethical 

way." ' 

The 1980s abuses led Congress to enact a long list 

of reforms in 1992. Most of the reforms app~ed to all 

colleges. whether they had investor-owners or not. 

One provision that applied to for-profit instirutions 

was a Department of Education version of the G.l. 

Bill's paying-customer requirement. Originally 85-15. 

and later changed to 90-10. it requires schools to show 

that they are not wholly reliant on money from the 

Department of Education. 

In recent years. problems in federally funded for-profit 

education have reemerged with the advent of online 

education. weakened regulations. and lax enforcement. 

Starting in 2009. the Department of Education took 
142 


22161A.116

a nl.mber of st~s to ~rm up regulatrons desogned to 

prevent fraud and abuse on the fede<al financial aid 

programs. Most of the regulations. such as the ban on 

bounty-paid recru1ters, apply to all types of colleges 

and programs. 

The regulatory proposal that was fought most 

lllgorously by the f ... -pro~t lobby was a clarollcation 

of what it means to be an occupational program 

that "prepares students for gainful employment in a 

recognized occupation." Offering car~r-pro>paration 

programs is the primary route by which for·proht 

onstitutions gain acco>ss to federal funds. and the new 

'gainful~~- rules will o>nd fed~al funding 

of programs that consbtently fad to brong graduates 

adequate earnings given the student loan debt they 

are taking on.u 

With the publoc and regulators increasingly c;>utious 

about for-pro~t education. what are colle<Je owners to 

do? 

FOR-PROFIT COLLEGES HIDING 

IN A REGULATORY BLIND SPOT 

To escape the ga1nful employment and 90-10 rules. 

and to reassure consumers who have become wary of 

for-profit schools. somf!large education compooies are 

beginning to explore whether they simply can reclassify 

themselves as nonprofits.1 A valid and complete 

conversion-led by toustees v.ith no financial interest 

and operating on good faith-would prOIIIde the 

o""rsight that maltes nonproRts a better va~ and less 

lndined toward pt<-dotuoy practices. 

Unfortunately. the conversion to nonproflt status is 

susceptible to abuse by covert for-profits-schools 

that obtain the nonp<ofit label yet continue Of)"ratong 

Ike for-prof1t onstotutions-leaving consumers and 

taxpayers more vulnerable than ever. 

5 

C011e<t for-proht colleges can eX>st becaose while 

the Department of Educatoon reloes on the Internal 

Revenue Servoce's judgment of which institutions are 

and which are not valid nonproflts." th'e IRS rests its 

determination on the declarations and self-regulation 

by the trustees of these nonproflts. based mostly on an 

honor system. As with other t~ the IRS relies on 

the honesty of the~~ and cO<porations that file 

tax returns. an honesty that is tested only on case of an 

aud1t, which often takes place years aherward. 

The path to nonpro~t status starts. of course. w1th 

~rlt. Org.v>izations that seelc to be desognated 

by the IRS as a tax-exempt nonprofot must complete 

a Form 1023. which asks a long ~~~ of questions 

about the entity's goals, structure. management, and 

finances. Sometimes. an examiner 1n the IRS Exempt 

Organ•zations OMsion wiU seek clarofications before 

designation as a tax-exempt entoty •s aw.-ded. but the 

condoSK>n of the process reloes on t~ assunption that 

me fnformatoon provided by the respondent accurately 

reflects how the O<ganization woll wind up operating. 

The IRS IS quite aware that organizations evolve, 

sometmes .., ways that are contrary to the rules that 

¥e supposed to apply to nonproAt entities. Since it 

would be Impossible for the IRS to review and approve 

the nearly constant changes at th<! r>ation's more than 

1.630.000 recognized tax-exempt organizations, the 

IRS reloes on a system of self-regulation. badced up by 

the tlveat of potentialy retroacnve revocation of rax 

exempt status. For example, ,.,._ awarded nonprofit 

status. orgoni2ations are told by thP IRS that of they 

change their structures and operat1ons. they do so at 

their own peril: 

A rul1ng or dere<m~nat on lett~ recognizong 

exemption ~ not be re~ed upon if there is a 

""'I erial change oncon51stent woth the exemption 

in the character, t~ purpos<!, or the method of 

operation of the organization.'' 
143 


22161A.117

The ' IRS determination lette<" is not only revocable. it 

can be revoked retroactively 

rf ~ organization omitted or misstated a 

mate<lal fact. opera ted in a mannt'r materially 

drffer~t from !hat originally repr~ted. or 

engaged m a p<OI•b·ted transaction for ~ 

purpose of drverhng corP<J$ or income from its 

exempt purpose. 

The revocation can go back as far as the entrty's 

original approval as a nonpro~t so that an entrty that 

we all thought was a charity can be declared to have 

neve<~ one. This look-back reparation was tested 

and afflll'n<.'d in a seminal case decide<! on 2013: an 

organization •imed at helping people make down 

payments on purchasrng homes was found to not be 

functioning as a valid nonprofit, and the IRS hr 2010 

revoked its tax-exempt status effective back to the 

organiz•tion's cr@ation in 2000. ten years earlier.'' 

Put simply if an organrution acts like a fori>'ofot entity, 

restru<:IU'lng or operahng rn a way !hat rs bencfitrng a 

partrcular pe<son or famrly. the nonprofit desig:l4tion 

can be revoked retroactively by the IRS. 

The IRS, however, reexamines less than I percent of 

existing nonprofits e<K:h year, which means that an 

entrty without~ reqorsite rntemal checks and balar.ces 

in place to ensure nonprofit governance can operate 

in vdation of IRS rul.s for years, or even decades. 

Without gettrng caught 

Meanwhile, the Department of Education currently 

relies solely on the IRS label in determining nonprofit 

status. Beyond the IRS designation, there is no routine 

effort to ensure that a school is actually following the 

core el<p«tations of nonprofits. M~ing to affoc 

a nonprofrt label alows a school to essentialy hide 

in plain sicj.~ <I\"'idrng the regulations and scrutrny 

applicable to for-profit coll.ges as well as the financial 

accountability required of nonprofits. 

The Century Foundatron I tcforg 6 

POSSIBLE COVERT FOR-PROFITS: 

FOUR CASE STUDIES 

Government records of four newly designated 

nonprofit schools !hat had al previously been operating 

as for-profit entrtres reveals some trOUbling beha-,;or 

While IRS Form 1023 lolled out by tJ,., four college 

chains undergird the clarms that rhey are making to 

nonptofit status. the annual tax retums (Form 990) 

filed by rhe colleges. and other evidence about the 

schools' actual activities and intentions. indicate that 

three of the four ilt'C operattng in ways that are not at all 

consistent with what the organizations asserted when 

they were seeking ~ nual IRS approval: the fourth 

colle<je's applicabon appears to have gone thtough 

th.. IRS revrew wrthout detectron or discussron of its 

intern.1l conArcts of inte<est 

Each year. more than hall a billron tax exempt dollars 

have been flowing to just the four institutions examined 

for this report Herzing University: Re<nrngton 

Colleges. Inc.: EVe<gl.ldes College: and tJ,., Center for 

Excellence in Higher Education (CEHE). The ~ndongs 

of this report. however. indicate that their re<,julatory 

treatment as nonprofrt schools may not be justified. 

llerzing Univer~tl y 

When Herzing University was profiled in a U.S. 

Senate teport in 2012, rt was a pnvately held, lor-profit 

company headquartered rn M~Naukee, Wisccrnsin. with 

eleven campuses '" ~ght states. While sliD relatiwly 

small it had grown by 260 percent since 2001, to 

more than 8,000 students. Founded in 1965 by Henry 

and Suzanne Herzing. the company was origirolly a 

computer-training Institute. Over time, it had morphed 

into a "universtty" offering Associate and &chclor's 

degree programs in business managemen~ elt,ctronics. 

health care, graphiC design. and public safety. as wei as 

some Masters degrees (ontne only). 

In the 2008-09 school year, Herzing's federal ftnanctal 

aid revenue grew to $7>.633,4-48. a 42 percent rncrease 
144 


22161A.118

over the prior yc.,, At the same time, however, the 

proportion of revenue coming from paying customers 

orothersourccsoffinancialaidwasdropprng:19percent 

overnll in 2008. 1 S percent in 2009, 14 percent rn 2010. 

As a result. !he school was approaching the 10 percent 

rnnnun that •s requ.red under the Oepa<tment of 

Educ.atoOn's 90·10 .Ue. Whole the company IS not 

allowed to count ItS own scholarships given 1o nudcms 

as part of the 10 percent. support from independent 

scholarship programs would count. 

On December 29. 2009. Henry Her:<~ng submrtted 

a Form 1023 to the IRS. seekrng a tax-exempt 

designatoon fa< a new ca<poration caled !he Ht'f'Zing 

EducatiOnal F._datiOn Ltd.. wi1Kh would provide 

college scholarshps to poor srudents. The appltcarion 

was assigned to specialist Tcny Izumi in the Cincinnati. 

Ohio, office of the IRS. Izumi was skeptical. Normally, 

giving scholarships to the poor would be a slam-dunk 

For an organization seeking nonprofrt staltJs. But the 

appli<:<ltion was unusual because the scholarshrps would 

pay ru'tion at only one particulat school. beanng Henry 

Herzing's """"' lzumr Investigated and doscove<ed 

that the eponymous college was a business owned by 

Herzrng. 

In a letter to Henry Herzing, Izumi explained that. 

to be consrdered nonprofrt, an organization must 

demonstrate that 'rt os not a<·ganized or operated 

fa< the benefrt of prmte onterests. • such as p¥ticular 

individuals, thetr famrly mernbe<s. shareholde<s. or 

people controlled-d•rectly or indirecdy-by business 

owners or thert famrly m<>mbers. Why. bumi osked. 

rs the board of the Herzing Educational Foundation 

composed of people who own or operate the For·proAt 

college, rather than by rndependent members of the 

community? If the board continues to include people 

with a frnancwl onterest in Herzing I.Jr-oiwrsity. v.hat 

system of dlecb and balances w-11 be used to assure 

that the assets of the nonprofit are used excluwely 

for charitable purposes? How does !he publrc know 

The Century r oundatron I tc{org 7 

that you are not usrng the scholarship program as a 

recruiting tool of the For-profit entity? 

Aftet talking with Izumi by phone more than once, 

Herzing's lawyc< scot to the IRS an e•ght·page 

lettet. asse<ting that (1) the fOUNiarion's day-to· 

day operations ·will be minomat" with volunteers 

doing !he bulk of th.! work in administering. perhaps. 

$60,000 in scholarshrps: (2) "there 1$ no ontent to use 

the assets of the organization for any other purpose" 

besides scholal'$hips: and (3) "it is not anticipated thDt 

Henry Herzing woll have a srgnificant formal vorce • 

., the nMprofot's actMtoes. Two weeks late< the IRS 

granted the scholarship foundatiOn's request for status 

as a publoc chanty. Then. last yea<. the foundation's 

leadership decided 10 use the nonprofit entity in a very 

different way {see Table 1). 

The nonprofit purchased Herzig University For S86 

million from the Herzing fam·ly. effective January 1, 

201 S. and cont nucs some leases of property from 

Herz•ng Family members. According ro a press 

report. a state official sard that Herzing •1cely made 

the change to avoid new federal regulatiMs and to 

gain access to state grant fundrng. ·• In response to a 

request F0< comment, attorneys For Herzing University 

{the nMpro~t) assert that the purchase prrce. to be 

paid over thirty years. and the leases are approved by 

independent boatd mennbers at fair market values and 

that ·rigorous conAICI-of·rntetest rules a<e followed rn 

al such instances· 

After question. were rarsed about the transaction 

by this author and by members of Congress. the 

university on July 6, 2015, asked the IRS to update 

its assr~catiM tO renect thdl it had become an 

eclucarional instotutoM. The IRS did so on August 19. 

notong that it had not undertaken a fresh review of the 

enbty's nonpro6t status. As of September 9. 2015. the 

Department of Educahon consrders Herzing's ~uest 

to be consrdered a nonprofit an open case ·undergoing 

substantive rev1ew."• 
145 


22161A.119

TABLEl 

HERZING EDUCATION FOUNDATION 

What HEF told the IRS in the process of What HEF did after getting its 

seeking Its tax-exempt status designation letter from the IRS 

The enUty Is not 11 school and will not opereto e The entity become HeQing University, 

school as either 11 primary or secondary ectMty. ~p rchasi g the school from Henry Herzing. 

The entity wttl be small. around $60,000 In The entity has tote I annual revenue of more 

scholarships, and run by volunteers ~ than $100 million. mostly from the federal 

government. 

Henry HMing Will not have a Slgntficant role in Henry Herzing rem11lns as 11 board membe< 

the enoty. ~ and honorery chencellor. wtlh his daughte.-

SOURCE DOCUMENTS FOR 

HERZING UNIVERSITY 

• Dt<eml>o. 2009 Fo<m 1023 •nd ,...,,od rnore<..k 

[Appkorlon lot Rtcognldon of &.mp.ion undtr S.Ct101r 

501 (c)(3)] 

•IRS R""""" 1<>r Addlt,.,...llnfotmat;.,n (Au.)u>< 2010) 

Honing~ (AU<JUst 2010) 

· IRS O...rminotion lAtttr (Sop<eml>o. 2010) 

• 2011 Fotm 990 

• 2012 Form 990 

......... 

Remtngton Colleg~s Inc 

(And E<klutt A"'<n<t) 

Between the time that the Herzing Educational 

Foundation subrnJtted its application for tax·exempt 

status and the Ktual designahon by thl! IRS, mo<e 

than etrj>t months had passed, about the ..-age time 

that ot takes for IRS review of a Form 1023. Remongton 

Colleges. Inc. with noneteen campuses on ten states 

The c~ntury F ound~tlon I rc{org 8 

serving as the president and CEO. 

and an online ~lion. got it5IRS designation on ettjot 

weeks Rat. 

At the same time that it sought nonprofit st~tus. 

Remington Colleges purchased a chain of schools. 

Educate Am~. owned pnmarily by Jerald Barnett. 

Jr .. for Slt7.$00,000 The college was quite open about 

the fact that it w.s attempting to evade the 90-tO 

rule. which requl1'es colleges to show that at least 10 

percent of the~r revenue is from courses other than 

the U.S. Department of Education. T/w, Chronicle of 

Higher Education quoted school officials as saying that 

the reason for becoming nonpro6t was to escape the 

9Q-10, a U.S. Senate committee's review of Anandal 

data concluded that the school's difficulties on meeung 

the 90 pe<cent threshold 'likely served as the pr11ne 

impetus for convonion to nonprofit status.· and the 

school's app,cation for tax-exempt status actually 
146 


22161A.120

includes escoping regul.-.tions as a reason for becoming 

nonprofit. 

For a nonprof.l. however. the structure of Rernongton 

Colleqes. Inc.. is extremely unusual. As described 

eatloer. the board of truslee1 for a tlO<lprORt is normally 

comprised of people who care about the organization's 

mossoon but do not gain any financiru benefit from 

it Carleton College in Minnesota. for e~. is 

controlled by forty-two trustees (see ngure 1). Only 

one of them. the president of the uni,.,rsicy (who is 

h.red by the rest of the board). eatns anything at al. 

Everyone else donates tome and. lrkely, money to the 

college. without the expe<tation of a r.nancial return on 

the1r investment 

Remington Colleqes. In contrast. has a flve-member 

board of trust~ One of them •s the CEO of the 

colleges. Another is the pnmary credjtor, Jerald 

S,,mett. whose company is collecting payments 

from Remington's purchase of his Eduution 

America C¥nPU5eS and who os the landlord for the 

properties used by the schools. The three other board 

members. considered ondepeodent on the Remington 

applocatoon for tax-exempt status. are the principal 

and two employees of a financial services firm. 

Stephens. Inc.. which assisted with the purchaw of the 

Educate America c¥RPUseS for a fee of S2.5 moloon. 

Furthermore. Stephens. Inc .. will continue to be paid 

by Rem ngton to manage the ret.rement plan for 

employees (amounts not disclosed) Not only that. but 

Remington has given Stepl1ens, Inc .. an explicit waover 

reqarding conAicts of lnterest-mean.ng that the ~rm 

can choose investments that beneht Stephens. Inc.. 

even if the investment choices are bad for Remington 

Colleqes And the Remington board of trustees is 

actually not even in control. Instead. Warren Stephens. 

the owner of Stephens. Inc .. has the power to replace 

Remington board members without cause." 

The Ccntu'Y Founda:oon I tc{org 

As Figure 2 shows. Remington's control structure 

IS extremely convoluted. and may lack prote<toons 

agaonst self-dea~ng. 

How did the IRS miss all of this in the exemption 

application7 The IRS may have rushed because of 

the requester's insistence on an expedited revoew. 

oc:c001P""ied with an explanatoon that created the 

impression that the US. Department of Eduutoon 

needed an answer within a partocular tome frame. which 

the lawyers for Remington described as about seven 

weeks from the date of thetr appl.cat!On. Among the 

exhibits submotted by Remrngton in the 2010 Form 

1023 appiKatron was the following "Expedite Request" 

9 

Re: Remrngton Colleges. Inc. 

EIN: 27-3339369 

FORM 1023. EXPEDITE REQUEST 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 

The transaction is scheduled to dose on 

December 1. 2010 The transactoon cannot 

dose unless the College receives a favorable 

IRS Detenninatoon letter "'docanng that the 

College is a qualofled §501(c)(3) tax-exempt 

organization. The necessity of obtaining an 

expedited determnation IS magnified by the 

fiiCt thot the College is requored to make a 

change of control filing wrth the United States 

Depo)ttment of Education to obtain approval of 

the ltonsaction not less than 45 days prior to the 

dosing date in order for the students enrolled in 

the Sdhools to conbnue to b. d·gible to '"".,;w 

loans and grants under the Totle IV federal 

Anancral aid programs. The College must 

submt wtth the change in conttol applocation 

the IRS Determonation Letter on the Coleqe 

indicating that the Colleqe is a §S01(cX3) tax· 

exempt organozatoon. To close by December I, 

2010. would require that the change of control 

filing be made not Iuter than October 15, 2010.'' 
147 


22161A.121

FIGURE 1 

CARLETON COLLEGE'S NONPROFIT GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE 

• Money • Conuot • Repoollng 

The apphc~tion materials prOIIided by !he IRS appear to 

indicate that the Remington application w~s approved 

without any questions from the IRS specialist to the 

applicant, in swk contrast to time and attontion that 

!he IRS put into its review of the Herzing application. 

Remington oiRicoals did not respond to a request for 

comment from The Century Foundation. 

SOURCE DOCUMENTS FOR 

REMINGTON COUEGES 

• Augu11 20tO F<>m~ t02J •oo ,..,,..! materiols (ApplicMoon 

I<><~ of£-npcion under Section 501 (<Xl)] 

·JRSo.. ............. ~t .. {Octobor2010) 

• 2012 Fonn 990 

.,__ .... 

The Century ~oundatton I rc{o1g 10 

Everg ades College 

(DBA Ev.,ql, ..., lJ• ""''"Y •>d J<.,,., Unv••s~ty} 

The Form I 023 tlw Arthur Keiser submitted to the 

IRS in September 2000 seekif19 nonprofit status for 

Everglades CoUege raiSed suspicions. leading to a 

twenty-one·month. 388-page tug-of·war between the 

Evergladeslawyersend!heiRS. Theexchangebetween 

KeiSer and !he IRS os cunous in its c<>mple,ctty-the 

IRS obviously saw many red R.>gs in the application, 

yet eventually granted the college tax-exempt status. 

The record of the IRS requests and how Everglades 

responded to them provides a temng illustration of the 

principles at stake concerning nonprofit governance. 

On March 7. 2000. Artl..or Keoset petitioned the 

Florida OMsion of Corporations to change the rn~me 

of a for-profit company he had purchased, Amencan 
148 


22161A.122

FIGURE2 

REMINGTON COLLEGES, INC. GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE 

• Mooey • Control • Reporting 

Jerald Bornett Jr. 

Flye<s Colleqe. Inc. co E...,..glades Colleg~. Inc.. and 

to coovert che entity co a nonprof11 corpo<at100 under 

Flomla lav< On Sepcember 6. 2000. Ketse< f.lod a 

Form 1023 wich che IRS seeking federal cax·exempl 

status for the converted company. The applicat1on was 

assigned to charitable organization special1st Aletha 

Bolt and then cransfe<red co special1st John JenneweW> 

in Cincimati. 

The IRS had a loc of questiOns. The first set. sent in 

a January 2001 letter. included inquiries about a lease 

agreement becween che proposed nonl)(ofit and a 

company owned by the Keisers. Keiser School. Inc.: 

details of the purchase of the for·pro~ t predecessor 

corporation; the assets Mel ~abil1~ of Ever<Jiacles 

and of the Ke.sers; and an appraisal of chc value of the 

college. Everglades responded. 

The Century Found.>:.on I rcforg 11 

W•rren Stephens 

The IRS asked for mor~ information about 

compe<1sation of board ~mbers. the salaries and 

qual,f.cotoons of faculty. and relaced topics. E-glades 

responded. 

The IRS requested more 1nformation including 

the Keiser purchase agreement. the management 

agreement between Everglades Management 

(previously disclosed as ownod on part by K~) and 

the coll~e. any loan agreements. and an explanation 

of the connections to Keiser College. Keiser Career 

Institute. and Keiser Management Inc.. Susan 

Ziegelhofer, the presodent of Everglades Colleg~. Inc. 

responded that there was no purch.tse agreement: ch~ 

transfer of the college ·was a cha<icable contribution 

of the en111e oducational fac1r.ty." She furcher declares 

tha cher~ are no loans between the for·proAc and tax· 

exempt entibes. 
149 


22161A.123

TABLE2 

EVERGLADES COLLEGE 

What Everglades told the IRS in the What Everglades did after getting its 

process of seeking its tax-exempt status designation letter from the IRS 

"(N)elther Dr. Kelset nor any membetS or his 

family or any entitles owned or contrOlled 

by them have derived, or will derlve. any 

non-Incidental ptlv81e benefit attributable to 

Everglades COllege.· 

Evetgtades College. Inc .. reports thetln 

20t1 it paid a total of $34.481.789 to enUlles 

~ owned by Keoser fa moly members. 

Everglades College. Inc., In 2011 rented ·or. Keiser's preference would be for Evergl&des 

COllege to be housed In a different facility; campus facl!ltles from fourteen corporauons 

however ~ atteast partly owned by Arthur Keiser. . Its cash now and working c&pltal 

needs will not allow for such e move at this 

Ume~ 

Instead of AtthUI' and Belinda Keiser befllg two 

ol the three dorectors or the corporatiOn. two 

addotlonal d•rcctors ·unrelated" to the Ke•sers 

were added. 

On the separate and Independent board of 

Both ollhe added directors had buSi~s 

relat•onShiPS with Arthur Keoser. The 

third Independent director became the 

~Everglades general counsel. as well as the 

registered agent lor some of the Keiser 

businesses. 

Everglades College,lnc .. reports that In 

trustees, no more than two members mey 2011. three of Its board members owned 

be employees of Everglades College or ~bus nesses Involved In transactions with 

have ·any other business relationship with Everglades College. 

Everglades College.· 

The Century Fnuncbtion I tc{org 12 
150 


22161A.124

In response, the IRS requested that Evergl•des provide 

the following Information regarding loans or poyments 

to Keiser-controlled entities: 

For ebCh of the following please expla•n itlld 

sp«~fy the accounts: 

a. Accounts Payable and Accrued f.xp<..,scs 

please provide a detail [si<:] explanatoon why 

there is • $50,951.18 debit balance in this 

account? 

b. If you h~~Ve no loan or note agre.:mcnts ..00 is 

the loan Wld••nd what is the relati<>nsh p for the 

Loan Payable of S16.208.41 and please oxpLlin 

the terms and conditions of the loan? 

c. Who is the Loons and Notes Receivable with 

and what is the relationship and please explain 

the tc!<"ms and conditions of the loan? 

d Who is the Loan Recervable ., the emount 

of $1,655 wth and what is the basis for the loan 

and please explain the te<ms and condotiOt'ls of 

the Loan Receoveable? 

e. Why do you show an amount due to Keiser 

College for the amount of $463. [sic) 

( If you have no management contrects or 

fees cha<ged by Everglades Management. Inc 

expla n why clo you show an amount of $8,232 

due to them? If it is for .etVices please expl<>in 

the ser111ces and wh~t the basis for the charge? 

On July 10, 2001, Arthur Keiser, writing as chencellor 

of Everglades College. explained the various loans and 

amounts. 

On July 16, 2001, a letcer fTom the director of the 

Exempt Organization Division of the IRS d..dared 

The Century Foundation I tc{otg 13 

the case dosed because 'we have not received the 

information necessao y to make a determination of your 

tax·exempt statu$.· 

Months went by, with no documents in the IRS f~e 

indicating wh~ . if enything. happened. Then. on 

(),cember 18, 2001, Jennewein sent to Everglades 

a deta~ed seven-page descnprion of the problems 

with the request for tax-exempt status for Everglades. 

He cited as reasons for concern the fact that the 

Memorandum of Understanding for Aight training "is 

serving the pnvate benefot of a for-profot emity" and 

that 'EII1erglades ga111e scholarships ... to students at 

Ke~Ser College. a for·prolot college owned by Arthur, 

Evelyn. and Robert KttSer." The<efO<e. as Jennewein 

described in his lette<, Everglades is se<Ving the private 

benefit of a for·profot entity: as well as renting of 

Keiser·owned buildings: 

Correspondence dated March 30. 2001 signed 

by Arthur Kc0ser. President of Evergl&des 

College. stated that the building on whoch the 

school is located is owned by a partner1hp on 

which related parties hall1e a 4~ "'te<est and 

unrelated parties owned a 58" interest The 

related parties are Keiser Building Corp., whoch 

is owned by Arthur Keiser who owns a 2" 

interest in the partnership: Spectrum Investment 

Associates whoch owns a 40" interest in the 

partnershp IS owned 48" by Arthur l<l:ise<, 

4'"' by Belonda Ke ser and 4" by Robert Keiser 

These Joint venture (owned 42" by related 

par tiPS) lea<es space to Keiser College which in 

1\Jrn's subleases to Everglades College. Inc. The 

entire buolding comprises 83.824 square feet. 

onclud•ng the are [sic) occupied by Everglades 

College. Also. noused m this facility are Keiser 

Career lnstol\Jie and Everglades Management 

Company. Aga•n. ths arrangement ser111ces the 

provate benef.t of the Keosers and they're related 

for profot entities. 
151 


22161A.125

He cited the lows. regulations, and court cases 

governi119 rax·exempt entities. including a case that 

says: 

When a For-profit organization benefits 

substantially from the mamer in which the 

Ktivltoe1 of a related organization are carried 

on. the loner organization is not operated 

exclusively for exempt purposes within the 

meaning of section 501(c)(3). even If it furthers 

other exempt purposes.~ 

He cited • school-specific ru~ng from the IRS that 

hnges in part on the board of the nonprof1t be1ng 

'completely different" from the for"P'of1! entity's 

Rev. Rul 76·441. 1976-2 C.B. 147. presents two 

situations concerning school operations. In the 

first scenario a nonprofit school succeeded 

to the assets of a for-profit school. While the 

former owners were employed in !he new 

school !he board of directors was completely 

different The ruling conducles !hat the tr<Jnsfer 

did not serve a private interest. Part of !hat 

conclusion was based on the independence 

of the board. In the second scenario. the for· 

profit school converted to a nonprofit school. 

The forme< owners became the new schoors 

directors. The former owners/new directors 

benefited financially from the conversion. 

The rul~t~g condudes !hat pnvate 1nterest was 

served. The conclusion is stated as follows: 'The 

directors we<e. in fact. dealing with themselves 

and will benefit financially from the transactions. 

Therefore. (the appbcant) is not operated 

exclus1vely for educational and charitable 

purpose and does not quaLty for exempnon 

from fcdenJA income tax unde< Sectoon 501 (c) 

(3) of !he Code.· 

The C•ntury ound•r1on I rcforg 

He explained why Everglades does not qualify as 

tax-exempt. and suggested that the application be 

withdrawn: 

Eve<glades CoUege rs pnvately held and 

controled by the Keisers despite the fact that 

lheydonotconstltuteama)OOtyofthegove<nlng 

board. Therefore. it appears you ope<ate for the 

benefit of pnvate 1nterests of the Keise<s You 

are similar to the organization in Old Dominion 

Box Co. ... becdUse you operate for the benefit 

of pnvate parties. Operating for the benefrt of 

the Keisers rs a substantial nonexernpl purpose 

that wrl p<eclude exemption. 

Although Ev«glades College is offenng 

educational courses to further one career. the 

central question is whether you operate for 

the benefit of private interest of designated 

individuals. 0< the creatO< or the oeator's fam•ly. 

In Rev. Rul 76·441 a fO<·p<ofit school was 

converted to a nonpro6t school in -..~rich fO<me< 

<YNners/new directors benefited financialy from 

theconVe<sion. Theru~ng concludes that pnvate 

interest was served. Ahhough the ope<arion of 

a school is a charitable activity. the manner in 

which you operate leads to conclude that your 

school bestows significant private benef1t for 

the Keisers and their for-profit corporation. 

14 

&sed on the facts and circumstances provrded 

to date. 11 appears you cannot satiSfy the bas•c 

requirements for exemption. in that you fa1l the 

operationaltest.Todetermineifyouqualifyunder 

Section 1,501(c) (3)·1 (c) (1) of the regulaMns 

the Service determines if the organ1zation 

engages primarily 1n activities which accompliSh 

one 0< more exrorpt purposes. Sectron 1.501 (c) 

(3) - 1 (d) (1) (ir) of the regw tions expands on 

the operated exclusively concept by p<ovidtng 

that an O<gonization is not operated exclusively 
152 


22161A.126

to furtMr exempt purposes unless rt serves 

a public rather than a p.ivate interest. Based 

on the facts that you have provided in your 

appl cat10n for recognitron of exemption, rt 

appears you are ope<ated for a p.ivate purpose 

rather than a publ c purpose. 

On January 2. 2002. the Everglades attorn~ sent 

a letter, signed dlso by Arthur Keiser. dctoiling their 

responses to the December IRS letter. declaring that 

the Keiser schola1Ship recipients ·were scl<x:tcd by an 

independent Board of Trustees: that the rent paid to 

the K<!isers is at fa.- market value and that "Dr Ketser's 

prefe<ence would be for Everglades c~ to be 

housed on a diffetent aco~ty. however rts cash flow and 

working capital needs will not allow for such a move at 

this rime"; and that tM college will actually be run not 

by the board of directors of the corporatoon, but by the 

board of trustees (which includes Chancellor Keiser). 

which is an "independent governing board." 

The thorteen-page Eve<glades response asse<ted 

rnu!nple omes that "Eve<glades College is gove.ned 

by an independent Board of Trustees. Dr. KerSC< has 

no control over the Board of Trustees or its decisions." 

Responding to the IRS's concern that Evorglades 

College appears to operate for the benefit of the 

Keisers, the letter said that the opposite was the case: 

·now that Keise< Colie9e is planning to become a 

four-year prOCJfam. . Everglades College w.U acrualy 

become a 'compcbtor' to Keiser College." The letter 

said at least !Wicc that any beneAt to the Keisen from 

Everglades wos inc•dental at most. and concluMd by 

saying: "Again, let me reiterate that neither Dr. Kerser 

nor any members of his family or any entities own&d 

or controlled by tham have derived. or wrll derive. 

any non-incidental private beneAt attrrbutable to 

Eve<glades Colege.· 

TheiRSfolowedupwnharequestformorernformatoon. 

such as purchase agreements and detarls on shared 

The Century Foundatron I rc{org 15 

space with Keiser College. asking speconcally about 

d1e independence of the board of trustees. Everglades 

responded. The IRS then sent a letter recommending 

that the board of d rectors be expanded by IWO people 

"selected from the comrnurnly in which you se<ve." 

~es respcrnded by addong IWO new directO<s. 

Dale Chynoweth and Zev Helfe<. • viho we<e selected 

from th~ community [and] are unrelated to the 

members of the o.ment Board of Drrectors (Arthur 

and Belinda Kerser. and James Waldman, an attorney 

who was then vice mayor of Coconut Creek). 

EventuaUy. on July 7. 2002. the IRS relented and 

granted Eve.glades c~ taX-eJ<er11>! status. saying 

to Keiser. ·assumong your operatoons wil be as stated 

on your applocation for recO<}Ortion of exemptron. • As 

Table 2 shows. this conditions appears not to have been 

met. 

The spirit of nonp.oAt C)OVernance by an rndependent 

board of trustees •ppears to be seve<ely straoned rn 

the case of Eve<glades College. AccO<dmg to records 

available from the Flonda Oivosion of CO<porahons. 

at the time that Dale Chynoweth was added to 

the board of drrectors. he was hardly ·unrelated" to 

other board members, as he was partner with Ard1ur 

Keis,er in at least one business (Spectrum Busine$5 

Park Assooatron). In tha ensuing years. the two were 

business partners in multiple properties that are rented 

by Everglades College. Zev Heifer joined Arthur Keiser 

as a business partn« (CoUege Pathology Labs, Inc.) JUSt 

months befO<e being n.lfned as an added "unr.C.ted" 

director of Everglades College. Inc. James Wald<mn 

became a state representative. is the general counsel 

of Everglades College, Inc .. ond is the registered agent 

for various related Keiser businesses. 

In addibon to a board of d#ectors. the cooporate byl.ws 

submitted to the IRS for E-glades Colege. Inc. call 

for a separate board of trustees to 1'\.Wl the college. The 

bylaws declared that "The independence of the Board 
153 


22161A.127

of Trustees is crucial to nsu e that Everglad~s College 

meets the needs of the communities in which it serves.· 

and Everglades told the IRS that no more than two 

trustees would either be employees or have • arry other 

business relationship with Everglades College." The 

2011 Form 990 submitted to the IRS fo- Eve<glades 

Colleg~ indicates that dvee of the trustees owned 

businesses involved in transactions with Everglades 

College. 

The Form 990 for 2011 also revealed that Ev~rglades 

College had purchased the schools owned by the KeiSe< 

famoly. valued 3t $521.379.055. with $300.000.000 paid 

dvough a loan from the Keisers themsc"'-'s and the 

remainder considered a tax-deducbble donation by 

the Kersers In total. the 2011 Form 990 reveals that 

Everglades College. Inc. paid $34.481,789 to entitles 

owned by Keiser family members. induding: 

• $10.875,079 pursuant to the pU<chase 

agre~meot for lh~ Keise.. schools. 

• S21 20S.015rnreotandhotelstaysatpr~rties 

owned at least rn part by the Kersers. 

• $1.449.086 for chartered plane travel through 

companies at least partly owned by the Keiser>: 

and 

• $130.305 for se<Vices from a computer 

comparry owned by Keiser famoly member\ 

To prOVIde some perspective on the ono<m•ty of 

the S34 mrllion total. consider that the hlghest·pald 

nonprofrt president as reported by the Chronicle of 

Higher Eclucarion for 2012 earned S7 million." and the 

$.34 miiUon would cover lhe combined salaries of all of 

the top forty highMt·paid public lriversity prMideots 

in 2013. 

Arthur Kerser told a repone< that se~ng h.s Keiser 

schools to Evergl3des was about "ensuring his family 

The C•ntr.rry Foundation I rc{otg 

would have a continuing role in running the universrty." 

O ffered the opportunity to comment on a summary 

of these Rnding5. a representative of Keiser Univers•ty 

provided a bnef statemerlt describing the school's 

hstory and asserting that "The struc1Urc of th~ 

corporation and acquonng of assets followed ALL state 

and federalguod"l nes and regulations." 

SOURCE DOCUMENTS FOR 

EVERGLADES COLLEGE 

•IRSo.n..t oiT., E1<0mplion(undated ..... 2000) 

·Sept....C.. 2000 Fc.m 10l3 ...d rdaled mat<Nk 

[Appbtlcn for Rocop""' ol e-,p.... unci<. S.Coon 

501 (cX3)) 

•IRS ~ r .. AdciC.onol Wonnotion I~ 1. 

2000) 

·Ev.rgjados Rtspon,.l (M.,ch :ro. 2001) 

·IRS ~~~ fe< AddotionollniO<molion II (Moy l. 2001) 

·M.glados R...,.,., .. u (Moy 21. 2001) 

•IRS Reqoost for AdditioNIInletmotK>n Ill (J...,., 7. 2001) 

•Evorglod<1 ResponStlll (J.- 19, 2001) 

•IRS Requon for Addorlon•llnfetmatlon IV (June 215. 2001) 

•Ewtgt.des R"'ffi"seiV (~ly 10. 2001) 

·IRS letter Closing c-for t..dtoiN«eswry lnfoo""""" 

(J.jy 16. 2001) 

•

{l)ooembe< 

IRS ~ 

11. 2001) 

ol Ptcl>lems'""' Ev.rglades ~ 

16 

·Ev.rglada Responds. Rtquosung Recomideoc.on 

(.t.nu..y 2. 2002) 

•IRS ~"lor Add.llonol Womwlion V (F.t.wry 16. 

2001) 

·Everglades Response V (M•ch a. 2001) 

·IRS Responso (April?. 2002) 

·E•etgiod<1 Re.ponse VI (Apn129, 2002) 

·IRS o.t..-;on !Atoer (June 1, 2002) 

•Coiog. Pathology Lobs. Inc.. Mides ol ina>r_., 

(2001) [ocq~~Wed ~ Aorida SocretaryoiS...e) 

•Specwm Bus.noss Pork Assooooon. Inc.. Corpora~o U8R 

~(2001)(-td~AondoSeo--,oiSwt.) 

•2011 Fc.m 990 

•2012 Form 990 

•2013 F0tm 990 

Center for ExceiiPnre on Hrghe• Education 

(08!\Stoph.- H--..,...~. ~.,'le<joA """ Al.C 

c-.,. S r VJ '• .r -Nf 

On March 1. 2013. the IRS received a Form 8940 

'ReqUMt for Mrsceli3neous Determination· from 

a small organization. the Center fO< Excellence in 
154 


22161A.128

Higher Educatron (CEHE). which had igin~lly ~Ct' 

rncO<J)orated in Indiana in 2006. CEHE asked the 

IRS to approve the organization's shift from being 

consrdered tax-exempt as a charity to being consid..-ed 

tax-exempt •• an educational organization ~ law 

firm submttting the request explained that ~ change 

was betng requested because CEHE had acq,.red a 

set of for-profit colleges owned by Carl Barney or by 

trusts of which he is the sole beneficiary. 

The materials sub<nitted to the IRS describing the 

organrzational changes that were involved rn the 

p<~<chase of Carl Barney's colleges run more than frve 

hl.ndred pages Within ~ IRS doalments examoned 

for t!Os report. ~re t> no indicAbOrl that the IRS has 

verified that the purchased colleges are following 

the rules of nonprofit governance. The concgcs. 

nonetheless. now describe themselves as dedicated to 

putting students Arst because they are nonprofit. Carl 

Barney's colleges were valued at $636 1~7.213 lor the 

purposes of the purchase by CEHE. Of 1.his amoont. 

s-431 mrllton was tneorporated into inte<est-beMng 

notes commottw>g CEHE to pay Barney OVff tome. 

and the remarning S205 miAion was considered a tax· 

deductible contribution from Bamey to the nonproftt. 

As part of the transaction, Barney became the "sole 

member" of the CEHE corpo<ate enttty. W>th "the 

right. inter vivos or by testament. to transfer such 

membership to another person." according to the 

CEHE's revtsed articles of tneO<J)CWabon ~ revosed 

bylaws state lur~r that Barney. as the sole member. 

had the outhortty to name and remow board member>. 

In other words, Carl Barney, who is owed $431 million 

by CEHE. fully controlled the supposedly nonprofit 

CEHE. On September 16, 2015, Barney filed a change 

in the CEHE articles of incorporation woth lndtar>a 

secretary of state adding two additional membets: 

Peter lePort and C. Bradley Thompson. 

~ C•nrury Foundatton ltc{.Otg 17 

The vatious campuses owned by CI:HI: earn revenue 

of about $200 million per year, largely from federal 

programs that are funded by U.S. taxpayers. The various 

schools run by CEHE have recently come under Ore. 

In 2014, the US. Department of Justice joined in • 

lawsuit agaonst Stevens·Henaget' College. alleging 

that the sd.ool was USing omprope< bonuses to pay in 

recruiters." In Dec,•mber 2014. Colorado officials !lH!d 

CollegeAmenca over rnisleadtng advertising. In June 

2015. several CollegcAmerica schools were placed on 

probation by their accredltor. based on concerns about 

low job place<'l'lent rates. And as of September 9. 

2015. the Department of Education considers CEHE's 

req_JeSt to be considered a nonprofrt an open case 

'lll'ldergoing substanbW review ·~ 

Is the S636 mill ton • loir price lor Barney's colleges? In 

response to a request for comment. a CEHE official 

told The Century Foundation that the amount was 

reviewed by an independent valuation consultant and 

that the pnor board of CEHE were not paid in the sale. 

Yet according to the organozat100's fmancial stat..,_ts. 

~bull: of the price. S419 mil5on. was not lew tangible 

assets. but mstead lor the colleges' supposedly valuable 

reputations (a<:countant.s apply the term ·goodwill" to 

the difference ~tween a businesss purcha<e price 

and the lair market value of the tangible assetS). In 

other words. Barney is ng paid and claiming a tax 

deduction for CEHE acquiring the reputattons of 

colleges that are «.Wl'ently the subjects of multiple 

govenvnent invelligattons. 

According to the organization's Form 990 for 2013, the 

eleven-member board of CEHE, only two of whom 

are uncompensated, paid Barney, the chairman of the 

board. more than $16 mtllion that year: $11,231.«4 of 

the p<~<chase price wtth interest S5.097,509 for property 

leases. and a small salary 
155 


22161A.129

SOURCE DOCUMENTS FOR 

CENTER FOR EXCELLENCE IN HIGHER 

EDUCATION 

• FtbNary201l fo<m 1023 and related materials[Application 

for Rtcognkion of Ex•mplion under Stc<ion 501 (cX3)] 

• 2012 Aodit Report 

• Amendment to tho Artocles of lllCO<J)O(otoon ol CEHE 

• 2012 Form 990 

• 2013 Form 990 

THE COST OF THE SUBTERFUGE 

Covert for·profit colleges cost the public by misleading 

consumers. dodging taxes, and evading regulations that 

apply to Education Department Anandal aid. Further, 

their actions, and the failure of the federal government 

to address the problem. seriously undermine the 

integrity of the system of oversight of colleges and 

universities. as well as of charitable organizations as a 

whole. 

Shortchanging Consumers 

Colleges empha.size that they are public or nonprofit 

because these labels mean something. The labels 

certify that everything the college does. including how 

it spends its money. is overseen by trustees who are 

not seeking personal financial gain. They are vouching 

for the institution. and they affirm that there are valid 

educational or other charitable purposes behind every 

penny spent by the institutron. 

Placing ultimate control of colleges in the hands 

of people who do not have a conRict of interest 

produces better overall outcomes for students and 

society. For·profit colleges charge higher prices to the 

neediest students. have higher dropout rates. yield 

lower earnings for their graduates. and their students 

have greater difficulty repaying their student loans. In 

addition. for·profit colleges divert much of their tuition 

revenue to profit and marketing rather than education. 

At more than nine out of ten nonprofit institutions. 

The Century Foundatoon lrcf.org 18 

the proportion of tuition revenue that is spent on 

instruction (actual teaching by faculty) is at least SO 

percent. The schools examined in this report all fall far 

below that mark. Herzing was the highest at 39 percent, 

with Everglades/Keiser at 31 percent. Remington at 31 

percent, ;~nd Carl Barney's schoors spending only 16 

percent of tuition revenue on instrucuon . .o 

Much of what matters most in education, however, 

is difficult if not impossible to quantify and measure 

because it involves the unknown potential futures 

of students. Colleges operate as nonprofit or public 

entities to prevent students' futures from being 

sacrif,ced to enrich an investor who wants a bigger. 

faster financial return. Operating as a nonproAt does 

not guarantee that students are treated well. but it 

increases their chances by eliminating owner and 

investor pressures. 

All four of the colleges in this report are using their 

claim to nonprofit status as a m;~rketing tool. Bot if they 

are not actually controlled by financially disinterested 

boards, then that layer of consumer protection is 

absent, and consumers are being misled. 

Hiding From Regulations 

As described earlier in this report, for·proAt colleges 

are allowed access to federal financial aid only under 

particular circumstances. 

First, for·proRt schools must meet a market test. 

demonstrating that a pO<tion of their revenue comes 

from somewhere other than federal aid. Even though 

this requirement has serious loopholes. many for·proAt 

colleges still come very d.ose to transgressing the 90 

percent limit on Department of Education revenue. so 

the threshold is a serious concern that could motivate 

schools to seek nonprofit status. And in fact. as noted 

earlier, Remington was quite open that the 90-10 rule 

was an impetus for seeking to be considered nonprofit. 
156 


22161A.130

Second. progr~ms at for-profit Institutions are elig1ble 

for Department of Education aid only if they are focused 

on training for a job. leading to gainful employment. 

They are not elig•ble to receive fede<al funding for 

programs that focus on less tang1ble beneRu. sud. 

as intellectual ervochment-only public and nonpofit 

institutions are trusted to receive publoc fund1ng to 

offer degrees involvong broader, less measurable goals. 

Covert for-prof•t colleges that obtain papCtWork 

idenr•fy.ng them u nonprofit institutions. yet fail to 

follow nonprofit govemance stJUctures, are evading 

these regulatory structures. 

The colleges e""'rined for this report have 1n recent 

years receiVed a total of more than half a b~loon dollars 

every year in Pelf Grants and students loans from the 

Department of Education. They also take In addiuonal 

funds from other fedNal and state agencies. as well as 

additional tuition payments from students and their 

families. 

If the colleges are not truly the nonpofit enMoes they 

claim to be. then rmny of these funds Me bemg clamed 

inappropnately. 

Evading Tu~cs 

While the consumer protection offered by non-owner 

control is the most critic.>l issue at play. there are two 

ways that tax laws trNt nonpo~ts diffe<ently from 

for-proGt entitoM One is that donabons to nonprof1ts 

can be deducted from the donor's income. reducing 

his incOfTl<> tax ~abthy ThiS is a gain that comes not to 

the college but to the indMduol making the donotionthough obviously the deductibility also helps the 

institution's fundraising. At least two of the conversions 

described in this r~ort involved transactions in wh1ch 

the purchasing nonpro~t gave the sellers credit for a 

"donated" por1ion of the sale price. If the deductions 

were taken by the sellers onvolved in the CEHE and 

Everglades transactions, the forgone fede<al income 

The Century FoundatiOn lrc{org 19 

tax revenue could total more than SIOO million. 

The other bcneAt afforded nonprofit insl1tutions 

is that their net income-revenue chey dec1de to 

hold for future charitable purposes-is not subject 

to corporate income taxes. If the entities examined 

for this report ult1mately have their nonpof1t status 

r~ed retroac:uvely. then they wil owe bilclc taxes 

on the net income for every year that nonprofit status 

was inappropriately claimed. Based on the tax returns 

examined for this report. this iabi~ ty could run into the 

hundreds of millions of dollars. 

WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN NOW 

Thefourexamplesofcovert for-profitcollegesexamoned 

in this report should be enough to suggest swift and 

decisive action by regulatory agencies. The potential 

for a Aood of conversoon efforts makes arrentior1 to this 

issue all the more urgent: As recently as June. a lawyer 

involved in CEHE's purchase of Carl Baoney's schools 

was being touted by h.s fum as an expert who can help 

other for-profot colleges avood regulations and taxes 

by convemng to nonpo6t statu<. With the ga.nful 

employment rule having t.Jlcen effect in July 2015. more 

for-profit colleges may search for a way to dodge the 

requirement rather than comply. Indeed. on an investor 

call in November 20t4, executives of one publicly 

traded company downplayed the coming regulations. 

explaining that they hod options available. includ1ng 

"organizational structural chang<'s. sud. a< mow>g to 

a nonproAt moclel. ... (W)e aurently have a nonprofit 

entity that could be used in such a transaction." 

What follows .:>re recommendatrons for both the IRS 

and the Department of Education. 

IRS Mon•to11ng and [nforccmcnt 

The problem of nadequate oversight of choritles by 

the Exempt Organizatoons DMsion of the IRS {caused 

on part by inadequate funding of the IRS) hos been a 

focus of conqressoonal attention and a recent report 
157 


22161A.131

by the Government Accountability Off1ce.'' Among 

other things. the IRS has committed to reRning its 

targeting of relliews of existing nonprofits so that the 

most sigrn~cant hazards are more likely to be addressed 

in a hmely fl>anf>ef. The plans do not go f .. enough. 

however, becau<@ tNy take into consideration only the 

IRS's prionties rather !han the interests of other federal 

agenc1es that rely on IRS determinations. The issue 

is not just about charities' assertions that donations 

will be tax deduct1ble. but also the cascade of events 

that follows such a determination: the publlc funding 

that will be going to the institutions. and students 

and fam.J,e, talang out srudent loans and comm0111ng 

time and energy to an education that is not what was 

advertised. 

Because the IRS handles tax document<, it Is 

particularly attuned to 1ssues of pflvacy. But the work 

of the Exempt Organizations Oillision is different 

because no11prof.t organizations are required to have 

some degree of transparency. Particularly when the taXexempt status of these O<ganizarions opens the doO< 

to federal fund1ng. the IRS should WO<k hand-.n-hand 

with the relev~nt federal agencres to make sure that ns 

determinations about organizations' nonprol1t starus 

are accurate, valid. and cunent. based on information 

available from all sources. 

Education Departfl'ent 

Moflltoring a 'd Enforceme~t 

It is problematrc that the Oep.vtment of Education 

has been relying solely on IRS letters to determine a 

college's el1gtb1l1ty fO< federal Ananc•alald. The agency's 

own regulations call for a more rigorous review. 

requiring colleges that wish to be treated as nonprofit 

to show. in addition to the IRS designation. that "no 

part of the net earningi of the school "benefits any 

priVate shareftolder or individu..l: and that the school 

is authonzed as a nonprofit instirution by dlCl states in 

whiCh rt operates. 

The Century ~ound•Mn lrrforg 20 

With this in mind, the secretary of education should 

immediately: 

Aggressively review recent nonprofit 

CC)(JVerslons to detennine regulatory 

compl.ance 

Place a moratorium on Department of 

Education approval of any additional institutions 

seek1ng to be treated as nonprofit. 

• Rewe the documentation and assertions 

required of rnstrtutions daiming nonprofit 

statu1. 

• Seclc the assistance of states and accred1tors 

to identrfy any instirutions that are claiming to 

be nonprofrt but may be operating In a manner 

that in.appropriotely benefits an individual or 

shareholder. 

Duinq the moratonum. the 0epartme<lt of Educahon 

and the IRS should develop a joint wor1: plan for 

the review of nonprofit institutions going forward 

The app~ca ion for access to federal aid (program 

participation agulcmcnt) should require alllnstirutioM 

to attest they arc in lull compliance wrth IRS and 

Department of Education rules regard1ng nonprofit 

operations. Internal conArcts of interest and changes in 

governance should be fully assessed before federalaod 

is made avaolable to an institution. Finaly. any proposed 

change of ownership 1nvolv1ng a nonprofit inslirution 

should be subject to publoc rev~ew pnor to approval by 

the department. 

It is dear that the 90- 10 rule. which applies only to 

for-profit coleges. 1S one reason that for-profit college 

owners are now <@eking w¥yS to doal: themselves as 

nonprofiL In addrbon to exam ning more closely any 

nonprofit CC)(!Vtrs.ons. the Department of Educaticrn 
158 


22161A.132

should also mon<tor fO<-proflt institutions relationsh<ps 

wuh scholarship ent<ties to prevent their ioappropnato 

use 1n the 90-10 calculations. If the 10 percent portion 

in the 90-10 rule is achieved wi1h funds controlled. 

dwecdy 0< ondirecdy. by the for·profit-sucn as clvough 

an affiloated nonprofit schol.mhip fund-then the 

maricet accountability mechanism is undermined. In 

addition. Congress may want to consider applying 

an 1mprovcd version of the 90-10 rule more broadly. 

Whila nonprofit and public institutions typically have 

far fewer than 90 percent of their students using federal 

aid. some do price some programs to take muomum 

advantage of the federal aid that is ava1lable. Requiring 

some mar1cet price accountability rn those sitwt<ons is 

WO<th consodenng. 

Long ... tO<m. the ~ent of Educatron should 

consodO< whether the determination of a Kl1oors 

elig<biloty os weR placed rn its current location at Federal 

Student Aid (FSA). FS..X. primary task is ope<ationol. 

processing m<lloons of FAFSAs and mil~on s of grant 

and loan payments. The role of policing schools m<ght 

be carried out more effectively if it was placed at an 

enforcen>ent entity. such as the Office of Inspector 

General. While care should be taken not to expect 

too much from mo-Ang organizational boxes. this may 

be 0<1e casoe where there could be real benefots. The 

Whte I louse might even consider the odea of 1.-.king 

the school e~gibil ty roles of w Departments of 

Education. Veterans Affairs. Defense, and Lilbcw. 

Robt>rl Sh~remdn is a seniO< fellow at The 

Century Foundation WO<king on educ.>tion pol1cy 

with • focus on fO<·proflt college accountability. 

quality assurance, and consumer protections. 

Notes s..c..-:.. .. He.l<h.E~ l.>boo . ...!Pen ..... u.ttdStt<u 

S....:.,fw ~/It H1f1o<- E~ n.. FW. .,~ r'o. Ftdt-tl 

'--...!£ .... .s..don<S.C.... !W""- D.C.. c.......- "'-'9 Olloct. J.ir to. X1'2~ h<,.,.lf-•qpo'l""fldo'f'll*9fCPRT· tUSPRI 7•1>l'A>df/CPRT·II2S:'RT1ml pdl 

,.......,c ........ ~s...r..c..Udov.,._~. 

T ~~ C""tury Founcat•on ltcf0<9 21 

~tpJfncon~qovlptcql!ml/CM(wdlotor.-e.IWI.t\~ KCftwd AufuR )l, 

XIIS. US. o.,-,... ol ~ "Obtmo ~ .. ..., Ttl;., 

-. .. .,..... ,.._... """ p,.o-y "-·""''"'""" c- Colegfl.' Mood> "· >OH. h<ll>/~-,._..'rnt>...._., 

~adnwlnc:r4ibOft·I~OCHt~~:ory-poot· 

~~~ 

• ,..~-~ "Th.~oiFoo.,..;.Colt~ ~1~ 

X>l~h<IP'/i'o·~om/<6xt>on/-/X>IS/Oll~ 

oll,.~- 0/. 

Tftt ttq._.f'MMI chit nonpro,f•ts ~~ rtthtt ~ ~uct pta#ts ~ 

\~ n • -nordew.bvt.on «1Mfi<W'IC.4 HtNy B. H.n~ '"The Rol• ol 

N., .. or. u,,.,,. .. : r• law Jox.no~89.""' s (t9tOJ an 90< • MicNci.Jcm.<"" 'Wq,tdi.o R..,.,.,. Antiy11s. How t Wild Coold Molle 

u 89 • v ... : Moo.•••"' .. blo<j. """Jf....,..,.,_.com/bloq/>011/ nnt~t""'-.ow·•rptr.k.<Wd-mi<e--2·8·bllon·ln·""'""""·'f'Vff1Vr/ ~1 

~iiOI\. Wlktmedl.l'~ Formm shows rtvt.nutof lAS million 

t l ltlmut K AJ~ ¥1<1 JercmyKe-hdtl ·rnnt end ..d!'"•~~~'VOt~~wbons: 

Thre. lf'lf0ftt1C411 t~PPOJCheL. 'NoMng P., s. Ce-ntre l01 CMI ~ 

ZOOO,Iottp.//'f" ntt..lsuo<J</29035/ 

Gl.oft C. Ab-...! Stu>• M. -· Thr Gl &l AN.., ON/"' ~ ... (Now r.n Odonl u.wc...ry "'•" >009) • Thrts-tSnA001&.<.<..0"o~Ccv1 ..... rhot~c.Ort.od 

• N......sc..lo{S....... •lSUS. 211{1911~,.....:"'-"'""' .. '""" ..~..,..f<JS{rl;~fw . ....... _ol_t"f( ... ....,_. 

oitl>tnA. ... -..51-........, 11<MdohoF.....t~_,m 

eo.c....... ·H..I'nJ-I'oo<.•bt 13,101\ .. ,.,.~""f'f''.comi 

--~....t-ch..b.n111)AThr - cw..-.. ~- Aa ol 19S9 d.Mtd .. ~ ......... ol"""" ................ ll>o< ... -"J-<M9•··~ 

"'-""""olr-·n..fobbcNIO.f-o£.....,_A«o{r9St. 

- law ... , .. US. S"""'" " W<Jl' n (S.,......,.. 1. tnt) hop II "'-'Jpo.g.,.(fd,.,./pl<JISTATUTE·n/pdf/STATUTE·n·PgtstOpdl 

11 Hghtr fdut.triM Atr of f9<SS. Pubk Lfw J9•Jl9, 89tf'l Coni). lit MU. 

(Go.emm<nr P,;.,,;ng Offic<. 196S). h<<r>•//bul<.o.,._...,g/gtop/"· V9/0000<IC6A p<f 

U Sore eke history incl.ldcd n cht p-oposed , ... don. O.pettn"f!'f'lt ol 

Ed"'.,""' ""'"""'" lnt"J"<r- GoMA Employ""'"' P.opo,.d : ft.dt,liRtglSit<79(S1) (2014)> 6< 26-0A~ ht<p /~JP'/fdsvs/~91 

FR·10".0l·2S!P<f/201<·06000<>dt 1' Robtrt ~"Bennett Asb CCJt'19'eU to Pvc Cutbt Of\ '£tp~o Wit~· 

FO<·P.olc S<hooh." &/u,.,,.. f'4K Fcbn.f')' 11, 1980. "-•o/1--.a..M 

<~''ll-/•oci<J/19tt{OlN/a><SOOl9Joo7Nml Md '-<'" C....:j .,. fd..c ...... -s..-1C. .. Abo.tts.Ooltobt<P.op1o<...,S<ftooj, ·~ 

£""'->""-... AF .... F.bnoooy IS.·-

Foo -· """"'•""" """" "" goO>U ...,..,.._ '*- ..hJ, tooltl'.<10ftJ.ir lQIS. ... ,.,., .. ~-o.....n.· -·1\oc.a S..0...S...! r...,.,... ....b.it N-o< JO lOIS I"VJ/ 

W'WWPfOCt<hb.Cenrund:~fff..Ot~eont~,._~)OIS/06/ 

~J<>lOIS·~pdl 

S... C""' Ecl.c.tdon C.,.,..oon........, ool ~ 6. XII', ,..4 Ror.t.l J. Htnscn. 'GCV Non~r Wodd a..« Now G.und, U..d> E..a." Ao.:r-~k..l......y26.XI S.h<Jv//w-_.,. otl«,,,.,ot""t/ 

rNn.-,/bvuneu/l01S/01/17/9Co.i-f't<>f'l·ptoflc· bru\o·new~'ound..,...lt:hrMU/l1'14U4J/ <bf> 10 T~•lly. •n entity 019""it~ lcwlf ~~ • nonpof•t tJndtt ,,_ , 1.tvw. ...d 

~h from tht IRS th. .d<lcW deoslqnMion ol be.ng • "t.-.f'(tmpf 

nonpro~t. ont NtIs noc s;ubjea to<Otporat• incO"''t lol)lts (bt<.;luw It wl 

b.t"""'*'dng Its Hrn.ng.tlnto c~¥ita0at P'•posel) ~oncht cypt 

of tRS "Pfl'rvt•L donors fnfY.I~ be .. to dt'Cl.ct tnt. conbbutlons from 

~.ontl ln<cme t.PH. 

I U.CFR 601.lOI(nXSXo) 

1 CFR 601.20t(nX•XQand (w'). 

.-. .. o..or,...._.~141T.C.1S1 "sTC.No.2(lOIJ~ 

«> US.~~OI'iot. r.~ ~· -~.-...dO.U...dMootc.Lbc._ .. i11Su!. 

~ ... - s.-g;- o-..tc"' a.....l>lo ~--· 
159 


22161A.133

o....w lO'•.Iap/fw-')'O'J"N/-.:610/WSfS, . """"-'•~"'""'""olrw S.~ol~ 

~.o...,._,..mii>.Oifuol~~>ou..o..-..y ... .Nn.• 101s. 

11 Corrm.n~ on H~ Cc:Lc.M-.on. Labor. .N ~m;on' lln•ted Sc•t.s 

S....e. F., A./< H.gh« Cduc"'""' l$ Rtvenvc .nd 90-10 ftg1.11e' wt'fe !)l'oWJtd by Htnln(,J Un~rtky Wt 

,.t.perue to • tequtoSt ro. conwnoent. 

,. Rid< Rom.t. ~ \.WYto"" "-""' • ...,.or. "'9'"'>•"""' - .J.x.rW.s..--1. J.ww,y ~ 201~ 1-Arv!/W'-~1 b-.,s "cu/htt:t""J•~"'"•''''Y'b«.onn,.•·r.orp•o'tl ·a tg•NJ•: ~· 

b994191S't1 ·11736SI Sl.hc1'fll 

Ltu..&omlodM_...O._oi.....__,.R.,..,.,...,.. 

Ro.,LO.W...S.,.e-t 20l~'"U. .... II>o ....... 

><> Gol* a..-.,.,.. 'A""""' Coa.g. Takes ll>t P..t. F...., "-Pool>tto 

Noo-,>ooRl' C'-klo o(l~ tducot_ ......... y 20. >on 17 ~e1tpan on&lue.tiOn Am•rk.i (RenN'I<Jton) In CornrniltN on H~th. 

Ed..,•don. !..boo. ... d p,,.....,_ Uoittd S"''"' s.n.. •. F., A~'lr H.g/o<• f<k•-

,, Sftdiscussiononp~~ge 96 ol dw~ fot ID1'wmpt \t.fNL 

n S.. ..-. Xl<l ol h St..,._. Ret.<...- S....... ·--.,. ,._,~..dA.n~.,~c.:«Pfi9"11S-foi~OI"'·s 

formiOU'<U'CC~~~ 

Th. ..... ...! ~ p.. ..,. . ..,. --c..· ol "-""l•oo Colleg... 

nc.. t"-~~pa.c. ert.lltt"' n. sole~ ~ w ... tnSt~s. 

o~w..q,t.. <Ht«M conool ol The St<j>h<M O...•.blo r .... s.. 009< 70 

ol R.mlnqton'• fo<m IOU 'Tt.. sot. .....W olrt.. Coloo;!o •• tloo .lotl<.on 

T s.,,_ h~lt>blt Tovst (ll>t 'Toun'). • S.C. 101 (tXl) "'9""'"""'' WY'f!f'l St~ a rntmbcf ol the So.trd, IS • ~•• o( .,d ~t«tWtty 

contrcl"rhe T""rt." 1· See JO"Of.otm 10)1 ~~:ott 1owet~t.~cdrw­

., .........,...,.. ~·~>'.#vir-...-. c- . s.s TCMn40(1969) 

S.. Slwlry """ w .... o< Roo.- Pol,<~ -.,, n 

·e...:u. .. c.n--.. N>ioc ...d l'>ivoce c.a.g... d.ubo<e"'.,.. 

The Ce"tury t:ound.uoon I tt{01g 22 

O.....lo o( /loJI« Ed.oc- (pr.-1). M,t.//dwo••du"""""'i>1« · 

201 ~· \t46 ~J24-J01.2...p'tqtt 

14 ·c.....,.......on ol Clo;of e-.. PIA>k c.._ >Ot~u: 

o-"""o(IWjwfidnt"'",.A.,.. ~>O ~AJ1 

" PM F..,. ·o...,.,..g p,.~,; liu~d. Jo#r 11. 2014. ht.,.J/ 

wwwm~•dth {lf,t l'd com/I'ICW$/201 <4/07/17/few·pto ts~h•v~· b«Ot,W · 

nQrl)!'Of•t~·dtsp•te-re<,p.JI.ltory.-~ 

~ 

10 (),;d llolpoo"' ~ o.,-.,...,. Sue< F.,-Poc/ic s....,... Co~o<Jo: H..ffww;oon A>u. Jon. 9. ,., •• (..,.l.ote4). http,,_, """""'..,...._"""cf.o,d.~.., justltt-dtpt•W<-h..sl202•t h<ml 

•x... ... ,........... ~ .. .....tbyCol...do/oGio.'~ 

•~ 1>KO<t1.. 0...... A>u. FO'b...., 17. lOIS. ~/i-"•"•~r­

.,.,..,,...,/tt.J>S••toJ,Ic~-.~...Ooo..fo.OQ~· 

Cr•de·pr.a!Ctt 

n l .cttrs ttl~N'Sed by d~e Acot,od.t-.no ~~on ol C.ccr Sdtoob 

...d CoftQO• Jon. 17.2015. I-A'P'Jfwww..cc.: .,9/Uplo.d~••/ 

c..,...,...,,,OAc....,/P~-u~>oo·•"'s.pO' 

Ros.Lo.t-o 

J9lA<t•&...T.dMO<hd....O.-«oyo/.Cuc.._ .. ~ 

S.M<I ... 2011 ............. by ...,,.._. "' "" "'9'...0 A>U.......dtoy 0... ~,., .... N.ooon.l c... .. "" ~ s...-.. The •rio- eft<-.! by toloog h........_, ~d -'9' ol 

indMdt.MI (f,.,UI <J.w ror efdt qroup Ql Uft1JUW'I. 

•I All Uf'ltol•cll:ed e-mM h-om • ~ Ar-.:J~ bw Am\ t.eftt ~o cht Repubk 

~rt (wk.ch htd writte, ~bout the tQJJC of COIWt'fsions of fOr 1)tO~t 

col~tt). A copy of cht e·mtl ~ •vfi~ ttt TCF cw6w: https;f,...,.,.,.. 

dtopbo• comfs/yyf0o4Jsyu<J fq1 8!/[m~ul"20sent!IC20to"20the"20 

~~.-.o. 

·c-.u.. ..... c""'._u~,-...,..,,.,,. 

.IUS ~~Of'.:o. ~....U..,.o.p....-.,.· 

14CfA600> 
160 

f 


22161A.134

The Honorable Danny Davis 

Rayburn House Office Building, Room: 2159 

Independence and 5. Capitol5t •• S.W. 

Washington. DC 20515 

Dear Representative Davis: 

I am writms to you on behalf of the U.S. Soccer Foundation, to request a meeting with you and your 

staff on Monday, March 14, 2016 for the Urban Soccer Symposium Hill Day. 

The U.S. Soccer Foundation was established In !994 and serves us the major charitable arm of soccer In 

the United States. The Foundation is a leader in sports-based youth development, using soocer as a 

vehicle for social change among youth in underserved communities. 

The participants from your district would appreciate the opportunity to discuss sports-based youth 

development programs they are using to improve the lives of at risk youth in Illinois. 

The following participants from your state arc expected to attend the meeting: 

Girls In the Game 

Alia Abdul· Sa mad 

Katherine Wajrowski 

We would be happy to accommodate your schedule for this meeting on Monday, March 14" between 

the hours of 9:30-lpm. 

Thank you In advance for your kind consideration of this request, and plea.se do not hesitate to contact 

me with any questions. 

Warmly, 

Broderick Johnson 
161 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Misuse of tax-exempt 

status for profit is very troublesome. A conversion allows hundreds 

of millions of taxpayer dollars from the Departments of Education, 

Defense, and Veteran Affairs to enhance the profit of a few at the 

taxpayers’ expense. We must protect students who are trying to get 

a high-quality, affordable education from this regulatory blind spot. 

Ms. Hill, let me ask you. There are two issues that I am familiar 

with that have recently arisen. One is the fact that Wheaton College in Illinois attempted to fire a Muslim professor after she 

posted on Facebook her belief that Christians and Muslims worshiped the same god. The other is at Valdosta State University, 

bound by free speech laws as a public school. They kicked out 30 

black students who silently attended a political event on campus. 

Where would you see these two incidents fitting into the discussion 

that we are having? 

Ms. HILL. I think these incidents—— 

Chairman ROSKAM. Will the gentleman yield just for the point 

of clarification? Just on one quick point? 

Mr. DAVIS. Mm-hmm. 

Chairman ROSKAM. In the Wheaton College case, it wasn’t a 

Muslim professor, it is a Christian professor who is making doctrinal statements. Just for the record. 

Ms. HILL. Yes, Mr. Davis. Your two examples, neither of which 

involve partisan campaigning, we agree, but there are other things 

that go on at universities which may be questionable and potentially not consistent with the operation of them as exempt entities. 

And the question in both of these cases, I think, is can either a faculty member or a whole group of students be severely sanctioned 

for exercising their own First Amendment rights? We do not lose 

our First Amendment rights because we attend private universities. We do not lose our First Amendment rights about whether 

we go to a political meeting. 

The question in both cases, in a tax sense, is is the university 

operating for an educational purpose? And when it seems that actions taken in retaliation are disproportionate—certainly in the 

case of the 30 black students or, I believe it was, a professor of religion who, yes, I believe was Christian, but was expressing solidarity with people of other faiths, says she believes that Muslims 

and Christians worship the same god. That sounds to me like 

something that a professor of religion will spend her professional 

time addressing, and you would expect it to be. 

So, in those cases, what we have here may be a misunderstanding of the core educational mission of the university, and expressing that misunderstanding through punishment of people who 

are not responsible and have no way of impacting the university. 

So what I think is going on here is the question are universities 

operating for an educational purpose, and there are many ways to 

be operating for something other than an educational purpose. Universities whose presidents are making $7 million when they have 

300 students, or examples not far from that, may have a private 

benefit and an inurement problem that has nothing to do with the 

political activity topic of today’s hearings. But inurement I bring up 

because that, too, is punishable by revocation of exempt status. 

162 

So, universities are big and complicated, and there are many, 

many important issues where completely innocent people are punished for innocent behavior. 

Chairman ROSKAM. Thank you. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROSKAM. Mr. Reed. 

Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Crowley, my fellow New Yorker, a true good friend of mine, 

asked the question as to—trying to distinguish Georgetown University’s public-private distinction, and I understand that. But the 

facts are the facts. Georgetown University gets a special designation by us, here in Congress, to get income, to accumulate income, 

on a tax-free basis. And the people that are donating to that institution under that basis get a tax deduction for doing that. So we 

do have a government role, even in those private institutions, in 

the sense that we have designated this special preference to those 

institutions, going forward. 

I would also note for the record that it took over 6 months for 

Georgetown University to take action here, and yet still has not updated its policy. And it actually took a formal letter from your organization, ma’am, I believe, to move the ball. 

So, to say that we don’t have a role here, I think, is disingenuous. I think we do have an appropriate role to ask these questions, and I encourage the Chairman to continue down this path. 

Now, we have heard a lot from the administrators, we have 

heard a lot from the academics on this panel. I want to focus on 

the students, because that is who I really care about in this exchange, the students and the impact that these administrators, 

these universities who may be abusing this authority they have on 

campus, have on the students. 

So, Mr. Atkins, you are a Bernie Sanders supporter. You feel the 

Bern. 

Mr. ATKINS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. REED. I am on the other side of the aisle. I don’t feel the 

Bern, but I respect your position, and I respect your right to have 

that position. 

So, as a student, I want to understand from your perspective. 

Take me back in time. As you were experiencing this from your institution, from Georgetown University, what was your impact? How 

did you feel? What did it make you do? Tell me. What impact did 

it have on you? 

Mr. ATKINS. So, like I said, for me, personally, Georgetown’s 

presence in the Nation’s capital was a big draw for me to come to 

law school at Georgetown. I have always been interested in politics, 

and I thought what better than to be able to study law in the political center of our country, and have as much exposure to politics 

while I am studying law as possible. 

So, this year, when classmates of mine and I decided that we 

wanted to support Senator Sanders’ campaign with the bit of extracurricular time that we had, we assumed that this would be activity that the school would appreciate, that its—— 

Mr. REED. Why did you assume that? 

Mr. ATKINS. Well, because the school makes clear in most of its 

promotional materials and in speeches given by administrators 

163 

that Georgetown’s presence in Washington, D.C. should be a draw 

to its students—— 

Mr. REED. To encourage free speech, to encourage the debate. 

That was your expectation in going to that college campus, correct? 

Mr. ATKINS. Precisely. 

Mr. REED. And when the university acted differently than that, 

that changed your interpretation, or your impression of that institution. Did it not? 

Mr. ATKINS. It did. And—— 

Mr. REED. And let me ask you—I don’t mean to cut you off, Mr. 

Atkins, but let me ask you another thing. As a student, did you 

have equal footing with the administrators, the president of the 

university? 

Did you think you could walk into the president’s office and say, 

‘‘Hey, you know what? I am an equal partner here, you are going 

to change your policy because I am a student and I have a right 

to be heard,’’ or did you feel any oppression from the administration, from the university, that, ‘‘You know what? I am taking on 

a pretty large, powerful group here that controls my future, controls my destiny,’’ because your grades are dependent on a lot of 

the people that are coming out of this program, right? 

Did that ever cross your mind as a concern that you may have, 

as a student? 

Mr. ATKINS. I don’t know if I would characterize it as feeling 

oppressed by the administration. I certainly felt an obligation to 

defer to the administration, and my group—— 

Mr. REED. Why? Why did you feel an obligation to defer to the 

administration? 

Mr. ATKINS. I mean, for the reasons you expressed, that, you 

know, I am reliant on the university’s good will, to a certain degree, for my professional goals. But also because I assumed that if 

they had policies in place that would limit our activities in this 

way, that there must be a well-thought-out and justifiable rationale 

behind them. 

So we did everything we could to kind of respectfully inquire as 

to what that rationale was so that if we—— 

Mr. REED. Did you find a rationale from them, in your opinion? 

Mr. ATKINS. I still don’t think we have found out exactly what 

the school’s motivation—— 

Mr. REED. And when is the Presidential election over for you? 

When is Mr. Sanders potentially coming to an end? 

Mr. ATKINS. When will he come to an end? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. REED. In this Presidential election. 

Mr. ATKINS. I don’t think we will know that for some time. Certainly not until the Democratic Convention in—— 

Mr. REED. Well, all the pundits—my point is what happened to 

all that time you lost. Are you going to get that back? Are you 

going to be able to advocate for Mr. Sanders, to go back in time? 

Is the Georgetown administration going to be able to do that for 

you? 

Mr. ATKINS. So we can’t go back in time, and I think there is 

definite evidence of the negative effect that this has had. 

164 

Just the other day I was speaking to one of my classmates, telling him about this testimony that I would be delivering today and 

what it was about, and he expressed grave concern because he 

said, ‘‘You know, I know tons of students that are curious about 

Bernie Sanders, but just don’t know a lot about him or his policies, 

and I think that if they did know they would be more interested 

and more open to accepting him and supporting his candidacy.’’ 

And so, he was expressing, you know, regret that us, as students 

who wanted to kind of fulfill that service on the campus, were unable to do so. 

Mr. REED. And you will never get that back. And with that I 

yield back. 

Chairman ROSKAM. Thank you. 

Mr. Rice. 

Mr. RICE. Mr. Atkins and Mr. Zuckerman, I just want to say 

thank you for standing up for your rights. The First Amendment 

is fundamental to the freedom of the United States. Nothing more 

fundamental than that. And thank you for standing up for your 

rights and protecting all of our freedom, and protecting our Constitution. 

Ms. Sevcenko, thank you so much for your fierce advocacy on behalf of the First Amendment. 

Mr. George, I want to turn to you. And you mentioned that you 

and your counterpart professor—I can’t recall his name—co-host 

classes. 

Mr. GEORGE. I am sorry, I am having difficulty hearing you. I 

wonder if you could move closer—thank you. 

Mr. RICE. You mentioned that you and your co-host professor— 

I can’t remember his name—— 

Mr. GEORGE. Cornel West, yes. 

Mr. RICE. Yes, Professor West co-hosts a class presenting alternate viewpoints and civility in doing that. And I think it would be 

great if you and Professor West could come here to Congress and 

teach a couple of those classes, and maybe we could figure out a 

way to get things done on problems that we mutually agree are 

problems, and work toward finding more solutions for that. 

But can you tell me what the danger is? What are the effects on 

society if we prevent free expression in universities? 

Mr. GEORGE. Well, Congressman, I go into this in some detail 

in my written testimony. Universities have a certain mission. It 

really has three parts. It is the discovery of knowledge, or the creation of knowledge; the preservation of knowledge once it has been 

securely obtained; and then the transmission of knowledge. That is 

what we do with our students, we try to transmit knowledge to our 

students. 

We believe that is a sacred mission, because it is so important 

to the well-being of human beings and to the communities that 

human beings form, including nations. If you want to be a great 

Nation, you are going to have to have a well-educated people. 

James Madison said, ‘‘Only a well-educated people can permanently be a free people,’’ and he is absolutely right about that. 

The trouble with stifling speech on campuses is not only that it 

is unfair, not only that it is a violation of our precious First 

Amendment in some cases, where the First Amendment does diVerDate Sep 11 2014 09:25 Mar 02, 2017 Jkt 022161 PO 00000 Frm 00168 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\WAYSPS\22161\22161.XXX 22161
165 

rectly apply. It is also that it completely undermines the mission 

of the university. It makes learning impossible. It transforms education into indoctrination. And then we all lose. Not only our students, who are deprived of a true education, but also the entire 

community, the entire Nation, because we do not get the benefit of 

a truly educated citizenry. 

Mr. RICE. I appreciate that very educated and informed answer, 

and you have just convinced me that you all need to have a class 

here for congressmen. 

Ms. Hill, you know, clearly, we have to do whatever we can to 

protect the First Amendment on university campuses. The flip side 

of that coin is I can understand how administrators may be confused, because, as you said, there are limits on free speech. Right? 

It can’t go to the point of harassment, correct? And certainly you 

can’t yell fire in a crowded theater, and those other examples. 

And then the consequence of losing your tax-exempt status is terrible. So how do we correct this problem? How do we clear up the 

confusion and correct this problem, so we don’t face this anymore? 

What would you suggest? 

Ms. HILL. Congressman Rice, I share your concern about the ongoing and difficult problems posed by reconciling compliance with 

reasonable laws and the search for greater liberty. That is really 

what we are talking about. That is what the First Amendment is 

there to do. 

And I have been much struck and often assign to my classes Justice Souter’s remarks at a recent Harvard graduation available in 

the Harvard Law Review on trying to reconcile the competing demands and competing promises of the Preamble to the Constitution, ‘‘We the people of the United States, in order to form a more 

perfect union, secure the national defense, secure liberty, provide 

for the general welfare,’’ et cetera, ‘‘do ordain and establish this 

Constitution.’’ Justice Souter points out there are inherent conflicts 

among the values, and that is what democracy is there for. 

Now, in universities, I do believe that a commitment to open expression is absolutely fundamental. But I do not believe that we 

have to open our universities up to have its resources co-opted by 

people with private agendas. And I believe, with all due respect, 

that campaigning for public office should not just be a reason to 

use university resources willy nilly, especially by the people who 

can make it seem as though the university is complicit in this. 

Now, my husband has run for office. I have been a political wife. 

I understand about campaigning and about the feeling that America would have been a better place, surely, if my husband had won 

that election. But I also understand that that campaign should 

have been, as it was, funded by its own contributors, and not by 

the resources of the universities in that particular district. 

And so, I am convinced that a rational interpretation of the prohibition on political activity and the direct and indirect private benefit that can go with this to candidates and political parties is a 

rational policy, but I am not convinced that it has anything to do 

with students handing out leaflets for candidates. 

Chairman ROSKAM. Thank you. 

Mr. Kelly. 

166 

Mr. KELLY. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you for allowing 

me to participate today. I really am concerned with Mr. Atkins and 

Mr. Zuckerman. 

And Professor, when you were talking you referenced Judge 

Learned Hand. And I am going to read something, because I think 

this goes to the very essence of what the meeting is about today. 

And I know you know what I am talking about. It goes to a speech 

that was given in 1944 by the judge, and it is called, ‘‘I Am an 

American Day.’’ This is what the judge said: ‘‘What do we mean 

when we say that, first of all, we seek liberty? I often wonder 

whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, 

upon laws, and upon courts. These are false hopes. Believe me, 

these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women. 

When it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it. 

No constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. 

While it lies there, it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save 

it.’’ 

Isn’t it stunning that you have to come, Mr. Zuckerman and Mr. 

Atkins, to Congress? Your right to free speech, whether I agree 

with what you say or whether I don’t agree with what you say, that 

is the beauty of who we are, as Americans. That goes to the very 

fabric of what this country was founded on. And especially in our 

universities. But we can censor you when it comes to funding. And 

by tax laws and by codes we can make it impossible for you to have 

that free discourse, to have that disagreement, to have that argument out in the open. 

So I think it is really important that the people that are sitting 

here today understand that we listen to the people. We represent 

the people. In my district, 705,687 Americans sent me here—or at 

least a portion of them—to represent them. 

Mr. Zuckerman, how did this affect you? Because when we do attack you at the very base of who you are and what you believe and 

what we believe in as Americans, how does that leave you feeling 

at the end of the day? 

Mr. ZUCKERMAN. Well, frankly, I just think it is completely 

unacceptable for any university—especially public, legally. But 

from a moral perspective, it is unacceptable that any university 

would attempt to either censor its students—that is why we are 

there, to discuss, to learn, to listen to others’ ideas, scrutinize our 

own—and for any university to shut that down or to try to impose 

orthodoxies that would pressure us into remaining silent is just not 

a good use of the—it is not a good use of the university’s trust. It 

is betraying our trust in them. 

Mr. KELLY. Yes. So I—my real point is you should never be limited. You should never, ever feel that you don’t have the ability to 

do this, and to speak out, especially on a university campus, especially in the United States of America. 

So, Mr. Atkins, you’re feeling—at Georgetown University, when 

you—when they play this run-out-the-clock on you, what is your 

feeling now, as an American citizen? How were you treated? Was 

this really the America that you believed in? Is this really the 

America that you want to defend? Is this really the America that 

you want to live in and raise your children in? And is this really 

167 

the America that at one point four million people in uniform died 

to preserve? 

Mr. ATKINS. I think there is an unfortunate kind of American 

cliche that has arisen that, you know, there is only two things you 

don’t talk about: religion and politics. And I think that many of 

these policies are perhaps related to that sort of cultural norm, 

which I think is incredibly unfortunate, and goes against what the 

country was founded on. 

So in the case of my experience, you know, what was most troubling to me is I can certainly understand confusion as to what 

501(c)(3) would obligate Georgetown to do. I can understand being 

risk adverse, and being concerned about retaining that tax exemption so that they could fulfill the entirety of their mission. 

But what was concerning to me is I didn’t get a sense from the 

administration that they were concerned about how this affected 

our rights to engage in very valuable political expression. And it 

was that that kind of struck me and made me concerned about why 

wouldn’t the university want to help us to engage in this type of 

activity. 

Mr. KELLY. Well, I want to congratulate both of you for standing up. And I think it is absolutely chilling that we have to have 

this kind of a hearing to expose what is going on. 

And I think, when I look back on my college days, that if we ever 

were suppressed, or not able to express the way we felt, you would 

have to go to the very depths of who it is we are, as a people. Because we can, through government, suppress. We can censor. We 

can do almost anything to you we want, and yet hold these high, 

high things that we—these are great things about America. 

We know that, enshrined in the very Bill of Rights—the very 

first amendment to the Bill of Rights allows us to have free speech. 

What you had to go through is absolutely ridiculous. And I don’t 

care what college it is, private or public. All of these folks are influenced in some way or another by the Tax Code. So I don’t want 

anybody ever to be confused about why we would hold this today. 

If not us, who? Who would hear you? Who would stand up for you? 

Who would defend you in the public place? 

You both do great work. And while we may not share the same 

opinions, I will tell you what. We share the same love of country, 

and the same commitment that if it is not us, if it is not our generation right now, who is it that is going to defend it in the future? 

So I thank you so much. 

And Chairman, thank you so much for allowing me to be here 

today. This is absolutely the most timely thing we can do because 

we are being chopped off at the knees, and so many opportunities 

we have to express ourselves in free speech. 

So, all of you on the panel, thanks so much. 

Professor George, it is good to see you. But I—when you said 

that about Judge Hand, that sparked in my memory what I had 

heard one time, and I read it, and I said, ‘‘My gosh, this comes to 

it.’’ When it dies in our hearts, when it dies in who we are, when 

it is no longer the fabric of who America is, then we are no longer 

America. So you can forget the red, white, and the blue, and all the 

things that we talk about all the time. If we can’t defend who we 

168 

are, if we can’t protect the freedom of speech, then we have no 

business serving in this House. 

So I thank you so much and—— 

Chairman ROSKAM. Thank you. 

Mr. KELLY. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman ROSKAM. Thank you, Mr. Kelly. Thank you to the 

witnesses. I just have a couple of points and a couple of questions, 

actually. 

One point is it is interesting. The House of Representatives has 

rules to protect itself from being marginalized. In other words, 

when we go to the House floor and we debate, I am able, under the 

House rules, if time is allotted to me, to make my points. I am protected from someone impugning bad motives to me when I make 

my points, regardless of the points that I make. House rules prohibit someone from questioning my motives. And if they do question my motives, I have the right to ‘‘have their words taken down.’’ 

That is a very compelling thing. 

So we have, in the House of Representatives—it is rough and 

tumble and sharp-elbowed and all that sort of stuff, but we have 

in the House of Representatives, by rules, those sorts of things, Mr. 

Zuckerman, that you are trying to create, that you have been successful in creating on Princeton campus. That is the capacity to go 

back and forth. 

Mr. Atkins, I am just impressed by your capacity to spot an issue 

and to spot an issue early and not be intimidated and not be put 

off. And I was reading your email exchange back and forth with 

Georgetown Law, and you did it twice. You were like a dog with 

a bone. You saw it and you stuck with it. You said, ‘‘It seems that 

the rules and guidance pertain almost entirely to the institution 

itself and its faculty and staff.’’ That is your reply back to Georgetown Law when they were stiff-arming you. And then you did it— 

some time later you said, ‘‘We are interested in exploring reasonable ways that we, as students, can permissibly engage in conduct 

which the institution itself is proscribed from.’’ Great insight. 

Now, here is the point. This is Georgetown Law School. This is 

what Mr. Crowley has described, and I think everybody would, this 

preeminent institution. And if they are blind to it, and it takes a 

law student to say, ‘‘I don’t know, this sure doesn’t seem right,’’ we 

have a problem. 

I mean, Professor Hill, you made the point that this is pretty 

clear. You know, there has been a lot of either private letter rulings or other things, and a lot of guidance. 

But for some reason this is not penetrating down. And there is 

a lot of reasons for it, probably. Some of them—institutions tend 

to be risk-adverse. They think Mr. Atkins is going to go away. They 

think Mr. Zuckerman is going to run out of steam and graduate 

and so forth. But that is the responsibility of this Committee, to 

make sure that we are doing the things that we do, number one, 

to educate, number two, to make sure we are holding these schools 

to a high standard, and number three, trying to create an environment where people can discuss. 

Now, Professor George, I have a question for you. What happens, 

or what is university life like, or what can it be like if it dissolves 

into—if it devolves into political correctness, the type of political 

169 

correctness where faculty is intimidated, students are intimidated, 

and it is not an environment where you are free to think? Can you 

just give me a sense—and you mentioned it a minute ago—when 

political correctness one way or the other becomes—moves from— 

moves into indoctrination? 

In other words, ‘‘You don’t think the right way and you are not 

welcome here. And if you choose to think that way, you can keep 

your thoughts to yourself.’’ What is that, if that becomes sort of the 

norm on college campuses today? What does that look like for us? 

Mr. GEORGE. Well, what happens is that education just ceases 

to take place. And instead, you get indoctrination. So the new students coming in are taught that there is a party line. They are 

taught not only formally, by—but informally. The culture that has 

been created communicates to them the idea that there is a party 

line, it is your job to believe it, it is not your job to question it, get 

on board with the program. It is absolutely inconsistent with education. 

For some of the reasons that Mr. Kelly articulated when he 

quoted from that wonderful speech by Learned Hand, what Hand 

is getting at there is the idea that the culture matters, the underlying culture really is determinative of the health of an institution. 

And that applies to an academic institution, as much as it does to 

other institutions. 

To educate a student you need to challenge that student’s ideas, 

challenge the ideas of students who are on the other side, encourage the student to challenge your ideas and beliefs, and create 

what philosophers call a dialectic, an argument that goes back and 

forth, not with one side necessarily trying to defeat the other and 

win, but with both sides trying to understand more deeply what 

the truth of the matter is. Knowledge-seeking, wisdom-seeking, 

that is what it is all about. 

And, as Hand pointed out, you cannot engage in that if you are 

so convinced that there is no possibility that you could ever be 

wrong that you are not listening. 

Chairman ROSKAM. So I think it is important for us to make 

a connection. And it didn’t occur to me until I was listening to all 

of you discuss your experiences and your insights. 

I think it is important for us to understand the relationship between Mr. Atkins’ experience—that is, you know, they basically 

patted him on the head and said, ‘‘How nice for you, but you are 

not going to distribute your candidate’s literature here,’’ make that 

connection, which is sort of condescending and an attempt to 

marginalize within the culture, all the way over to political correctness that becomes indoctrination. Some would say, oh, that is too 

big of a leap, you are overstating. I don’t think we are overstating. 

I don’t think we are making it too big of a leap. 

Mr. Zuckerman, one of the things that it seems to me you are 

an example of, whether you are articulating it this way or not, is 

you see the danger of the flashpoint of political correctness that becomes overwhelming and destructive to campus life. Can you just 

highlight a little bit? 

Am I getting this right? Do you see a relationship? Or am I overstating this, or—— 

170 

Mr. ZUCKERMAN. No, I would say you are absolutely getting it 

right. Some of the demands that have been made at Princeton 

would basically institutionalize this political correctness. We will 

take the example of a demand for a mandatory class in the studies 

of marginalized people. So that brings up the first question of who 

counts as marginalized. Presumably, the protesters, they have said 

the example of marginalized people would be either African Americans or the LGBT community. 

Now, are they actually marginalized? Many of my African American friends say, ‘‘No, we are not marginalized.’’ Many of my LGBT 

friends also don’t think they are marginalized. But the university 

would be taking this notion of marginalization, forcing it on students who disagree with it, and those students, presumably, when 

they would voice their disagreement in class, are going to be 

mocked for countering the official university narrative, or probably 

going to be graded down by their professors, simply because they 

are rebutting the central premise of the class, which is this is 

marginalization. When you say no you are going to suffer the consequences, and that is very destructive to the flow of ideas. 

Chairman ROSKAM. You know, it seems—I am sitting here with 

Ranking Member Lewis. And you, who are students, you may not 

know his journey, but it is a fascinating one. And he has an autobiography that I commend to you. 

But it seems to me that his background of taking on a politicallycorrect situation decades ago was transformational for all of us. 

And we have to make sure that that capacity, in that sense, taking 

on a racist system, was absolutely transformational, and he had 

the capacity to do that, and to break boundaries and to make 

America better for everybody. We have to protect that, because you 

can imagine how this can become so debilitating. 

Let me give you an example. It is known to me that a student 

was in a university setting recently, and had a discussion. And the 

question was, ‘‘Who is privileged?’’ You can imagine this today, in 

this general milieu. ‘‘Who is privileged?’’ And after listening to the 

discussion, the student made this point. ‘‘Hey, we are American college kids. We are all privileged.’’ It was a scandal, basically, that 

this student asserted this in the classroom. 

And the student was made—you know, pointed out, ‘‘Look, I am 

aware of orphanages overseas where kids aren’t eating on the 

weekends. That is the standard. We need to operate on a global 

standard. By definition, we are all privileged. We are American college kids.’’ And the student was marginalized, and the professor 

didn’t protect the student, and so forth. And it became this absurd 

sort of thing where to make that sort of argument the student was 

accused of being insensitive and, ‘‘You don’t understand,’’ and so 

forth. And I think that if we have a situation where our college life 

devolves into that, that is just not helpful. And it is something that 

we need to inquire about, it is something that we need to highlight. 

And this notion of academic freedom, and freedom of speech on 

college campuses is really something to celebrate. It is something 

to defend, because there is something in it for all of us. There 

really is something in it for all of us. 

So, on behalf of our whole Subcommittee, I just want to thank 

each one of you for your willingness to come forward and to share 

171 

your perspectives with us. For those that are listening or watching 

and have a story that they want the Committee to know about, you 

can just send us an email at, campus.speech@mail.house.gov. And with that, we are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:42 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Submissions for the Record follow:] 

172 


22161A.135

AlLIANCE D(HNOINC 

FREEDOM 

March 16, 2016 

VIAEMAH. 

l11e Honorable Peter Roskam 

Ranking Member Jolut Lewis 

Chainuan. Subcommittee on Oversight 

~louse Conunittec on \\fays and Means 

1102 Longwo11h HOB 

Washington, DC 20515 

waysandmeans.submissions@mail.house.gov 

Re: \\'ritten submission for the record for the Oversight Subcommittee's Rearing on 

"Protecting the Free Exchange or Ideas on College Campuses" on March 2, 2016 

Dear Chairman Roskam and Ranking Member Lewis: 

TI1ank you for holding a hearing on protecting. the free exchange of ideas on coJiege 

campuses. As Director of the Alliance Defending Freedom Center for Ac~1de nic Freedom, 1 howe 

worked for over a decade to ensure that religious and conse•vative students and facuhy on 

college campuses may exercise their rights to speak> associate, and leam on an equal basis with 

all other students aud faculty. 

Fow•ded iu 1994, Alliance Defending Freedom ("ADF') is a non-profit, public interest 

legal organization that provides strategic plarming. training, ftmding. and d.ircct litigation 

services to procc<:t our fu·s1 constitutional liberty- religious Jiecdom. ADF's Center for 

Academic Freedom has litigated many grouudbrcakiug studcut aud faculty speech cases' In 

fact, since AOF latmcbed the Center for Academic Freedom iu 2006, we have litigated aud won 

over sixty-four cases and successfully resolved over 200 legal matters iuvolving students and 

faculty from all fifty states. While auti-speech policies have been used to violate the 1ights of 

students and st-udent groups fiom a wide variety of views, pro-life student Sp(."Ceb is increasingly 

singled out for discriu:lluation and cc SOI~hip. 

University speech codes- policies that prohibit speech the Constitution clearly protects -

enable adtlliuistrators to silence political and religious speech based on tltc subjective reaction of 

listeners. h1 April and May 2014, Abolitionists4Life, a registered swdcut organization at Boise 

1 See. e..g .• OSU Student Alliance''· Ray. 699 F'.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 20 12) (invalidating prior restraint on student 

speech); Adams''· in. ofUui,•. ofN.C.-f,i/mingtoll, 640 F.Jd 550(4Lh Cir. 2011)(findingretaliatiOIUgainSJ 

professor for hissptech)~ Badger Catholic\•. Walsh. 620 f.Jd 175 (71b Cir. 20 10) (finding Sludenl activity ftes 

discrimination): f)e.Jolm \', Temple Utti,•., 537 f .3d 30 1 (3d Cir. 2008) (enjoining. campus $perth code). 

10 1 PartsiiOft Ollvt_ Su itt 100 Folsom (A 9$630 Pllont tOO 83$ 5133 All•anuOtltn 111 nof 'ucoa _ 010 
173 


22161A.136

Chainuan Roskam and Ranking Member Lewis 

March 16.2016 

State Unjversity hosted two events in the main quadnmgle of campus. The events included Ayers 

and signs advocating a pro-life message. But mllvcrsity ad.Iuiuistrators decided that some of the 

material was controversial. and so they required Abolitionists4Life to place "waming signs'' 

arOtmd Ute events to prevent tltcm fi·om lriggcring negative emotive responses iu studcul's. 

Driving the administrators ~ decision was a Boise State po1icy that authorized the Vice President 

of StudeJll Affairs " to require a slUdeut organization or individual to utilize reasonable methods 

to allow the public a choice about viewpoint [sic] or receiving certain materials that rnay not be 

suitable for a general audie1tee.''2 The university eventually settled the case out of court and 

removed the po1icy that enabled the administrators' actions. 

(o addition to regulating what students and facu1ty may say through unconstitutional 

speech codes, many universities also regulate where students may speak on campus, limiting 

their expression to incredibly small zones .. For example, during 1he 2013-20 l 4 academ.ic year, 

Students for Life USA, a student organization a t the University of South Alabama, sought to 

temporarily place a "cemetery of innocents'' on campus to memorialize children lost to abortion.

3 

Altltougb similar displays by other groups were penuincd. the university refused to allow 

ShJdents for Life to hold the event in its desired locarion, a park-like area of campus, and instead 

dirccled it co use the official speech zone. Adm.iuisu·ators did this because university policy 

closed most of the outdoor areas of campus to free expression. except for the speech zone. which 

consisled of less than 0.1% of campus. \Vbilc the group's case is ongoing. university speech 

zones are a common problem throughout the countl)', despi1e the fact that they are regularly 

suuck down as mtcoustinuioua.l.4 

Uu.ivcrsicics also impose cx.ct.>Ssivc fees on student speech deemed <'controversial.., In 

2013, UB Studems for Life, a registered student organization at the University at Buffulo, held a 

debate on 1he morality of abonion. Because some students opposed the event and posted 

negative COilllllentary on social wcdia. the university required security guards for the event. Even 

though the debMe was a success and the security guards were unnecessaty. after the event the 

1 Abolitionists4Life v. Kustra. No. 14-cv-257 (D. Idaho). Complaiu1 Ex. 5 a1 050. awJilable at 

bttp:/lwww.adfinedia.orglfilesfAbolitionists4lifeSuit.pdf. 

J U11i\'. oj$o111hAiabama restriCt$ 'coutro,•ersinl s~ch, 'AOf. Aug. 25, 2014, at 

hnp://www.adfnledia.org/News!PRJ)etaill928 1 . 

.. Setr. e.g .. Hays C"'Y· Guardian, .. Supple. 969 F.2d I J I. J 17 (5th Cir. 1992)( .. The lSoutb.west Texas State 

Univusity] campus·s nu1c1ion as l.be s.ite of a conuuunity of fhtl-time residents . . . suggesrs an intended role more: 

akin 10 a public strttt or park than a non-public fonun."); Roberzs , .. Haragan. 346 f . SupJ'· 2d SS3. 861 (N.O. rex. 

2004) findin~ ··part art&$, sidew·alks. tr~rs. or other similar common areas- ofiexas iccb University 10 be: public 

fonuns ~Tt peclive ofwhetber lhe University bas so desigMted them or no1 .")~ Pro-Lift: Cougan , •. Unil'. of Ho11$ .• 

259 f. Supp. 2d S7S. 582 ($.0 . Tex. 2003) (findin.g university pounds ar~ Jntblk fora designated for studel)l 

speech): Kl•odemi , .• S. Or011ge Cnty. Cmty. Coli. DiM .. 194 F. Supp. 2d 1011. 1024 (C.O. cat 2002)(finding "no 

doubt" t11a1 the ":generally available" areas of a communiry college campus arc public fora as lhey are open to the 

public): Unil·. ofCindnt~oti Chapter of Young A.m. for Libtrl)' , .. Willitmls. No. I: 12-cv.JSS. "2012 \VL 2160969. al 

•s (S.D. Ohio June 12. 20 12) (bolding ~miversil)' "interior sidewalks and public ex1crior sp3ces" arc designated 

public fora for students). 

2 
174 


22161A.137

Chainnan Roskam and Ranking Member Lewis 

March 16,2016 

tmiversity required the group to pay nearly $650 in security fees. 5 University policy enabled 

these fees for any event deemed subjectively «controversial" by university staff. The students 

sued the university in federal comt, alleging that the imposition of security fees was viewpoint 

discrimination, and the case settled with the university refimding the security fees and removing 

the tmconstitutional pmtion of the security fee policy. 

University-imposed financial burdens stifle student expression in another way too. 

Despite the fact that the United States Supreme Comt ruled twice that mandatmy student activity 

fees must be allocated to student group activities on a viewpoint neutral basis,6 student groups 

continue to suffer discrimination for religious or politically-conservative speech.

7 In Febmaty 

2013 , Eastem Michigan University denied student fee fimding to a Sh1dents for Life group that 

sought to bring a display about abortion to campus. 8 University officials made the decision based 

on the group's «political or ideological" views, and despite the fact that the university previously 

ftmded events discussing welfare programs, women's and abmtion rights, student activist 

training, and race-conscious issues among other things. After Sh1dents for Life filed a federal 

lawsuit, the tmiversity settled by fimding the group's event and changing the offending policy. 

Finally, pro-life student groups are not the only recipients of discriminatory treatment 

and censorship on college campuses. ADF has represented many types of students and student 

groups advocating religious and political ideas. In fact, ten years ago today, ADF filed a federal 

lawsuit on behalf of two Georgia Instih1te of Technology sh1dents, Ruth Malhotra and Orit 

Kwasman (Sklar).9 Their expetience at Georgia Tech was maned by censorship of their 

conservative political views, discriminatmy exclusion from the Institute 's mandatmy student fee 

fimding programs, restriction of their speech to one small amphitheatre on campus, and explicit 

hostility to their Christian and Jewish beliefs about maniage and sexuality. 

Mss. Malhotra and Kwasman eventually won their case against Georgia Tech and have 

gone on to become active members in our nation's political dialogue. But in the ten years since 

their case was filed, ADF has seen an increase in the hostility to free expression on campus. 

Look no further than the student-led requests for censorship at Yale and University of Missmrri 

last fall. It is our fear that far too many sh1dents will not bravely stand up for their free speech 

rights as Sh1dents for Life and Mss. Malhotra and Kwasman have done. And our nation will 

5 Joshua Rhett Miller, University at Buffalo charged pro-life student group $650 in 'unconstitutional fees, ' lawsuit 

alleges, Fox News, July 2, 2013, at http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/02/university-buffalo-charged-pro-lifestudent-group-650-in-unconstitutional-fees.html. 

6 Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Wis. Sys. v. Southworth, 529 U.S. 217 (2000); Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors ofUniv. 

ofVa., 515 U.S. 819, 828 (1995). 

7 Badger Catholic v. Walsh , 620 F.3d 775 (7th Cir. 2010). 

8 Katrease Stafford, EMU settles lawsuit with student group after fimding denial for anti-abortion exhibit, MLive, 

Nov. 21 , 2013, at http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/index.ssf/2013/ll/emu _settles _lawsuit_ with _shtde. html. 

9 Robert Shibley, Georgia Tech Ordered to Pay $203, 7 34.14 for Violating Students' Rights, FIRE, Dec. 30, 2008. 
175 

f 


22161A.138

Cbainuan Roskam and Ranking Member lewis 

March 16, 2016 

suffer as a resuh, for what happens oo campus does not stay on can1pus. Sh1rlents who 

matriculate tutder policies of censorship today will import those ideas into om· society tomorrow. 

Free exprcssiou is in danger ou Amcrica s college campuses. It is time to rcs10re the 

"m .. 1rketplace of ideas•· and remove ban·iers to free potitical and religions expression. TI1ank you 

for holding this imporranl hearing. 

Very rmly yom-s, 

David J. Hacker 

Senior Counsel 

Direcror ofCcnlcr for Academic freedom 

AJ..llANCE DEFENDING FREEOOM 

4 
176 


22161A.139

The Honorable Peter Roskam 

Chairman, Subconun illee on Oversight 

The Honorable Jolm Lewis 

March 16, 2016 

Ranking Member, Subcomminee on Oversight 

House Conm1il!ee on Ways and Means 

1102 Longworth HOB 

Washington D.C. 20515 

Re: Wrinen statement of the Christian Legal Society for the printed record for the 

Oversight Subcommittee's Hearing on "Protecting the Free Exchange ofldeas on College 

Campuses," held on March 2, 2016 

Dear Chairman Roskam and Ranking Member Lewis: 

Thank you for holding a hearing on this most inlportant topic regarding the need to protect 

the free exchange of ideas on college campuses. The Christian Legal Society submits this written 

statement for the printed record of the hearing. As Director of the Center for Law & Religious 

Freedom of the Christian Legal Society, I have worked to protect sntdents' right to meet for 

religious speech on college campuses for nearly thirty-five years. During that time religious 

sntdent groups have been the subject of ongoing discrimination by college officials who oppose the 

free flow of religious ideas on campus. 

The Christian Legal Society (CLS) has long believed that pluralism is essential to a free 

society and prospers only when the First Amendment rights of all Americans are protected, 

regardless of the current popularity of their speech or religious beliefs. For that reason, CLS was 

instrmnental in the bipartisan passage of the Equal Access Act of 1984, 20 U.S.C. §§ 

407 1-4074, that protects the right of a ll students to meet for " religious, political, 

philosophical or o ther" speech on public secondary school campuses. See, e.g., Bd. of 

Ed11c. v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226 (1990) (EAA protects religious students); Straights and Gays for 

Eq11ality v. Osseo Sch. No. 279, 540 F.3d 911 (8~' Cir. 2008) (EAA protects LGBTstudents). 

CLS is an association of Christian attorneys, Jaw students, and law professors, with sntdent 

chapters at approximately 90 public and private law schools. CLS law student chapters typically 

are small groups of st1tdents who meet for weekly prayer. Bible study, and worship at a time and 

place convenient to the sntdents. All students are welcome at CLS meetings. As Christian groups 

have done for nearly two milletmia, CLS requires its leaders to agree with a statement of faith, 

signifYing agreement with the traditional Christian beliefs that define CLS. For that reason, for 

two decades, CLS student chapters have frequently been threatened with exclusion from campus 

because they require their leaders to be Christians. 
177 


22161A.140

Bt·ief ovet·view of the p•·oblem: From the 1970s to the mid-1990s, the Establishment Clause was 

used by some university administrators to justify discriminatory treatment of religious sntdent 

groups. But after the Supreme Court removed the Establishment Clause as a credible justification 

for excluding religious groups in Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263 (198 1 ), and Rosenberger v. 

University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819 (1995), some university administrators ntmed to university 

nondiscrimination policies as the new tool for opposing religious groups on campus. Begilllling in 

the early 1990s, religious student groups, including CLS sntdent chapters, began to encounter some 

university administrators who misused nondiscrimination policies to exclude religious sntdent 

groups from campus, simply because they required their leaders to agree with their religious 

beliefs. 

It is common sense and basic religious liberty - not discrimination - for religious groups to 

expect their leaders to share their religious beliefs. Nondiscrimination policies are good and 

essential. Nondiscrimination policies are intended to protect religious sntdents, not prohibit them 

from campus. The problem is not with the nondiscrimination policies. The problem is that colleges 

misinte1pret and misuse these policies to exclude religious sntdent groups from campus. Ln the 

name of " toleranc.e," college administrators in.sritutionalize religious intolerance. In the name of 

" inclusion," college administrators exclude religious snadent groups from campus. 

Basic religious liberty encompasses the right of religious groups to choose leaders who 

agree with their religious beliefs and religious standards of conduct. Indeed, it should be common 

ground, particularly among those who advocate strong separation of church and state, that 

government officials, including public college officials, should not interfere with religious groups' 

intemal selection of their leaders. 

The leadership of any organization affects its ability to carry out its mission. This is 

particularly true for religious groups because leaders conduct the Bible smdies, lead the prayers, 

and facilitate the worship at their meetings. To expect the person conducting the Bible study to 

believe that the Bible reflects truth seems obvious. To expect the person leading prayer to believe 

in the God to whom she is praying seems reasonable. Both are a far cry from any meaningful 

sense of discrimination. Yet some university administrators woodenly characterize these conunon 

sense expectations and basic religious liberty principles as "religious discrimination." 

An important purpose of college nondiscrimination policies is to protect religious 

students on campus. When universities misuse nondiscrimination policies tO exclude religious 

student groups, they actually undenn.iue nondiscrimination policies' purposes and the good they 

serve. Such misuse of nondiscrimination policies is unnecessary. Reflecting an appropriate 

sensitivity to religious liberty, most nondiscrimination laws, such as Title VII of the federal Civil 

Rights Act of 1964, simultaneously prohibit discrimination while protecting religious groups' 

ability to maintain their religious identities. In interpreting their policies, college administrators 

should show a similar tolerance and respect for religious groups and their basic religious liberty 

to be led by persons who share their religious beliefs. 

Nondiscrimination policies and sn1dents' religious liberty are eminently compatible. As a 

commendable best practice, many universities embed robust protection for religious libeny 

within their nondiscrimination policies, thereby creating a sustainable enviromuent in which 
178 


22161A.141

nondiscrimination principles and religious liberty harmoniously thrive.' Because it is possible to 

have strong nondiscrimination policies and religious liberty, the better approach is to facilitate 

both, rather than demand that religious liberty lose. 

Two specific examples at University of Montana School of Law and Boise State University: 

In 2008, the Boise State University student govemment threatened to exclude several religious 

organizations from campus, claiming their religious leadership requirements were discriminatory. 

The BSU student govemment infonncd one religious group that its requirement that its leaders 

"be in good moral standing, exhibiting a lifestyle that is worthy of a Christian as outlined in the 

Bible" violated the student govemment's policy. The student government also found that the 

group's citation of Matthew 18:15- 17, in which Jesus is quoted, also violated the policy. The 

smdent govenunent infonued another religious group that "not allowing members to serve as 

officers due to their religious beliefs" conflicted with the student govemment's policy. In 2009, 

to senle a lawsuit, BSU reversed course and agreed to allow religious organizations to maintain 

religious criteria for leaders. In June 2012, however, BSU infonned the religious organizations 

that it intended to adopt a new policy, which would effectively exclude religious organizations 

with religious leadership rc·quircments. In March 20 13, the Idaho Legislature enacted legislation 

to protect religious organizations from exclusion. Idaho Code§ 33-1070. 

Two Conner Boise State University students have described their religious organizations' 

struggles to be recognized in letters that are attached to this statement, along with a Jetter from a 

Conner sntdent describing the problem as it arose for one CLS student chapter at the University 

of Montana School of Law. 

Religious libe•·ty on college campuses is at a critical tipping point: That this is an ongoing 

national problem is demonstrated by the Supreme Court's decision in 2009 to bear Christian 

Legal Society v. Mar/inez, 561 U.S. 661 (2010). By a narrow 5-4 majority, the Court declined to 

address the issue of nondiscrimination policies. All nine justices agreed that the Court was no/ 

decidi11g the nondiscrimination policy issue. I d. at 678 & n.l 0; id. at 698 (Stevens, J., 

concurring); id. at 704 (Kennedy, J., conctm-ing); id. at 728-29 (Aiito, J., dissenting) (joined by 

Roberts, C.J., Scalia, J., and Thomas, J.). 

Instead, the Court confined its decision to a quirky policy, w1ique to Hastings College of 

the Law, which required all student groups to allow any student to be a member and leader of the 

group, regardless of whether the student agreed with - or actively opposed - the values, beliefs, 

or speech of the group. Under this "all-comers" policy, no student group at Hastings had any 

associational rights whatsoever. According tO Hastings administrators, the Democratic student 

group must allow a Republican to be president, just as CLS must allow any student to be its 

president, regardless of whether the sntdent agreed with CLS's religious beliefs. 

Five justices upheld this novel policy that wiped out all student groups' First Amendment 

rights. But in doing so, the majority was unequivocal that if a university allows any exemption to 

its "all-comers policy," it cannot deny an exemption to a religious group. /d. at 694, 698-99; id. 

1 Many tuliversities have policies that protect religious groups' religious leadership criteria. The University of Florida 

has a model nondisc•imination policy that strikes the appropriate balance between nondiscrimination policies and 

religious liberty, wllich reads: "A student orgatlization whose primary purpose is religious will not be de11ied 

registration as a Registered Student Orgatlization on the ground tltat it liJtlits membership or leadership positions to 

students who share the religious beliefs of the organization. The University has detennined that this acconunodation 

of religious belief does uol violate its nondiscrimination policy." 
179 


22161A.142

at 704 (Kennedy, J., concurring). The four dissenting justices, Chief Justice Roberts and Justices 

Alito, Scalia, and Thomas, would have held that nondiscrimination policies cannot be used to 

prevent religious groups from choosing their leaders according to their religious beliefs. And in 

2012, the Supreme Court mled unanimously, in the context of the "ministerial exception," that 

nondiscrimination laws cannot be used to prohibit religious organizations, such as a church or 

synagogue, from deciding who its leaders will be. Hosanna-Tabor Lutheran Church and Schoof 

v. EEOC, 132 S. Ct. 694, 710 (20 12). 

Conclusion: Our nation's colleges are at a crossroads. They can choose to respect students' 

freedoms of speech, association, and religion. Or they can misuse nondiscrimination policies to 

exercise intolerance toward religious student groups who refuse to abandon their basic religious 

liberty. TI1e road colleges choose is important not only for the students threatened with exclusion 

-- and not only to preserve a diversity of ideas on college campuses -- but also because the 

lessons taught on college campuses inevitably spill over into our broader civil society. 

The genius of the First Amendment is that it protects everyone's speech, no matter how 

unpopular, and everyone's religious beliefs, no matter how unfashionable. When that is no 

longer true--and we seem dangerously close to the tipping point - when nondiscrimination 

policies are misused as instrwnems for the intolerant suppression of religious speech and 

traditional religious beliefs, then the pluralism so vital to sustaining our political and religious 

freedoms will no longer exist. 

Respectfully submitted, 

lsi Kimberlee Wood Colby 

Kimberlee Wood Colby 

Director, Center for Law & Religious Freedom 

Christian Legal Society 
180 


22161A.143

October 13, 2016 

The Honorable Trent Franks, Chair 

Subcommittee on the Constirution and Civil Justice 

The Judiciary Committee of the United States 

House of Representatives 

2141 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 205 15 

Dear Chainnan Franks: 

My name is Justin Ranger. I have lived in Idaho since 2001. I graduated from Boise State 

University in the Spring of2009 with a major in Philosophy and a minor in Mathematics. While I 

was a student, I was the President of the student club, Cornerstone Ministry. 

During my involvement with Cornerstone Ministry, I desired to create an enviromnent that would 

engage students, and would contribute to campus life in general. The purpose of Cornerstone 

Ministry was to hold Bible studies, book discussions, prayer meetings, and to distribute free 

literature to students on campus. The focus of the club was to engage srudents academically and 

intellectually on matters that related to our religious views. This we believed added to diversity and 

contributed to campus life. 

At the end of my sophomore year at Boise State, some other students and myself began the process 

of starting a new religious club on campus, Tbe Veritas Forum. We used as a template the 

constiMion of Cornerstone Ministry which was a fully recognized student club. The new 

constitution was rejected based on BSU's interpretation of the non-discrimination clause. In our 

dialogue with BSU staff and student Judiciary members we pointed out that the new constitution 

was modeled on a constitution of a club which had already received full recognition. The 

constitution for Cornerstone Ministry was reviewed by BSU and declared to be discriminatory as 

well. After submitting several revisions of our constitution in an attempt to be fully compliant with 

BSU's non-discrimination clause, it became apparent that the club would not be recognized simply 

because we required its officers to agree to the beliefs and purpose of the club. Eventually the 

Comerstone Ministry club was de-recognized as an official club on campus. 

After Comerstone Ministry was de-recognized we lost all of the rights and benefits of being an 

officially recognized club, e.g., reserving meeting rooms on campus for free, submitting flyers to 

be posted on bulletin boards, receiving discounts on catered food for events, being able to recruit 

srudents at orientations, etc. Furthermore, while our constitution was under review, the time of the 

few students that were still involved with the club was consumed in dealing with this issue, rather 

than fulfilling the purpose of the club. Not only did the size and vita lity of the club diminish, but 

the club's ability to benefit student life was severely limited during this time. 

Cornerstone Ministry could not withhold the statement of belief from our constitution since it is 

what determines our identity and the purpose of the club. Although, we were assured that it was 

unlikely that anyone who did not agree with our beliefs or the purposes of the club would attempt 

to mn for an office in our club, it was a maHer of honesty, integrity, and transparency to be up front 

with the criteria by which officers would be considered. Since BSU would not accept our criteria 

for officers before the settlement agreement, we were forced to be de-recognized. 
181 


22161A.144

Thank you for caring about this issue, and hearing about the plight of the club that I served. 
182 


22161A.145

June 11, 2015 

The Honorable Trent Franks, Chair 

Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice 

The Judiciary Committee of the United States 

House of Representatives 

2141 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairman Franks: 

My name is Jesse Barnum, and I graduated from Boise State University in 2009 with a B.A. in 

Philosophy and minors in German, Latin, and History. I was a member of the Cornerstone, a 

religious student organization, from 2006 until I graduated in 2009. I was also one of the 

organizing members of the Veritas Forum from 2007 through 2009. The Veritas Forum was a 

religious student organization who applied for official recognition as a student organization, but 

was denied that status. 

As a student, religious organizations helped meet my need for community, and they provided 

me encouragement and support. They were an integral part of my success as a student, and 

without them I would not have engaged in the broader campus community to the extent that I 

did. 

Religious student organizations have a vital role in university life. Not only do they support 

those students who are part of a particular religion, they increase the cross-section of ideas 

present on campus. Without the presence and articulate expression of these ideas on campus, 

the quality and success of a university education diminishes. The story of the Veritas Forum at 

Boise State University illustrates this well. 

In 2007, I and a group of students began the process of organizing The Veritas Forum at Boise 

State University. Our goal was to create university events that explored life's hardest questions; 

questions like what is morality, and why is there suffering and pain in our lives and in the world. 

We wanted our own professors and other leading minds around the world to come to Boise 

State to discuss these issues with us, the students, without the constraints of the classroom, and 

to engage in these issues in a way that was relevant to us in our everyday lives. In this way, the 

ideas and purpose of The Veritas Forum fit perfectly with the purposes of the university and 

organized student groups. 

However, The Veritas Forum was also a religious student organization and we believed that 

Jesus, who he was and what he did, was important to any discussion and understanding of 

these questions. And in spite of Jesus' undeniable prominence and significance in the history of 

the world, He was conspicuously lacking from most campus dialogue on these issues. Given our 

stated goal and belief, it was necessary that to be successful and preserve the integrit y of our 

organization we needed to establish qualifications for leadership that were consistent both 

with that goal and our religious beliefs. These two element s were inextricably linked. 
183 


22161A.146

We submitted our application for recognition as a student group in the Fall of 2007.1t was 

rejected because of the qualifications we required to hold office. In spite of the setback, we 

continued to organize an event under another recognized student organization, The 

Cornerstone. Our first event discussed suffering and pain: its meaning, why does it exist, and is 

there an answer to it. Professor Scott Yenor of Boise State University, whose own daughter had 

recently undergone treatment for cancer, was the presenter. We advertised the event on 

campus and scheduled it for a Friday night during the spring semester of 2008. Given the day and 

time of year, our expectations were that maybe 40 people would attend. Instead of 40 people, 

about 240 students and faculty attended. The 200 person capacity room was filled well past its 

limitations. The event was a huge success, and was well received by numerous campus 

organizations and departments, many of them regardless of their own opinions and beliefs. 

But the university continued to pursue its policy of not allowing student religious organizations 

to identify qualifications for leadership, and Cornerstone was derecognized as a club for the 

same reasons The Veritas Forum was denied recognition. 

Again, in spite of this additional setback, we began work on hosting another event because the 

desire and interest in what we were doing was so clearly demonstrated by the success of the first 

event. In order to hold the event, we worked with another student religious organization that 

had yet to be derecognized. The second event was held in the spring of 2009 and was attended 

by more than 100 student s and faculty. The topic discussed this time was the trend of removing 

"faith" and "religion" from public dialogue and discourse. 

I and some other key students in the Veritas forum graduated in the spring of 2009. We were 

very proud of the work that had been accomplished and we were excited about the interest that 

was shown by the campus community in what we were doing. We were also disappointed that 

we had been unable to organize The Veritas Forum in such a way that it would have enabled it 

to continue past our graduation. The interest and the need for open and honest dialogue were 

clearly demonstrated, but the legal and institutional obstacles we faced prevented us from ever 

having The Veritas Forum formally recognized. There is no Veritas Forum at Boise State today. 

Religious student organizations like the Veritas Forum benefit the university, but their inability 

to maintain officer qualifications will mean that they can no longer fully participate in the 

university community. Not only will individual students suffer, but the quality of our state 

universities will suffer as well. 
184 


22161A.147

Emily Jones 

june 10, 2015 

The Honorable Trent Franks, Chair 

Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil justice 

The Judiciary Committee of the United States 

House of Representatives 

2141 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairman Franks: 

I am writing to you out of concern for the protection of religious freedom on public college 

and university campuses. I attended the University of Montana ["UM) School of Law from 

2005 through 2008. During my law school tenure, I and several other students attempted 

to form a local chapter of the Christian Legal Society ("CLS"), a nationa l organization of 

Christian lawyers, judges, law students and others that seeks to "proclaim, love and se1ve 

jesus Christ through all we do and say in the practice of law, advocating biblical connict 

resolution, legal assistance for the poor and needy, religious freedom and the sanctity of 

human life." The aspiration of the local UM chapter of CLS is to "maintain a vibrant 

Christian Law fellowship on The University of Montana campus which enables its 

members, individually and as a group, to fulfi ll the Ch ristian mandate to love God and to 

love their neighbors as themselves.· During my time at the law school, our group was 

denied status as a recognized student group at UM by the student body and by its 

governing Board. 

In 2007 CLS-UM sought recognition and an allocation of student activity fees from the 

Student Bar Association ("SBA") Executive Board. The Board detennines whether a 

student organization at UM School of Law is eligible for recognition and student activity fee 

funding and then allocates student activity fees to these recognized student groups. This 

budget is then submitted to the general student body for a vote. No guidance is given to the 

students in determi ning which student groups may receive funding, and no instruction is 

given rega rding maintaining a viewpoint-neutral vote. Thus, the student body can decide 

to fund or de-fund groups based on those they like or agree with, a nd those they do not. 

In order to ensure that it ma intains its distinctive Christian voice - a right conferred on its 

members by the Constitution's canons regarding freedom of association and freedom of 

religious expression - CLS- UM limits those who control that voice, the voting members and 

officers, to those who affirm its Ch ristian views and endeavor to live a life of integrity 

conforming to those beliefs. CLS- UM invites anyone, however, to attend and participate in 

its meetings and events. With full knowledge of CLS-UM's voting membership and 

leadership policies, the SBA Board voted to recognize CLS-UM and allocate student activity 

funds to it in the SBA budget. However, when the Board submitted these allocations to 

the student body for a vote, they were narrowly rejected amid opposition to CLS-UM. 
185 

f 


22161A.148

Following the rejection of the proposed budget, which included funding for CLS- UM, 

the SBA Board revoked CLS- UM's recognition. The Board then re-submitted the budget 

to the student body with the funding allocation for CLS- UM excluded. The 

student body approved this budget. No other student group included in the first 

budget was excluded from the second budget. As a result, CLS-UM was substantially 

hindered in its ability to carry out its activities and advocate for its views during the 

2007- 2008 academic year. 

Eventually, the CLS- UM students decided they would, reluctantly and unfortunately, 

have to go to court to protect their First Amendment rights. They primarily challenged 

the SBA's method of allocating student activity fees as viewpoint discriminatory and, 

therefore, a violation of students' freedom of speech. They also challenged the denial of 

recognition to CLS- UM because of its leadership and voting membership requirements. 

After the district court ruled aga inst them, they appealed to the Ninth Circuit. CLS v. 

Eck, 625 F. Supp.2d 

1026 (D. Mont. 2009), appeal voluntarily dismissed, No. 09-35581 (9th Cir. Aug. 10, 2011). 

The appeal was stayed pending the Supreme Court's decision in CiS v. Martinez. 

Eventually, UM and CLS reached a settlement agreement by which officials of the 

UM School of Law agreed to impose new rules upon the SBA sn1dent activity fee funding 

system in order to ensure that student fees were allocated among student groups in a 

viewpoint- neutral manner. In total, officials at the UM School of Law agreed to 

approximately 23 new rules for the allocation of student activity fee fundi ng. Law 

school officials a lso agreed to recognize CLS as an independent student organization 

with the same access to law school facilities and channels of communication as enjoyed 

by other recognized student groups. In return, CLS acknowledged that it was ineligible 

for SBA funding under the SBA's current interpretation of its bylaws, but Jaw school 

officials agreed that CLS was eligible to apply for funding through the community grants 

program administered by the law school. 

Please take immediate action to ensure that others do not experience the same disparate 

treatment that the members of CLS-UM experienced. Religious liberty is the foundation 

for freedom in America, and sets us apart from much of the rest of world. Please 

protect our longstanding heritage and constitutional rights of college and 

university students to express their religious beliefs, to associate with others who share 

those beliefs, and to receive the same treatment as other student groups receive. Thank 

you very much for your consideration. 

Sincerely, 
186 


22161A.149

March 8, 20 15 

RLES~fl SEN 

1560 Pelham Parkway South, 48 

Bronx, NY 10461-1 140 

(917) 667-1122 

charliemichels@yahoo.com 

House Committee on Ways and Means 

Honorable Kevin Brady, Chainnan 

Re: T he Committee's Ma rch 2, 2016 Public Hearing r·e Systematic, Agenda-driven, 

Suppression of Free Speech on America's Pr·ivate & Public College Campuses 

Dear Committee, 

Thank you for holding a long over·due hear·ing on this very impor tant matter on March 2"" 

of this year. Dur·ing that hearing Chair man Brady requested additional input from the 

public in the form of letters that could be added to the official Congressional Record. Here 

you ar·e, Sir' ... 

On Apl'il lOth of201S I was wrongfully "academically dismissed" fr·om the Hunter College 

School of Education (Hunter). I began the spr·ing 2015 semester at Hunter having already 

completed 80% of my MAin Teaching English to Adolescents progr·am, and despite some 

unfair gr·ading, this teacher· trainee was holding a ver·y respectable 3.61 GPA. Indeed, my 

April 9 letter· of dismissal from Hunter dean Matt Caballer·o cites " repeated misconduct," 

not poor academics as the r·eason for my immediate dismissal. It should be observed that 

dean Caballero's vague char·ges of misconduct wer·e made more than two months AFTER I 

bad fLied very specific charges of professional misconduct against three Hunter faculty 

members, charges that were blithely ignored by allr·esponsible Hunter anthor·ities. 

As my Apr·ill6 email to Hunter· School of Ed boss dean David Steiner· obset·ved, CUNY, 

i.e., Hunter, bas specific, legally-binding procedures for handling charges of misconduct 

against its students, procedur·es that dean Steiner's grad school bad no right to ignore, or 

improve on. But my deans at Hunter wen.> desperate to find a way-any way-to give 

themselves inunediatl' and pcr·manent r·elicf from an unwanted conservative critic. To 

accomplish that goal, they made a strategic decision to do an "end-run" around CUNY's 

legally-binding but cumbersome and time-consuming disciplinary procedures. The deans 

at the Hunter School of Ed wer·e also weiJ aware tbat they could not rely Oll CUNY 

disciplinary procedures to get rid of me; the "repeated misconduct" dean Caballero alleged 

always involved Constitutionally-pr·otected speech. Tbat is why these cynics chose the 

expedient of an immediate "academic dismissal." But as you may r·emember, academic 

dismissal always follows academic probation, and l bad never been put on academic 

probation, or· in any way previously war·ned about my poor academic perfor·mance. It 

seems extremely unlikely that anyone in the 168 year-long history of the City University of 
187 

f 


22161A.150

New York who was holding a3.61 GPA bas ever been "academically dismissed" before me! 

In short, mine is about as blatant a case of viewpoint disuimination/intimidation as you are 

likely to see. lf you or your committee bas any interest in discouraging these sorts of 

outrages, yon or you•· committee wiiJ find a way to come to the aid of college students like 

myself. 

On its face, my case would appea•· to be a "slam-dunk." The fa cts indicate strongly that in 

a determined effort to be foreve•· rid of an extremely annoying, conservative student critic, 

the Hunter College School of Ed took several actions it bad no legal right to take. The 

entire business stinks to high heaven; a friend of mine has compared what happened to me 

at Hunter College with what happened to Putin uitic Boris Nemtzov on a Moscow bridge 

some months previous. But the administration and lead counsel at Hunter is gambling that 

virtually ALL members of bet· profession are motivated solely by money, and that students 

without fmancial resou•·ces possess only tbeorcticallegal rights. We shall soon see if 

Hunter's was a good gamble. 

(F o•· additional information •·e the ongoing case of Charles Michelsen v. Hunter College 

School of Ed, tbe City Unive.-sity of New York [NYS Supreme Court Index# 101450-2015), 

please go he•·e: http://iapps.courts.state.nv.us/isnol!l) 
188 


22161A.151

The Honorable Peter Roskam 

Chainnan, Subconunittee on Oversight 

The Honorable John Lewis 

March 16, 2016 

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Oversight 

House Committee on Ways and Means 

II 02 Longworth HOB 

Washington D.C. 20515 

waysandmcans.submissions@mail.housc.gov 

...JL 

cru r 

Re: WriHen submission for the record for the Oversight Subcommittee's Hearing on "Protecting 

the Free Exchange ofldeas on College Campuses" on March 2, 2016 

Dear Chairman Roskam and Ranking Member Lewis: 

Thank you for holding a hearing to discuss the important topic of protecting the free 

exchange of ideas on college campuses. As an associate legal counsel for Cru, I write today to 

offer Cru's perspective as an organization with many religious student chapters all over the 

country, a number of which are facing challenges to preserving their religious speech. Many of 

these challenges arise due to university policies that prevent Cru student chapters from selecting 

leaders based upon religious qualifications. As the Supreme Court noted in Hosanna-Tabor 

Evangelical Lulheran Church & Sch. v. EEOC, 132 S. Ct. 694, 706 (2012), a religious group has 

a "right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments" to leadership. The Court 

indicated that this principle invokes the Free Exercise clause, as identifYing those who will teach 

the faith is a central tenet of religious practice. A group's leaders arc those who must 

authentically communicate and preserve its religious messages. Cru has faced such challenges 

on numerous campuses, and a growing number of campuses continue to adopt such problematic 

policies. 

Cru (previously named Campus Crusade for Christ) has bad sn1dent chapters on college 

campuses since the 1950s, and bas long respected and enjoyed the campus environment precisely 

because it is a place where sl11dents can have robust discussion and are able to hear and dialogue 

about diverse opinions and perspectives on life and leaming. The free exchange of ideas on such 

campu~c~ mu.•t include topic~ uch a~ religion, a cmcial clement for many (hoth individually and 

corporately) in their identity formation and motivation to serve society. Cm wants to relate in a 

positive manner witl1 universities. It bas always desired to serve the campus communities where 

its chapters exist in order to meet students' spiritual needs and to help campuses and their student 
189 


22161A.152

bodies flourish. Cru embraces principles of nondiscrimination for membership, and has always 

welcomed any student to participate in the chapters and to explore Christianity. 

I. Cru desit-es to engage in expressive activity as student organizations on college 

campuses. 

a. In orde•· fo•· a group of students to engage effectively in expressive activity on 

a college campus, it must become an officially recognized o•·ganization. 

The benefits a university grants to recognized student organizations are many and varied, 

ranging from room reservations to advertising to funding requests. Some of the benefits that 

directly involve aspects of expression by the groups include tabling, handing out fliers, 

advertising and promoting activities and events, having access to websites that slUdents at that 

campus regularly access, and being able to apply for funding that enables the group to hold 

events that engage the broader campus community. 

If a group remains unregistered, it loses aU of these privileges, and becomes essentially a 

second class group. The lack of ability to obtain classroom space for meetings and the inability 

to access students to let them know about the group's activities severely damages the ability of 

the group to function. Many students have told us that they consider unregistered clubs as 

lacking in legitimacy and they are accordingly less willing to consider participating in such 

clubs. Such isolation and lack of credibility will inevitably result in a group shrinking and losing 

its voice in the campus community. Although some campuses claim that groups can continue to 

function without being fully recognized, it remains a significant hindrance and a monumental 

disadvantage to be denied access to such status merely because a group wishes to preserve its 

mission and messages. 

b. Student Leadership is crucial to preserve speech and expression 

Group identity and expression are very closely tied up with the First Amendment 

concepts of free speech and free association. 

It is reasonable for st1adent organizations to seek leaders who arc qualified to lead their 

particular group. The beliefs and passions of a group are what define the group and characterize 

its unique voice in a community. Religion is about much more than a set of statements; it is 

something that is communicated and expressed in word and deed. It is not intelleclUal 

knowledge. That is why a leader who can authentically and effectively pursue a religious mission 

and speak on behalf of a religious community must believe in its mission and be motivated by 

authentic personal faith. 

A group's ability to preserve its speech and maintain a consistent identity is dependent 

upon its leadership. In fact, most groups restrict their leadership to those who share a common 

vision; this principle is true whether or not a group specifically states it in its organizing 

documents. Religious groups tend to want to specifically articulate such expectations, however, 

2 
190 


22161A.153

because religious beliefs are many and varied, and a particular religious conunw1ity is defined 

and distinguished by the particulars of its doctrine and be iet:~. Yet a religious group's goal is the 

same as that of any other group- it desires to preserve its speech, identity and credibility. 

Accordingly, when a campus prohibits religious groups from considering religious qualifications, 

just because they h~•ppen to be "religious" (a listed category in the nondiscrimination clause), 

instead of recognizing that the religious nature of a religious group requires religious 

consideration, that prohibition impacts and alters the speech of those groups. 

All Cru chapters welcome any student to participate in and become a member of their 

chapters, but Cru expects its student leaders to meet a higher standard in order to ensure that its 

speech is not hypocritical. As groups forme-d for the religious purpose of building "movements 

of people who are transformed by Jesus Christ," Cru needs leaders who will enable the groups to 

remain faithful representatives of the Christian faith, io both word and deed. 

c. Religious groups should be given the same ability to preserve theil· missions 

and messages that othe•· groups •·eceive under nondisu imination policies 

Almost all student groups want leaders who embody a combination of knowledge, skill, 

valoes and beliefs that match up with those of the group or organization that they 

represent. Under a nondiscrimination clause, most groups can require that their leaders believe 

in the group's vision without violating the nondiscrimination clause. This is because requiring 

agreement with a group's mission does not involve any consideration of a status listed in the 

nondiscrimination clause. A person can hold almost any belief regardless of their status in the 

listed categories. The notable exception is religion, which is the one status that involves status 

and belief, inextricably tied together. A person is of a particular religious status because he holds 

certain beliefs. 

For religious groups, therefore, the values and beliefs of the group that it wants its leaders 

to uphold are religious; a refjgious person will best embody them and is more qualified to 

articulate and express them to the campus community. A religious group, therefore, will have 

equal treatment only if it is allowed to consider the category of religion in its leadership 

selectioo. It does oot create special treatment for religious groups to allow them to do so. 

d. lt is bette•· fo•· dive.-sity and nondiscrimination to allow religious g•·oups to b e 

.-eligious. 

Nor does it compromise a university's goals of nondiscrimination and diversity to allow 

religious groups to be religious. In fact, it hinders that goal to disallow it, and may in fact result 

in religious discrimination on the part of the universities applying their nondiscrimination 

policies i.o such a manner. 

To the contrary, allowing students and studeot organizations to engage in private student 

speech is a crucial part of maintaining a diverse campus. Diversity is best achieved when 

3 
191 


22161A.154

students express diverse viewpoints with authenticity and conviction. Student organizations are a 

natural and appropriate place for students to organize around and express their common 

perspectives. Religious diversity in particular adds a great deal to a campus environment, 

building tolerance and respect for people different than oneself. Campuses should wish to foster 

it. 

e. It does not result in entanglement to protect religious groups in this manner 

No law requires universities to interpret their nondiscrimination policies in this manner. 

When they choose to do so, they end up isolating religious groups and makjng them into second 

class citizens. 

Student groups and organizations may engage in expressive activity without it being 

considered as the speech of the university where they organize. On public universities, this is 

based upon the principle of limited open forums, where a university opens space for private 

speech. See Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263 (1981); Board of Regents of the University of 

Wisconsin System v. Southworth, 529 U.S. 217 (2000). There is no Establishment Clause 

violation to allow a religious organization to remain and function as religious. In fact, it creates 

more entanglement when a university dictates how a religious group may or may not select its 

leaders than when it allows religious groups to function as religious and preserve their own 

doctrine. See Hosanna-Tabo1; 132 S. Ct. 694. 

In addition, these principles were not changed in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, 130 

S. Ct. 1971 (20 1 0). In that case, the Supreme Court narrowly addressed a unique policy that they 

called an all comers policy, distinct from a regular nondiscrimination policy that details protected 

classes. See id. at 2995 (Stevens, J ., concurring). The all comers policy was to apply "equally to 

all groups and views," not just those involving protected classes. See id. at 2999 (Kennedy, J ., 

concurring). In addition, the Martinez court did not require any such policy, but merely 

indicated that a true all comers policy was permissible. See id. at 2992. 

Religious expression is particularly worthy of protection, as has been true since the 

founding of our country. Ensuring that people can authentically practice diverse religions is 

consistent with the U.S. Constitution, federa l law and state laws across tbe country that recognize 

that religion is uniquely worthy of protection. 

U. Cru continues to face challenges on specific campuses 

In order to provide a concrete example of our pressing concern about the impact of 

nondiscrimination policies that are misapplied to prevent religious groups from selecting leaders 

based upon religious criteria, 1 will discuss a current issue that is still in process. Indiana 

University (IU) adjusted its nondiscrimjnatioo policy and sought to put language in that any 

interested student could "seek leadersrup positions .. . without regard to consideration of such 

characteristics as ... " the Jjsted nondiscrimination categories, including religion. 

4 
192 


22161A.155

IU further clarified its intended meaning for such language when it issued an FAQ 

document in August of2016 (see Attachment I) that specifically stated "No" in answer to the 

question, "May SGSO's require students seeking to serve in leadership positions to be members 

of a particular religion?" Many religious groups, including Cru, were alanncd by this response 

and began to express such concern to the administration. On September 20, through an email to 

religious group leaders, Cru became aware that IU had detennined to suspend the 

implementation of the policy for a year, during which time the policy would be under review and 

IU would take comments on the policy. The link given was 

http://policies.iu.edu/policies/categories/academic-faculty-students/academic-student-affairs/studentorganizations.shtml (See Attachment 2 for the first two pages of the proposed policy from that 

link). 

For the remainder of the Fall of2015, individual students and student organization 

leaders submitted comments expressing their concern about the impact the policy would have on 

religious groups. Many students described the positive impact a particular religious student 

group had had on their lives; many indicated that a student leader in their group had 

meaningfully impacted them precisely because he/she was more mature in his/her faith, 

emphasizing the importance of religious leadership qualifications for religious groups. 

We are thankful that IU is going through the process of reevaluating the proposed 

language, but we remain concerned that such language remains in consideration for large 

university systems like IU. We appreciate the direct engagement that we have had with 

administrators, but we remain alanned by the hesitation to ensure this simple protection lor 

religious expression on the campus. 

The policy at issue, if unchanged, will not merely hinder religious groups from advancing 

their beliefs, but will discriminate against religious groups. Religious groups will be forced io 

choose between preserving their religious missions and messages or being recognized student 

organizations. This would make religious students into second class citizens, separating their 

organizations out for different treatment simply because they select leaders who believe in their 

religious purposes as other groups select leaders who believe in their non-religious purposes. It is 

a significant burden to be unregistered and will lead to isolation for such groups. 

The simple solution for such situations is for campuses to include an additional sentence 

to their nondiscrimination policies, such as "A religious sn•dent organization will not be denied 

recognition as a student organization because it requires its leaders to agree with its sincerely 

held religious beliefs and religious standards of conduct." Unfortunately, instead of seeing that 

choice for what it is- a decision to move towards equality and diversity and to protect the 

expression of religious groups- many campuses persist in denying the inequality that these 

policies produce for religious groups. 

5 
193 


22161A.156

The idea that some groups require language added to nondiscrimination policies in order 

to continue to function is not new; in fact, it is consistently done for fraternities and sororities. 

Universities regularly add a gender exception to nondiscrimination policies that allow fratemities 

and sororities to continue to select their members based upon gender. 

This example of Indiana University's proposed policy is a symptom of a larger issue 

around the country. The misinterpretation of nondiscrimination policies in such a way that hann s 

religious student organizations that are merely seeking to be religious, exemplified here, is 

unfortunately becoming more and more common. Ultimately, this dangerous perspective may 

lead to silencing religious viewpoints and hindering the free exchange of ideas in this country. It 

is therefore worthy of the attention of this subcommittee. Congress should take note and act to 

protect student religious expression from being marginalized and diluted. 

6 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Lori D. Kepner 

Lori D. Kepner 

Staff Attorney 

Cm- General Counsel's Ofticc 
194 


22161A.157

ATIACHMENT 1: this document was sent to religious workers at Indiana University on August 12, 2015. 

Question 116 raises particular concerns for student organizations formed for religious purposes. 

7 

fn"quc:adJ~Qu-a.:...llbol.t SCSO.. .ad........_ U~'J'• N~~~a ~do.. Palky. 

L 'l'lw - t.lw bnlorfiu olrqt•H:dnc ....ft.h dw Uniwnby • • a SeJl..("---=mrd Srudm Otrni!!!le (SCSO)? 

nw bene6ooc~.,~ --scsoindak: ......, .... ro ftX:tW tpeellOft~ andoAitft lor (we 

""""""*•Snolooo()qpnuaoioo-.o: 

~*~ 

"""""""'"'""'"~""lndw L\IU: 

US~RJ llhE ""SGSO aa •u· uwkma.k; 

rew'"'c • '"'* for che SNdm1 I~Wolvunmt F.ir~ 

2. C._......_,~ wt.odeft not to ttpwt h SCSO. tdll fMfl oe eampu•1 

~~:'!:.'::..--.)~'~":!::~-~'"-'7J'~.:t*...::.,.~:... they 11ft' .. ~ to~~~ b thew n-.'IIIU....Iu dv ,_ trm. and condldor. uod:w: .. ~ 

l!""'f'L 

l. \(M• norlood:itcrimirudoft tftl'l"""-"" don the I)~ hll.vt in place b SCSO., 

,_ UIWCI'8tJ' ~ .S('.S(')r.., .IICCiqiC -· ~. SCSChCMWIOC '*"' ........ -llaJ ll)f"''"""''l''*' .._ ................... o(, ....... " ............... ~..._ .. ol ............. dowloilioy • ...,.;cy,po~«, 

~ ....... ,_._.oripn.Ntt.~Mll-~or~.c-.,.. n.c u~~udl 

SCSO lll'l ti'IICbkdwC.ww.Bttf\ ~~bOO~ In nSCSO~ 

4. May- SCSO acllblhb dclbii.ty ~ b rncmba.bip cw ~p po-ldon. dull an nac tkd • an 

ind.Mclulll bdnc• mormber or. ptoucwd d:u.., 

Yn.SCSO.-r-.x-"~~(m~andwnir;le 

~~ 

.. ~~»--•1hr 

ftOI burtd on • .n..lml ~ 110.., Jdw ptQWOII'd cllt.wb a...d ..,c.&-...-, or -.poobl<....,.._._ ~mcmlx.n 10 M'c~Ya; ·~ ............. -Jd ____ .tr: 

~ ..... ~,_-... _ ... .,._...,. .. -........................... .,....._... ........ _*·-pnlodol .... ; homr ~ ~· _.__C'PA lhtnldcl. 

5.. Aft~ &.tft'ftida and .ororidn ..ao.rcd Wllk:r dw UM'eftiry'• ~adoa • r.tcmene) 

Yu. ,_ ui~Uftf'UtJ a~.~c. br Thk rx oldie P~ A.mellldmcnu An o/1972.. w+Udl ~ ttuc 

ci{(~ ''""*"""b.cdan~ lor ~o(,....brnhipmatiii)Cbi~Of".oront)'ll..,. unllwfial. 

AftorrJ:.oDOO•chi:towpy-r~ ........ f..,.dtc~~~-ascso 

-
195 


22161A.158

ATIACHMENT 2: This includes the first two pages of the proposed policy 

Univmity Policies STU-01 

,(1[( lih['< !J~. \d])x;!IJI,.\h_\\ll>rlh~2tl[" ]I•J~I,l,_l1lll\~11tll.._t.ti•L<\ld<.lfl,~U,,I"I'III<jf,_,_dbt~!'l.flll'll 

dl '- llllj'th,-... l'l, h, "·I h.! qth, "'" h "' '••fllllk..ll' (,1 

I'll \'I 'll]l ]]n,po.>!t<.\t, .. tHJ,;J:hund~.rr .. ,l .. '' 

Student Organizations 

STU.OI 

Ainu This Policy 

hti .. '\.:U\C Date. 

u ... l:pJ•tcd· 

08-20·2015 

Rt.-spon'lbl.: t;,., cr.n~ 01 tkc; 

Otr.ceoflhc Vit..<t: President & Gc:tx:raJ Counsd Offtecorthc Vice Pn::sKt:n1 & ChitfFin.a.ndalOffict'T 

Rc!IJM)n~blc Ll'l\CO.U~ .o\dmuw't.tr.uor: 

Sr. v;., Pr<sidcnt & Chi:fFinancial Oflkcr V~ P11$ident & O<:n<ntl Comsel 

~lk..) Conbcl!" 

Olmpu$ D<onor Vice Cboncclor ~r S.,dcnt AlTai" 

Rela~N Information 

• CodoofStucknt RigiU. Reiponsibibttos.llld Con<l>ct 

Related Fonns 

A • 

• DRAFT SOSO Agrmnont for IU BloomtnH'O '-------------------------' 

Scope 

Policy Siatemcnt 

Reason For Policy 

Procedure 

Definitions 

Sanctions 

Additional ConiaCIS 

History 

Scope 

Sludent organjzatW>ns at Indiana Univc:rsity. 

8 

Bac:k to top • 
196 

f 


22161A.159

University Policies STU·OI 

Bock to top • 

Policy Statement 

Saudcnt organizations at Indiana University will be considered and/or administered in one of lhree ways: 

9 

I. Sttf-Covtrn<d Student rg~nlull n (SGSO) 

Most student orgnrizalions nl tndiam University wiD be considered Self-Governed Student Orgnrization;: (SGSOs). The 

SGSO is an irdepc:ndenl cn~ity or indcpcn<k:nt usocitu.ion of individual students. The University n:cogni :~.es the imponan1 

role played by the SGSO in engaging students, creating a diverse co<urricular envimnl'1lent. fosremg the expression 

of students' ideas nnd imcrcsts.. and adding to the unique identity of lndklm Unive1'5ity. The rebtionship between the 

Unh't't'Sily and S(;SOs is ,;cwOO as consistcnr "ith the Uni\•crsity's (ililo.sophy or education and student sclf-go,ttnnncc. 

To this end. SGSO leaders and mcrOOcrs shaH assume the responsibility for the organiz:uion's activities and conduct. 

The Uni,•ct$ily s:h:lll mnlc.e :..va.ibblc certain stttfT and resoun:c:s in the campus $b.Jdcnt affairs office to ttl\S\\'tt questions 

rcpnling tbcrdationsbipbctween the Uni\·crsityand SGSOs:md toprovideedJc:.tionand sa-vices to support the effective 

fmctioningofSGSOs. 

Self· Governed Stud<111 Organizations must: 

n. Have a. minimum or five mcmbr:rs who 1.\l't: errol led stu:lcnts at the IU campus: 

b. Havc offict'1'swho !'Ire enrolled srudentsat the IU campus: 

c. Have o.n advisor who is either an employed IU fac-ulty or starT member (undctyr"'.Kklate srudcnts miiy not qua.lify as 

""advisor): 

d. Have o. constitution tMI inchdes the following required ::mti•di,scriminntioo statcm~:nt as well as any other language 

required by the campus $ludcnt life office: 

(Nom~ ofSGSO) a/low=t any illlt!rested .muknt 10 partkipatc-ill, lxtconte a mmrbu of. antl.~~k /t-oJ~r -t/1/p posldon.f 

in thr organi:.aticm urilhotH ~ard to co11sidemtioo if Slich chorocteristia as ag~. color. di.sobility. etJmicity. sex. 

gentler ld~ntity, mmitol .ttatu,,. national origin. rou, rrligion, .wxunl orltnttuion, or l<rtf'nln .'ftatttt. 

• umJl'r 10 U.S. C. 168 I (a)(6){A) •. tQC{u/ fratt!rllities and soraritit~s Oll!ucmpt from Tld(-/X discrimination prolribidons 

011 th~ basis of sex u·ith f'I!SptlCt 10 1heirm~mbvship pmcti«s. The- low rerogni:es that diffurntlotN trNtment bo.f.nl 

on se.'Cfor piii'J)O.f.t!.f t(mmr~nhlp in a .foclnlfmtmrlty or .wrority Is not arlitmry or mrlouful Organl:atlont i11 thl., 

cote-gory may rt!mm~ .. grnd""from the non-tll'salmlnotlon .ftOtt'mt'ni in t/Jeir comtitutkm. 

Sclf·Govcmcd St'udcnt Orgnni,znticns IU'e considered scpar.ue orpnizations and must rcgin:r annuaDy and Bg.t'N' 10 and 

opcnlle under the tenns of the Self-Governed Student Or{;lrizntion Ag..,tmcnl iSGSO Agreement"). SGSOs may n:ccive 

n ronge ofbenefas by participating in the SGSO process and operating under the SGSO agreement, including eligibility ., 

apply for and rtcci\''C studcnl scti\•ity fcc: fooding; )X"iority usc of uni\'c:rsity f11cititiaand scrvicc:s:: un association wlh the 

h.ti:ann Univcrsily name 1hrougl1 opproYed IU sb.Jdtnt organization brunding dementS: a nttwork 10 and cmttil nddress,; 

and the option of accounting management assistance wh~:n: :twiluble. ln part. the SGSO Agrmnc:nt prm•idcs dull: 

o. The SGSO is an independent emily or independent sssoeinlion of individwl studern. operates independently and is 

not an a111=nt, serva~. or employee of IU. arxJ neither has the 3uthority 10 ac1 for the other or conunit the othtr to any 

activity. ll":t.nSBction~ or agrecmen1; 

b. I U does not s~rvise:. dir«t. or oon1:roltht SGSO's acti\;ties: 

c. I U controls its fac-ilities and st-1'\•ices. wbkh may be provided to the SGSO under ttt1ain conditions: 

d. The SGSO wiD CCllllply with the terms of the eampu$ studcm organization hon<l>ook: 

c. The SGSO's acthrities. whclhcr or nat sponsored oroniciaDy 3ppro\'cd by the SGSO. do r()t and will not viol:ue local. 

smtc-. or fe-deral laws: 

( The SGSO's objecthu :t.re educational. charitable .• cuhuml, social. or rcx:n::uionat and not for personal or private 

fironcial gain of my mt'mbc:r; 

g. The SGSO and it6 members aR wl:!jce1 kl the Indiana u..-vcrPty Code of Student Righi& Ra;:ponsibilitics. and 

Conduct: 

2 
197 


22161A.160

The Honorable Peter Roskam 

Chainnan, Subcommittee on Oversight 

The Honorable Jolm Lewis 

March 16, 2016 

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Oversight 

House Committee on Ways and Means 

1102 Longworth HOB 

Wasbington D.C. 205 15 

waysandroeans.submissions@mail.bouse.gov 

Re: Written submission for the record for the Oversight Subcommittee's Hearing on "Protecting 

the Free Exchange of Ideas on College Campuses" on March 2, 2016 

Dear Chairman Roskam and Ranking Member Lewis: 

Thank you for holding a hearing on this most important topic regarding the need 

to protect the free exchange of ideas on college campuses. The Navigators is an intemationa.l, 

interdenominational Christian organization that has served as a registered student organization 

on various American campuses for over sixty years. Currently, the Navigators students have 

registered organizations on over two hundred campuses. 

We appreciate the chance to share one recent story of a campus challenge to the free 

speech rights of a student involved in TI.1e Navigators. Her story was originally submitted to the 

House Subcommittee on !he Constitution and Civil Justice on June 10, 2015. 

Sincerely, 

Doug Weber 

The Navigators 

251 1 Buckelew Drive 

Falls Church, VA 22046 

607-351-4668 
198 

f 


22161A.161

(Jtme I 0, 20 15) 

Dear Chaimtan Franks, 

My name is Emily Abraham and I was a freshman this year at Minnesota State University, Mankato. 

Until just two months ago, Manknto had a residential life policy that said, "During community standards 

discussions at lloor and building meetings. each area votes to determine if religious solicitation is 

allowed." I still remember our first floor meeting when we had to vote about this. I was so mad and had a 

bunch of thoughts going through my mind. Something about this vote we had didn't seem right. 

In January of this year, I wanted to invite some neighbors in my donn to eat pizza and discuss theirs and 

my opinions about the Bible. My CA told me that to do so was a direct violation of the campus religious 

solicitation policy. I was then reminded of the vote we had taken at the beginning of the year 

prohibiting any "religious solicitation" on the floor. I thought this policy was dumb and I still didn 't 

understand. What was so wrong with me wanting tO share about Jesus on the floor? In the Bible we are 

told to make disciples ... that's bard to do when we are prohibited to talk about religion on tbe 

floors. Though I couldn'ttalk about religion it was 100% okay to invite someone to a fraternity party. a 

concert. a non-religious movie. or most anything else. Just not to a religious event. It didn't make sense. 

When some others and I asked a residential life administrator about the policy. we were told that the 

policy had been applied by the university for at least as long as he had been at the campus (which is well 

over ten years). and that. in his eyes. the po licy didn't have any negative ramifications or opposition. The 

message to me was clear: the policy is not the problem: you are the problem. 

This policy had made me angry throughout the whole year and I finally built up enough courage to meet 

with some of the faculty members. I refused to a llow my free speech to be quieted, and afte.r persisting 

with my questions through a number of discussions, Minnesota State University, Mankato wisely agreed 

to repeal their policy. Many others and I trust that they will remove this policy from next year's handbook 

as they have promised. 

But who knows how many other campuses implement this type of speech policing, and how many 

students have opted, and continue to opt, for quiet obedience rather than standing up to intimidation and 

even ridicule from various administrators? 

Thank you, 

Emily Abraham 

2765 Laurel Street Somh Cambridge MN 55008 

763-377-0658 
199 


22161A.162

Justin P. Gunter 

660 Ralph McGill Blvd. NE. Apt. 2509. Atlanta, GA 30312 

The Honorable Peter Roskam 

Chainnan, Subconunittee on Oversight 

The Honorable John Lewis 

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Oversight 

House Committee on Ways and Means 

1102 LongwOJth HOB 

Washington D.C. 20515 

waysandmeans.submissions@mail.house.gov 

March 16, 2016 

Re: Wriuen submission for the record for the Oversight Subcommittee's Heruiug on 

"Protecting the Free Exchange of Ideas on College Campuses" on March 2, 2016 

Dear Chainnan Roskam and Ranking Member Lewis, 

Thank you for the opporrunity to provide tllis letter for the record in the Subcommittee's 

hearing "Protecting the Free Exchange of Ideas on College Campuses." Thank you also for 

your, and the Subcounuitree's, attention to the threats to the First Amendment taking place on 

college and 1miversity campuses across our nation. 

As a b1ief introduction, from 2011- 2012 I served as President of the Vanderbilt Srudent 

Chapter of the Christian Legal Society while studying at the Vanderbilt University Law School. 

Tllis letrer briefly summarizes my experiences during tllis time. The Christian Legal Society is a 

national orga•lization that facilitates student chapters at law schools across om· nation. Om· 

particular chapter at Vanderbilt focused ptimarily on promoting student spiritual well-being and 

encouraging tlte discussion of diverse viewpoints. For many srudents, law school is an intense 

and str·essful experience. In this enviromnent, our Cluistian Legal Society Chapter promoted 

srudents' spirimal well-being by providing group prayer meetings, Bible studies, and a safe-place 

for sntdents to discuss tl1e difficulties of law school witlJ their peers. Additionally, the law 

school education is designed not only to teach students legal principles, but also to expose tl1em 

to a diverse group of people and ideas-exposure which se1ves funtre lawyers well when they 

must represent diverse clients or create policies t!Jat take into accotmt the needs of diverse 

communities. At Vanderbilt, tllis task was filled in large part by srudent groups, whetl1er tl1ey be 

groups dedicated to enviromnental concems, business policy, animal rights, or political views 

(both Republican and Democrat). In tllis eclectic mix, our Christian Legal Society Chapter 

sought to encom·age discussion of Christian viewpoints. To do so, we regulady invited speakers 

to come to Vanderbilt and speak on topics of special impot1ance to Christians in our nation. 
200 


22161A.163

For yeru·s our chapter of the Christian Legal Society was recognized as a student group at 

Vru1derbilt-all the while suppo1ting sn1dent's spu1mal needs ru1d promoting discussions of 

diverse viewpoillts on crunpus. However, ill sunnner 2012, the leadership of om· chapter was 

uuonned that we would not be allowed to couti.J1ue in the followillg school yeru·. After engagi.Jlg 

Vru1derbilt administrators to asce1tau• the rationale for tllis sudden cha11ge, we were told tl1at 

Vanderbilt had den.ied recognition to our Christian Legal Society chapter because our group 

expected its leaders to lead Bible sn1dies, prayer, and worship along with affmnu1g the group's 

core religious beliefs.

1 Another group was told tl1at its recognition was denied because of five 

words in its leadersllip requirements: "personal commitment to Jesus Clnist."2 In sho1t, 

Vanderbilt's policy stated that a Christian group could not ask that a leader believe in 

Clnistirulity-even if the group (like tlle Clmstiru1 Legal Society) welcomed all smdents to be 

members and attend its events regardless of their religions beliefs. The leadership of om· 

Christia11 Legal Society Chapter, ru1d mru1y other religious groups on crunpus, tried to reason a11d 

work witl1 the Va11derbilt adnliillstrators. However, ulti.Jllately our chapter, along witll thuteeu 

other religious groups, were forced to leave campus for refusing to recant our religious beliefs. 

For many college students, the activities and time they spend on their college or 

mliversity crunpus constinltes the vast majority of their college experience. A sn1dent group tl1at 

is removed from crunpus loses ma11y abilities to support a11d engage students. At Vanderbilt 

specifically, our removal meant that we could no longer promote our events on campus except by 

word of mouth, were not allowed to pruti.cipate ill Vru1derbilt events (such as student 

organizational fairs), were deprived of f1mdi.ng to sponsor speakers, and were allowed space to 

meet at Vru1derbilt only at the lowest p1iori.ty. Silllilru·ly situated groups at public tmiversities 

face even more severe sanctions-illcludillg beillg brumed altogether. 

The idea that a group could be ba1med at colleges and universities in the United States of 

America for notlling more tl1ru1 seeki.Jlg to express a specific viewpoint is contrary to botl1 tl1e 

text and tl1e pru1ciples ensln·illed u1 the First Amendment to om· Constimtion. Policies, like tllose 

implemented by Vanderbilt, contladict the American ideal of a pluralistic society- where 

illdi.viduals and associations may express t11eir opillions ru1d beliefs freely without being censored 

by a tmiversity admlli.sti·ator or govemrnent executive. As tlle drafters of tl1e Fu>t Amendment 

recognized, tllis basic freedom is essential to a free society. I thank the subcommittee for its 

attention to tllis ill1portru11 issue a11d once agaill tl1rulk tlle subcommittee for allowu1g me to 

sub1nit tllis letter. 

Enclosure 

1 See Anachmenl A at 1 (enclosed). 2 See Attachment A at 2 (enclosed). 

RespectfulJy Subulitted, 

Is/ Justin P. Gunter, Esq. 

2 
201 


22161A.164

ATTACHMENT A 
202 


22161A.165

---------- Forwarded message ---------

From: [redacted] 

Date: Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 10:40 PM 

Subject: RE: Christian Legal Society status 

To: [redacted] 

Cc: [redacted] 

Dear [redacted], 

Thank you for submitting your new Constitution for the Christian legal Society. In reviewing it, there are some 

parts of it that are in violation of Vanderbilt University's policies regarding student organizations; they will need to 

be addressed before the Office of Religious life can endorse CLS's approval. 

Article Ill states that, "All officers of this Chapter must subscribe to the Christian Legal Society Statement of Faith." 

Vanderbilt's policies do not allow any student organization to preclude someone from a leadership position based 

on religious belief. Only performance-based criteria may be used. This section will need to be rewritten reflecting 

this policy. 

The last paragraph of Section 5.2 states that "Each officer is expected to lead Bible studies, prayer and worship at 

Chapter meetings as tasked by the President." This would seem to indicate that officers are expected to hold 

certain beliefs. Again, Vanderbilt policies do not allow this expectation/qualification for officers. 

Section 9.1 regarding Amendments to the Constitution should include language stating that any amendment must 

also be in keeping with Vanderbilt University's policies on student organizations and must be approved by the 

University before taking effect. 

Please make these few changes and submit a copy of the amended Constitution to me so we can proceed with the 

approval process. 

Also, we do not have in hand a copy of the revised Officer and Advisor Affirmation Form, as requested in the initial 

deferral. Specifically, we need a clean document without the handwritten text that seems to be an exclusionary 

clause advocating for partial exemption from the University's non-discrimination policy. Please forward us a copy 

of this as well. 

Thank you. Please let me know of any questions you may have. 

Best, 

(redacted) 

[redacted) 
203 

f 


22161A.166

····-···· Fonvarded message -·-······ 

From: vanderbiltcollegiatelink 

<noreply@collegiateliuk.net<maiho:not-eply@collegiatelink.net><maiho:noreply@eollegiatelink.net<maiho:noreply 

@collegiateliuk.net>>> 

Date: Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at I 1:53AM 

Subject: Registration StaniS Update: [redacted ttame ofCluistian student group] 

To: (redacted name of smdeut] 

Tite registnttion application that yon submined on behalf of[ redacted name of Ciuistian student group] 

<hnps:llvanderbiltcollegiatelink.netlorganizationl[redacted]> has not been approved and may require nuther action 

on your pru1. Please sec the rcviewet's commems below or access your submission 

now<htl]>s://vanderhih.collegiatel.ink.netlorganization/[redacted]/register/Review/650475>. 

Titrulk you for submining yow· registration application. Vru1derbilt appreciates the value of its stlldem organizations, 

Your submission was incomplete or requires cbrutges, d1t1S we are not able to approve your application at dus time. 

Please re-submit your application including the following items or changes:- Please change the following statement 

in your constimtion: 

"Anicle IV. OFFICERS 

Officers will be Vanderbilt students selected froru ru11ong active participrutts in [redacted name ofCluistiau sntdent 

group), Criteria for officer selection will include level and quality of past involvement, personal colllJllilmentto Jesus. 

Christ, colllJlliunent to dte organization, and demonsu-ated leadership ability." 

CHANGE TO: 

Officers will be Vanderbilt students selected from among active participrulls in [redacted nruue ofCluistian sn•deut 

group), Ctitcria for officer selection will include level and quality of past iuvolvemcnt, comuutmentto the 

organill!tiou, and demonstrated leadership ability. 

We are colllJllilted to a timely review of every complete application received ru1d to lening you know dte status of 

your appl.ication as soon as possible. 
204 


22161A.167

March 15, 2016 

The Honorable Peter Roskam 

Chainuan, Subconuuittee on Oversight 

The Honorable John Lewis 

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Oversight 

House Committee on Ways and Means 

II 02 Longworth HOB 

Washington D.C. 20515 

waysandmeans.submissions@mail.house.gov 

Re: Written submission for the record for the Oversight Subcommittee's Hearing on 

"Protecting the Free Exchange ofldeas on College Campuses" on March 2, 2016 

Dear Chairman Roskam and Ranking Member Lewis: 

I write to you as the former President of the Christian Legal Society (CLS), The Ohio 

State University (OSU) Moritz College of Law student chapter. Founded in 1961 CLS is a 

non-profit organization that exists to educate, train, and equip Christian legal professionals 

and law students to practice Christian principles in the legal profession. Student chapters are 

part of CLS' Law Student Ministries. I was privileged to serve as the chapter President 

during the 2003-2004 academic year, which was my second year of law school. We were a 

chapter of modest size, with a membership of approxin1ately ten law students, and one 

faculty sponsor. Membership in CLS requires affirmation of a Statement of Faith, and 

adherence to a code of conduct that follows a biblical approach to inter- and intrapersonal 

conduct. Membership in CLS confers several privileges, including the right to vote for the 

chapter's officers. In order to maintain good standing with CLS' national organization, 

student chapters must adopt a constitution, bylaws, and codes of conduct that are consistent 

with those of the national organization. 

Of the literally hundreds of sntdent organizations available at a large, public university 

such as Ohio State, 1 chose to devote my time and energy to serving with CLS. CLS' stated 

mission is to "inspire, encourage, and equip Christian lawyers and law students both 

individually and in community to proclaim, love and serve Jesus Christ through the study and 

practice of law, the provision oflegal assistance tO the poor and needy, and the defense of the 

inalienable rights to life and religious freedom." Upon learning of CLS, I instantly knew I 

had found an organization with whom I would find purpose and meaning during my law 

school tenure. Little did I know that groups who sought to impose their notions of "liberty" 

upon us would challenge CLS' continued existence. 

In the fall of 2003-only weeks into my tenure as chapter President- some fellow 

students asked me whether non-CLS members could attend CLS chapter meetings 

approached me. I responded that non-members were not only pennitted, but were welcomed 

and encouraged to attend our meetings. Several days later, those same students asked whether 

non-members could become voting members or officers. I responded that I would need to 

review the chapter constitution and bylaws. After review and consultation with other chapter 

officers, we determined that only those who are able to affinn CLS' Statement of Faith, and 

adhere to our bylaws and code of conduct, were eligible for voting membership and 

officership. 
205 


22161A.168

As a result of our candid response, the students flied a f01mal complaint with the law 

school administration. The Law School Dean requested a meeting with me, whereupon she 

explained the nature of the complaint and asked for my response. I explained that, as a 

student chapter, we bad no choice but tO maintain consistency with CLS' national 

organization, or we would no longer be penni ned to affiliate ourselves with them. In essence, 

to change our constitution and bylaws would be to change the very nanare of our 

organization. We would cease to be a Christian Legal Society. 

Several days later, The Ohio State University initiated an investigation into our chapter 

for allegedly violating the University's non-discrimination policy. The University threatened 

to void our status as a recognized group, thereby rescinding our ability to use University 

facilities, receive funding from our student fees, and possibly requiring repayment of past 

funds received. The consequences of such action would have been devastating. Without the 

ability to meet on campus, to receive financial assistance, or to even exist as a recognized 

organization, I am certain CLS would have c.eased to continue its ministry at Tite Ohio State 

University. Those of us for whom CLS provided a meaningful and important vehicle through 

which we could use our legal education for the greater good would be relegated to secondclass citizens simply because of our sincerely held beliefs. 

I agreed to undergo mediation with a leader from the complaining organization, in the 

hopes that we could achieve reconciliation. I also hoped to demonstrate that our organization 

was open and welc.oming to all, but that we simply could not compromise our core principles 

and beliefs. At the next chapter me·eting- we met weekly- ! apprised the attendees of the 

situation, and asked that we all make every effort to maintain a friendly and welcoming 

environment. I recall specifically inviting the very students who complained to CLS 

meetings, so they could observe for themselves our desire for friendship and collegiality. 

Unfortunately, our attempts were to no avail. 

Once informed of the University's decision to investigate us, I convened an 

emergency session with our chapter's members and officers. We decided that the appropriate 

action was to contact the CLS national organization tO inform them of the siruation. I soon 

learned that CLS sued The Ohio State University in federal court for religious discrimination. 

After doing so, my involvement and role diminished significantly, so that I could maintain 

my focus on my legal studies. I provided some assistance wit11 the preparation of legal 

documents on our studem chapter's behalf, but my involvemelll primruily consisted of 

signing documentS and providing statementS. It also helped to receive affinnation and 

encouragement that we had not violated the law, and that we did the right thing. 

Several acrimonious months later, we were infonned that the University reached a 

settlement with CLS, and agreed tO amend its non-discrimination policy with an exceptiou 

for student organizations that hold "sincerely held beliefs." My understanding is that the 

exception was a stop-gap measure, and I do not know if the University continues to provide 

such an exception today. My hope is that it does; there are many faith-based organizations 

with sincerely held religious beliefs who would be unfairly and unlawfully penalized were 

the University to rescind this hard-won exception. 

To summarize, from October 2003 through November 2004, the CLS student chapter 

at The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law was threatened with exclusion because 
206 


22161A.169

of its religious leadership requirements. Afler months o f discussions with University 

administrmors, a lawsuit was filed, which was dismissed afler the University revised its 

policy "to allow studem organizations fonned to foster or affinn sincerely held religious 

beliefs to adopt a nondiscrimination statement consistent with those beliefs in lieu of 

adopting the University's nondiscrimination policy." CLS then met without problems from 

2005-2010. 

In September 2010, the university asked the student govenunent whether the 

university should change its policy to no longer allow religious groups to have religious 

leadership and membership requirements. On November 10, 2010, the OSU Council of 

Graduate Students unanimously adopted a resolution urging the University to drop its 

protection of religious student groups. The OSU Undergraduate Student Government passed 

a similar resolution. On January 18, 2011 , the OSU Council on Student Affairs voted to 

remove the protection for religious student groups and "endorse( d) the position that every 

student, regardless of religious belief, should have the opportunity ... to apply or run for a 

leadership position within those organizations." 1 But in June 2012, the Ohio Legislan•re 

passed a law prohibiting public universities from denying recognition to religious student 

organizations? 

Unfortunately, despite these new protections afforded by the law, there will inevitably 

be human consequences as a result of religious hostility and discrimination. I was often the 

subject of name-calling, gossip, and rumor-mongering. The Law School "advised" that I 

undergo mediation with those whom I had "offended." ln short, the law school- my law 

school- created a hostile envirorunent for me. I was warned by upperclassmen not to take 

courses by certain professors who were not likely to give me fair evaluations. Some of my 

classmates verbally admonished me for my sincerely held religious beliefs. And I was only in 

my second year of law school. I would have to endure tl1is treatment and hostility for more 

than another year. 

Mr. Chainnan, thank you for the opportunity to share my experience. I am happy to 

provide additional details if necessary. 

1 The student government resolutions are attached. 

z Ohio Rev. Code§ 3345.023. 

Sincerely, 

i7..,£ J=->== 

Michael Berry 
207 


22161A.170

The Ohio State University 

Council of Graduate Students 

Resolution 1011-AU-006 

Supporting the Repeal of the 

Registered Student Organization Exemption 

Au1 bor: Jona1han Nult(.19). Presidenl 

Sponsor: The Execmive Commiuee 

Introduced: November 12, 20 I 0 

WHEREAS, new legal precedence selby 1he U.S. Supreme Courl case Chrislian Legal 

Society Chapler of I he University of Califomia, Hastings College of Law v. Ma I inez 

E1 al. brings reason to review the cmTenl Regis1ered S1udem Organizmion exemplion 

1ha1 enables "a studeol organizmion fonned 10 fos1er or affom 1he sincerely held 

religious beliefs of i1s members may adop1 a ooodiscrimina1ioo s1a1ement that is 

consistent wilh lhose beliefs:" and 

WHEREAS, 1he Presidem of the Uni1ed Slates of America recemly conunilled 10 a 

na1ionwide effO li ending discrimination in all its forms in schools and communi lies: 

and 

WHEREAS, lhe University has fostered a culture of inclusion for over 40-years and the 

exemplion is in direct conflict wilh the vision and goals of lhe University sel fOlih in 

lhe Academic Plan. Diversi1y Ac1ion Plan and moHo disciplina in civitalem (education 

for ci1izeoship): and 

WHEREAS . the exemption is counte lotuilive to 1he Philosophies and Guiding Principles 

outlined in 1he Regis1ra1ion Guidelines for Smdent Organizalions at Ohio S1a1e and 

wi1hou1 intelligible principle and therefore difficult to interpret. enforce. and adjudica1e: 

and 

WHEREAS, lbe Council of Graduate Smdents has previously Ia ken posilions affoming 

mulua l respect and fair 1reaunen1 of all individuals a1 The Ohio S1a1e Uoiversily 10 

supporl au enviromneot of diversity thai enriches 1be communi1y and enhances the 

educational process; and 

THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED, that 1he Council of Graduate Studems urges The 

Ohio S1a1e University to repeal 1he exemption ou1lined in 1he Registralion Guidelines 

for S1Udeu1 Organizalions a1 Ohio Stale 1hat s1a1es "A studem organizmion fonned 10 

foster or affi in the sincerely held religious beliefs of ils members may adopt a 

nondiscriminalion slalement thai is consislent wilh those beliefs;" and 

LET IT BE FURTHER RESOLVED, thai the Council of Graduate S1udents charges its 

Graduale S1udem Representalives in University comminees to vote in accordance with 

Ibis resolutions: and 
208 


22161A.171

LET IT BE FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Council of Graduate Students charges its 

President to communicate to the Ohio State University President, the Executive Vice 

President and Provost, tbe Vice Provost and ChiefDiversity Officer, the Vice President 

of Student Life, the Dean of the Graduate School, the Undergraduate Student 

Government, the Inter-Professional Council and all other appropriate groups the 

Council's position as established by this resolution. 

Date Approved: November 12, 2 010 (Unanimo u sly) 

President I Council of Graduate Students 
209 


22161A.172

January 18th, 20 II 

CHARGE: 

Council on Student AITairs Recommendation 

Religious Sn1dent Organization Carve-Out 

Submitted by Bryan Ashton 

On behalf of The Council on Student Affairs 

Recommend a course of action in regards to the religious student organization carve-out 

to the non discrimination clause in the Smdent Organization Registration guidelines at The Ohio 

State University. 

RESEARCH: 

The Council began the process of reviewing the carve-out in the beginning of November 

through an Ad-Hoc committee. This conunittee finished their work at the end of November and 

produced a recommendation in favor of a blanket removal of the carve-out (attached). On 

November 30~', CSA hosted au open forum, in which we heard opinions from student 

organization leaders and university community members about the issue. During the quarter 

both Undergraduate Student Govenunent and the Council of Graduate Smdents passed 

resolutions in favor of the removal of the Carve Out (attached). Voting CSA members were also 

provided with numerous reading materials and encouraged to engage in constituency outreach. 

FINDINGS: 

TI1e Council voted (12-1) in favor of accepting the Ad-Hoc committee's recommendation 

of a blanket removal of the carve-our. TI1e Council recommends that this change be placed into 

effect for the next smde111 organization registration year and that appropriate University 

resources be a.llocated to help organizations transition and maintain their compliance and 

registration stams. 

The Colulcil, in accepting this recommendation, endorses the position that every student, 

regardless of religious belief, should have the oppormnity to participate in student organizations 

as well as have the opporntnity to apply or run for a leadership position within those 

organizations. The Council believes that the Office of Smdent Life in conjunction with the 

Office of Legal Affairs should address acceptable officer selection procedures with groups who 

request such assistance. 

Attached to this reconuncndation is the report of the Ad-Hoc C01runinee as well as the 

Student Govemment resolutions that were introduced. Much debate and strong feelings were 

drawn from these resolutions and reports, so they are included in the recollllnendation. 
210 


22161A.173

November29, 2010 

Council on Student Affairs Reconunendation 

Reli1,rious Student Organization Carve-Out 

Submitted by Bryan Ashton 

On behalf of Student Organization Carve Out Ad-Hoc 

CHARGE: Recommendation a course of action in regards to the religious student organization 

carve-out to the non discrimination clause in the Sn1dent Organization Registration guidelines. 

MAKE UP: The Ad-Hoc Committee consisted of representatives from Residence Life, the Law 

School, !PC, USG, CGS, Muslim Sn1dent Association, Staff, and Faculty. Ex-Officio members 

included representatives from Legal Affairs and Student Activities. 

RESEARCH: 

The group heard from Michael Layish of Legal Affairs, as well as Kerry Hodak from 

Sn•dent Activities in regards to their experiences with the carve-out and the history of its 

implementation. The group also discussed the implications of the removal of the carve-out or 

continuing with the carve-out in place for religious student organizations. Each sn•dent 

govenunent was asked to do constituency outreach and in the process CGS passed a resolution 

regarding the issue. The committee then spent three meetings debating the merit of the removal 

of the carve-out, upholding the carve-out, and the examination of a leadership exemption. 

FINDINGS: 

The Ad-Hoc Conunittee voted unanimously (8-0) in favor of recommending that the 

carve-out, in relation to its application to general members, be removed. There was discussion 

and dissent to the idea of a blanket removal, with three members of the committee voting in 

favor of adopting a carve-out, similar to current carve-out, however applied only to leadership 

positions in the organization. The recommendation of the Ad-Hoc Committee was (5-3) in favor 

of a blanket removal of the current carve-out. Below are opinions in favor of a blanket carve-out 

(Brandon Edwards) and opinions in favor of a leadership position carve-out (Maria Ahmad). 

OPINIONS: 

Blanket Removal 

Put simply, the debate placed before the Council on Student Affairs regarding carve out 

language for religious-based Student Organizations requires a choice of the lesser of two evils. 

By removing the carve-out for religious-based Sn•dent Organizations, Ohio State mns the risk of 

diminishing the voice of student organizations built upon a sincerely held religious belief. By 

denying these organizations the privileges associated with registration, we threaten 

discrimination against those groups that are organized around a certain interpretation of religious 

doctrine. However, by keeping the religious Sn1dent Organization exemption cmTently in place, 
211 


22161A.174

Council on Student Affairs Reconunendation 

Religious Student Organization Carve-Out 

Ohio State's Office of Student Activities leaves open the option of groups discriminating against 

members of the student body interested in membership. Keeping the carve out instinnionalizcs 

the ability of Student Organization members to openly discriminate against students with 

opinions and behaviors different than their own. The question is: should we potentially 

discriminate against Student Organizations or should we allow those Student Organizations to 

discriminate against individual students. It is my opinion, and the unanimous opinion of the 

CSA Student Organization Guideline Review Ad-Hoc Committee, that the fonner is a preferred 

action in lieu of the potential ramifications of the latter. We must protect the rights of students to 

join the organizations of their choosing instead of tolerating the discriminatory tendencies of 

individual Student Organizations. 

As a public University entrusted with the stewardship of taxpayers dollars, we must not 

allow Student Organizations to discriminate against federally mandated protected classes. 

Additionally, we must consider where the funding comes from for the benefits bestowed to 

Registered Student Organizations. Each student pays a $25 Student Activity Fee, and this money 

allows Registered Student Organizations access to a number of benefits. It is irresponsible to 

require this fund of every student but not allow individual students the right to j oin any Stltdent 

Organization of their choosing due to discriminatory mles put in place by those groups. 

It is the opinion of some that carve out language still be included in governing the 

selection of Student Organization Officers. In response to that, I advocate that we allow 

democracy to nm its course. It is entirely rational to impose voting membership requirements 

relating to attendance at meetings and fulfillment of other membership characteristics. By 

restricting membership to those dedicated to its mission through demonstrated participation, each 

Student Organization has the ability to create an electorate as devoted to the organization as 

possible. It is in that spirit that we should allow voting members to install the leadership of their 

choosing, free from instinttionalized guidelines precluding certain members the privilege of 

seeking officer status. We must trust the capacity of each Student Organization member to vote 

for the candidate most in line with his or her values and goals for the organization. Democracy 

should decide that someone is unfit for officership rather than guidelines that allow 

precautionary discrimination. 

Justice Anthony Ketmedy summed up the spirit of the need for carveout removal in his 

concurring opinion on CLS v. Mar/inez: "a vibrant dialogue is not possible if students wall 

themselves off from opposing points o f view." 

--Brandon N. Edwards, November 28, 20 I 0 

Leadership Position Catve Out 

Student Life is made up of students for students. Student groups are nm by students. Any student 

is able to create a new group on campus with any mission or purpose that they desire. But once 

the group is started, it is cmcial for the group to have some rights that will keep them stable and 

active. Religious student groups are created for two maitl purposes. The first purpose is to foster 

the beliefs and maintain the identity of those who follow that faith on campus. The second 

purpose is to let others on campus know about the faith through various means. Seeing the 

second purpose, it is obvious that groups that want to affiliate their self as an official OSU group, 

will plan events that would be open to all students and fulfilling their purpose, and using the 

student's activity fee. 
212 

f 


22161A.175

Council on Student Affairs Recommendation 

Religious Student Organization Carve-Out 

However the first purpose cannot be fulfilled without having a leader who 

shares the basic beliefs and concepts of the religious thought that the group was 

founded upon. One cannot help instill faith in another unless the fonner also believes. 

To have a leader who does not believe in the basics of that faith become the face of 

the group, and that religion, is deceitful and tmfair to those who join. This partiality 

can be more readily applied to religious groups over others such as ethnic ones 

because religion is something one can choose to follow, not something one is 

born with. We do not even have to look at the degrees of religiosity but to have 

someone who claims and seems to be believing in and following the group's mission is 

not only ideal but necessary. 

It may be true that groups should use their own wisdom in choosing their 

leaders through having a criteria and elections. However, student groups come in all 

sizes and to do this may be difficult for smaller and new groups. These student groups 

should have some rights as to who can and cannot be the representative of their group. 

If a group sees it necessary to not let that individual become the leader, the latter has 

the ability to start his or her own group which is simple to do at this University. This 

will also foster more diversity and give scope to larger group of students who may not 

have wanted to be part of another group's mission. Having a carve out for leadership 

does not have to be used by those who do not want to, but it should be there for those 

groups who want it. If about 23 of900 student groups are using the carve out presently, 

and need to, then they should be able to. 

-Maria Ahmad 
213 


22161A.176

Testimony of Mitchell Steffen 

Submitted for the record February 29, 2016 

Members of the House Committee on Ways and Means Subcommittee on Oversight, 

Thank you for offering me this opportunity to testify today on my recent experience with 

censorship offree speech on campus. 

My name is Mitchell Steffen and I am a freshman student at Macomb Community 

College located in Clinton Township of Macomb County, Michigan. 

On Tuesday, February 16, 2016, I was registering students for Young Americans for 

Liberty, a student group with an active campus membership, \'~th a friend inside the 

student life building located on the center campus during school hours. We were 

canying clipboards; we had no table and posted no materials on the walls. We 

approached students passing by and elicited them to join our organization, which 

discusses and advocates on freedom issues on college campuses (including, ironically, 

freedom of speech on campus.) 

We canvassed the area for about 20 minutes when we were approached by a school 

official who did not identify herself but insisted we stop and refrain from recruiting 

students \~ hout first obtaining permission from the administration. I asked her what 

would happen if we refused to do so. She replied by saying that campus police would 

make us stop by whatever means necessary. 

We complied to avoid escalating the situation, but once the official left, we struck up 

conversations with sh•dents about what had just happened. 

Subsequently, we reserved a table to canvass at the sh1dent life center at tlle Soutll 

campus, again to recruit members for our organization. We were approached by the 

same woman, who asked whether we were petitioning. We informed her we were 

not. She explained that for our information, we could not petition \~thout obtaining 

prior approval from the administration. She departed and allowed us to continue 

recruiting at our table, but returned shortly tllereafter and presented us '~ili a printed 

copy of the college's policy on "expressive acti~ty," \~th handwritten contact 

information for Geany Maiuni, Dean of Student and Community Sernces. The policy is 

located on tlle Web at: http://www.macomb.edu/about-macomb/collegepolicies/administrative/policy-expressive-acti~tv.htrnl and is attached. 

She departed and we concluded the event '~tho t further incident. 

I have serious concerns about both the policy on "expressive acti~ty" and the 

incidents. I '~II discuss the policy first. 

Nowhere is any lawful authority cited for the university to demand students obtain prior 

permission to engage in "expressive acti~ty," to prohibit "expressive acti~ty" inside 
214 


22161A.177

College buildings, or to exempt labor unions from these rules. Nowhere is any 

explanation provided for the <italic>need</italic> to demand students obtain prior 

permission to engage in "expressive activity": no record of any pattern of problems 

created by "expressive activity" was offered. No explanation for prohibiting "expressive 

activity" in College buildings was given. 

While it might be unnecessruy to cite the legal reasons for rules relating to, for example, 

signage size limits near roads, it is, or certainly should be, necessruy to justify rules that 

clearly inhibit free speech. It is unreasonable to limit students' right to "expressive 

speech" to outdoor areas, where rain, snow, and bitter cold can discourage participation 

and even pose safety hazards. 

There is no remedy provided for a Dean's failure to grant pennission promptly, or for 

any failure on the part of the Dean or the College. 

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, <italic> there is no justifiable reason why my 

community college should be permitted to defme activities it can regulate as "expressive 

speech" using such broad terms as "assemblies" and "campaigning" which do not carry 

any inherent risk to public health and safety. The College is not, or certainly should not 

be, permitted to limit the First Amendment rights of its students. 

Now, as to the incidents. 

In the first, the campus official - perhaps the Dean herself- ordered us to cease and 

desist, under threat of possible academic sanctions or even arrest, without making even 

basic inquiries to determine whether we were actually in violation of any policy. 

I do not believe my friend and I violated any campus policy, and we were wrongfully 

stopped from freely engaging in lawful activity. 

I do not believe it would have been, or should have been, lawful for the College to have 

stopped us if we had been petitioning, demonstrating, or "assembling" if we were not 

doing so disruptively. 

In the second incident, the campus official was more reserved, since this time she did 

not stop us from approaching our fellow students under threat of police action, when we 

were doing nothing different from the first incident. But because we were doing nothing 

different, and we were approached and delivered a printed copy of the "expressive 

activity" policy, we interpreted the intent of the agent of the Dean as to send a clear 

message that we were being closely watched and advised to obey the unconstitutional 

policy. 

I strongly believe both the policy and the mrumer it is enforced are highly inappropriate, 

and a symptom of a more systemic problem of a lack of concern for the First 

Amendment in college administrative policy. 
215 

f 


22161A.178

The policy was undoubtedly reviewed by College attorneys who apparently saw no 

problem with the issues I raise here. The conduct of the official who wrongly threatened 

me and my friend suggests that there is no policy for administrators' conduct to ensure 

they are aware of students' rights. 

I believe we need stronger protection for the First Amendment rights of students on 

college campuses. While these matters are often appropriately handled at the state 

level, the Fourteenth Amendment grants Congress the authority to protect the First 

Amendment rights of citizens at the state level. 

Thank you for taking the time to contemplate this important constitutional issue. The 

right of students to engage in free speech and political assembly on college campuses 

improves the quality of political discourse, which benefits our society as students 

graduate to become leaders. 

I appreciate your consideration of my stOiy, my situation, and my interpretation of what 

these facts mean. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Mitchell Steffen 
216 


22161A.179

March 16. 2016 

The Honorable Peter Roskam 

Chairman. Subcommittee on Oversight 

The Honorable John Lewis 

House Committee on Ways and Means 

1102 Longworth HOB 

Washington. D.C. 20515 

waysandmeans.submissions@mail.hOuse.gov 

Re: Written statement of ReJOYce In Jesus Campus Fellowship 

submitted for the written record for the Oversight Subcommittee's Hearing on 

"Protecting the Free Exchange of Ideas on College Campuses" on March 2,2016 

Dear Chairman Roskam and Ranking Member Lewis: 

DIAL 

323 

R·E·J·O·Y·C·E 

735·6923 

Thank you for holding the hearing on March 2, 2016, regarding the free exchange of ideas on college 

campuses. As ReJOYce In Jesus Campus Fellowship ("RJCF") knows too well from its own experiences, the 

free exchange of ideas. including religious ideas, is under attack on college campuses nationwide. 

College administrators too often deny access to religious student organizations in order to penalize the 

religious organizations for their religious beliefs and conduct This letter will describe a recent problem 

that RJCF had at California State University, as well as a problem at Texas A&M University in the past. 

RJCF has been a recognized student organization on many college campuses across the country for 

several decades. RJCF is a Christian student group that primarily. but not exclusively, draws its 

membership from the African-American Christian community and that-- unremarkably until recent 

years-- requires its leaders to believe in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. 

California State University: California State University is the largest public university in the country with 

437.000 students on 23 campuses. Cal State recognizes thousands of student organizations and allows 

them to meet for free and have access to various channels of communication with other students and 

the broader campus community. 

For over 40 years. RJCF had been a recognized student organization at Cal State's Northridge campus 

("CSUN"). But In December 2011, former Chancellor Reed adopted Executive Order 1068 that, among other 

things. re-interpreted the university's nondiscrimination policy to prohibit religious student groups from 

maintaining religious leadership requirements. The order also purported to adopt an "all-comers" policy 

that would prohibit all student groups, including religious groups, from choosing their leaders according to 

the groups' beliefs. The executive order is at http://www.calstate.edu/eo/E0-1068.pdf. 

P.O. BOX 47775 LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA 90047 
217 


22161A.180

Cal State's new policy employed an unfair double standard: fraternities and sororities were 

given an exemption to select their leaders and members on the basis of sex, but religious organizations 

were denied an exemption to select their leaders on the basis of their religious beliefs. 

In 2013, Cal State began to implement its new policy, notifying several religious student 

organizations, including RJCF. that they would no longer be recognized as student organizations unless 

they stopped requiring their leaders to agree with their religious beliefs. In August, Cal State granted 

religious student groups a one-year moratorium lor the 2013-2014 academic year. The fact that the 

religious groups were the only ones seeking a moratorium demonstrates that other student groups 

could easily adapt to the new policy, whereas the religious groups could not. 

During the moratorium, religious student groups urged Cal State to adopt a simple solution. All Cal 

State needed to do to respect religious liberty was to add a single sentence to its policy: "The prohibition 

on leadership policies that discriminate on the basis of religion does not apply to religious student 

organizations." The religious groups provided Cal State with several examples of other major 

universities' nondiscrimination policies that respected religious liberty. In December 2014, members of 

Congress sent a letter to California State University, expressing their disapproval of the religious student 

groups' exclusion. 

Despite the letters from the Members of Congress and the religious student organizations, Cal State 

refused to extend the moratorium and began enforcement against the religious groups during the 2014-

15 academic year. Cal State withdrew recognition from many religious student associations, including 

RJCF,lnterVarsity Christian Fellowship, Cru (formerly Campus Crusade lor Christ), The Navigators, Chi 

Alpha, and Ratio Christi. Some of these groups had met lor over forty years on California State University 

campuses with religious leadership requirements. But under the new policy, as one Cal State 

administrator explained to the media, '"What they cannot be is faith based where someone has to have 

a profession of faith to be that leader." 

In January 2015, RJCF's student president received notice that Cal State was terminating RJCF's 

recognition as a student group. Cat State's letter, which is attached, explained: 

This correspondence is to inform you that effective immediately, your student organization, 

ReJOYce In Jesus Campus Fellowship , will no longer be recognized by California State University, 

Northridge . 

. . . . The ReJOYce In Jesus Campus Fellowship organization will no longer be recognized given failure to 

submit an organizational constitution that is in compliance with nondiscrimination and open 

membership requirements as outlined in California State University Executive Order 1068.ln 

withdrawing University recognition, your organization is no longer afforded the privileges of University 

recognition (sic) Clubs and Organizations. 

The attached letter then listed the penalties RJCF incurred for requiring its leaders to agree with 

its religious beliefs, which included: 

Ability to reserve two free meeting rooms per week: 

Recruiting CSUN students through official campus recruitment programs; 

Suspension of its university email and website accounts; 

Eligibility for student activity fee funding; 

Ability to receive mail at the University. 
218 


22161A.181

As a CSUN administrator subsequently explained, unrecognized student groups "will be charged the 

off-campus rate and will not be eligible to receive two free meetings per week in (university) rooms." The off. 

campus rental rate was $120·$200 per meeting, which RJCF students could not afford. As a result of being "de· 

recognized," some religious student groups paid thousands of dollars to rent meeting space and obtain 

insurance coverage-- both of which had been free for forty years and were still free to recognized student 

organizations. 

Eventually, Cal State retreated from its position and provided a lew religious groups with a letter stating 

that, under certain circumstances, their leadership selection processes could indude questions about a candidate's 

religious beliefs. But the executive order has not been revised, and religious groups remain at the mercy of Cal 

State administrators on 23 campuses. While Cal State re-recognized the religious groups for the 2015-2016 

academic year, the situation remains unsettled, and students' religious liberty and freedom of speech remain 

encumbered at Cal State. 

Texas A&M University: For nearly 20 years. RJCF has been a recognized student group at TAMU. RJCF has 

always required that its leaders believe in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. But in the fall of 

2011, RJCF submitted the same constitution that had been approved in past years with its routine request for 

renewal of recognition as a registered religious student organization. The Office of Student Life, however, 

unexpectedly threatened to deny recognition unless RJCF changed its constitution to delete its requirement that 

its leaders share its core religious beliefs. Only after legal counsel sent a letter to TAMU's general counsel on 

behalf or RJCF did TAMU re-recognize RJCF as a student organization. The attached letter from Ms. Richardson 

details the situation. 

This letter has addressed two situations in which RJCF has had its recognition as a student organization 

threatened because it requires its leaders to be religious. But there are many other such situations, as well as 

times when RJCF chapters have experienced restrictions by campus administrators on RJCF students' speech 

because it is religious or because RJCF is a religious organization. For this reason, we are deeply grateful for your 

attention to the problems religious students are encountering on college campuses across the country. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Dr. Chester C. Pipkin, Jr. Pastor 

and President, 

ReJOYoe In Jesus Ministries, Inc. 
219 


22161A.182

California State University 

Northridge Office of Studeut Involve!lleut & Deve lopmem 

January 20, 2015 

Cinnamon McCellen 

Rejoyce in Jesus Campus Fellowship 

Cc: Vicki Allen, Advisor 

Dear Cinnamon: 

This correspondence is to inform you that effective immediately your student organiz.ation. Rejoyce in Jesus 

Campus Fellowship. witl no longer be recognized by California State University, Northridge. 

Withdrawing or withholding of official recognition can oocur when an organization has failed to meet the standards 

reQvired for official recognition in a given year. The Re;oyoe in Jesus Campys FellOwship Otganization will no longer 

be recognized given failure to submit an organizational constitution that is in compliance with non-discrimination 

and open membership mquirements as outlined In California State University Executive Order 1068. 

In withdrawing University recognition your organization is no lo·nger afforded the privi~s of University 

recognition Clubs and Organizations. Those include: 

Recruiting Catifomia State University,Northridge students through ofricJatcampus recruitment programs 

(such as Moot the Clubs,Matafest.AS Fai<,etc.). 

Utilizing the university name as a designation tor your organization. 

Have a univers.ity issued email acc<M.Jnt and or website. If your club or organization has a current email or 

website. a request to suspend your email and website will be sent to the University's tT department and 

will be deactivated within a week. 

Eligibility for Associated Students, Inc. (A.S.) funding and utilization of AS financial and marketing 

resources and services. 

Eligibility for University Student Union (USU) facility use at a discounted rate. Only University recognized 

clubs or organizations are eligible for the discounted rates and fee waivers on room reservations in the 

USU. Groups of students not recogniZed by the university who reserve rooms through USU Reservations 

and Events Services wiiJ be charged the off..campus rate and will not be eligible to receive two free 

mootings per week in USU rooms. Rate i nformation can be found at the following website: 

www.csun.edu/usu. 

Eligibility ror USU co··sponsorship support. Any organization applying for co-sponsorship must be a 

University recognized dub or organization. auxiliary or university department. Therefore, any group of 

students not officially recognized by the University woukS not be eligible to receive any USU CoSponsorship funding including, but not lim1ted to, funding for costs of room reservations, event 

prodU(lion (0$1$, perfonner fees, food. or Perfoouao(e Hall usage. 

Abifity to have a mailbox and receive mail at tho University. If you currently have a mailbox at the MIC it 

wm be closed (all current contents if any, will be kept for you by lhe Club and Organization Advisor. 

This k>ss of University recognition is effective immediately and notification has been sent to both the Associated 

Students alld the University Student Union. 

18111 Nordhoff Street Northridge . California 91330.8261 . (818)677·2393 . fax (8 IS) 677-459<'i . e-ma11p~triek.b8jf•y@csut'l.•du 

1'he Cahfocui.a Sl4k Unm.::f"SJtr Batmkld. ~~ft.~ Cb;eo. OOIO.Ili.C\IIt:l Hillt.. Fr~. FWknon. EAR Bay lhtmboldc.J..ooc Btacb. lolAn,tlet... 

Mltlt*t · Mooectf)'S.y. NC11tbr1._ . S~ .. S.. tkowclu». Sut Diort.o. SarA Fr~. Sao~ .. Sao l..ud Ob.spo, Sail~ Sotloma. Seaoulau1 
220 


22161A.183

If your organization determines that it would again like to be officially recognized by the University, please contact the 

Matador Involvement Center (MIC} located on the first floor of lhe USU lo discuss how your organization can come 

into compliance with non-discrimination and open membership guidelines as outlined in E01068.Assistant Director 

Vicki Allen or Activities Coordinator Jennifer Villarreal are both avaitable to assist you and can be reached at 818·677 · 

5111or via email at micleadership@csun.edu. 

If you have any questions or additional concerns please contact me at 818.677.2393 or via email at 

patrj4iley@csun.edu 

Sine re ~)// 

at ick~~y /. 

Director, Office tudent Involvement and Development 

California Sta iversity .Northridge 

CC: Associated Students University 

Student Union Matador 

Involvement Center 

Universtly Advisor for Rejoyce in Jesus Campus Fellowship 
221 


22161A.184

June 10,2015 

The Honorable Trent Franks, Chair 

Subcommittee on the Constinltion and Civil Justice, 

The Judiciary Cotmnittee of the 

United States House of Representatives 

2141 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington. D.C. 20515 

Dear Chainnan Franks, 

My name is Cinnamon McCellen. I was the student president of the ReJOYce in Jesus 

Campus Fellowship ("RJCF") at California State University Northridge ("CSUN") from 2013-

15. RJCF has been a recognized student group at CSUN for over 40 years and always required 

that its leaders believe in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. In January 2015, we were told 

that RJCF would "no longer be recognized given failure to submit an organizational constitution 

that is in compliance with nondiscrimination and open membership requirements as outlined in 

C'alifomia State University Executive Order 1068." As students of faith, we feel our constinllional 

rights are being violated and we are no longer welcome at CSU. 

As a group whose membership draws many students from the African American community, 

RJCF understands the critical importance of nondiscrimination policies and discrimination is not 

something we take lightly. We have painfully come to leam that nondiscrimination policies can 

be misused, as C'SU is doing by recently reinterpreting and misill!erpreting its nondiscrimination 

policy tO exclude religious student organizations from campus for being religious. 

RJCF meets weekly for Bible study. prayer, and muntal encouragement. We help one 

another, pray for one another, and encourage one another. Many RJCF members are away from 

home for the first time. RJCF's meetings provide a spirin~al home during the challenging 

adjustment to college life. Because Christian views are not always welcome in the classroom or 

donuitories, it is refreshing to have a place where we can be open about our faith and learn what 

the Bible says about specific problems we face or contrary views we hear from professors and 

other students. 

On Fcbmary 20, 2013, we received an email stating that RJCF's ability to remain a 

recognized student organization was in jeopardy as a result of Executive Order I 068. Many 

otber religious groups at CSU received similar notices. In the sununer of 2013, the religious 

groups petitioned the new chancellor for a moratorium on implementation of Executive Order 

I 068. We were grateful when the CSU chancellor announced a one-year moratorium for the 

2013-14 academic year. The fact that the moratorium was sought by, and applied solely to, 

religious sntdent groups showed that Executive Order I 068 really affected only the religious 

groups that could not in good conscience renounce their religious requirements for leadership. 

As a result of the moratorium, RJCF remained a recognized student group at CSUN for the 2013-

20 14 academic year. 
222 


22161A.185

Despite RJCF's and other religious groups' requests that the moratorium be extended, 

CSU refused to extend it for the 2014-15 academic year. After making all the changes that we 

could in good conscience make, RJCF submitted its constiMion and the required recognition 

forms with a statement that it signed the forms based on RJCF's belief that it is not religious 

discrimination for a religious group to have religious leadership requirements, as it bas had for 

the 41 years that it has been a recognized student organization at CSU, and as it will continue to 

have. 

On January 22, 2015, I received a letter from the CSUN administration stating that RJCF 

"will no longer be recognized." RJCF could not pay the weekly rental fee of $200 that CSU said 

we would have to pay to keep meeting in the room that we had held our weekly meetings in for 

free. We reluctantly moved our meetings off-campus. 

Because we are no longer a recognized student group, we've lost numerous benefits. The 

most damaging consequences of CSUs discrimination are the inability to meet on campus, to 

advertise on campus and to participate in student organizational fairs. These are critical avenues 

for student groups to be accessible to new students and continue to grow and serve the campus 

collllllunity. Student groups tltat can't grow event1tally can't function as members graduate. 

Leaders are the life and future of any organization. Ask any corporation looking for a 

new CEO. To suggest that this is not the case seems extremely ignorant at best. How can 

someone lead you effectively in something which they do not believe? Just as it is understood 

that a fraternity by nature would be led by a male person and a sorority by a female person 

because of the nantre and purpose of the organization. it should also be understood that a 

religious organization would best be led by a person of that religion. We are not asking a math 

club to require their leaders to be religious. The nantre and pwpose of our organization is 

religious and our leaders must be able to demonstrate and promote our beliefs in order to be 

effective. To call this discrimination is ridiculous. 

We feel that CSU is engaging il1 religious discrimination by excluding religious student 

groups from campus solely because they exercise their basic religious liberty to choose their 

leaders according to their religious beliefs. But we see additional discrimination in ihe fact that 

CSU continues to allow fraternities and sororities to choose their leaders and members on the 

basis of sex, even though Executive Order I 068 prohibits sex discrimination. We deeply 

appreciate anything that you can do to restore our constitutional freedoms on CSU's campuses. 

Sincerely, 

Cilmamon McCeUen 
223 


22161A.186

•••••••••• Forwarded message •••••••••• 

From: (CSUN Administrator- name redacted) 

Date: Mon. Nov 3, 2014 at 10:31 AM 

Subject: RE: University Recognition · Important Message 

To: (Rejoyce In Jesus Campus Fellowship Student President - name redacted) 

Cc: (CSUN Administrator- name redacted) 

Hi [RJCF Student President ·· name redacted) -

USU Reservation and Event Services has provided me w ith current rates for off-campus 

organizations. Reservation are made for Y, day and or full day only, no hourly rates are available. I have 

asked for the rate of the current room used by RJCF and a room that is slightly smaller that could 

accommodate 20-30 people. These rates are for standard room set-up and do not include any special 

request (i.e. microphones, sound systems etc.) 

Room Type Y, Day Rate Full Day Rate 

Balboa Room (Current RJCF Rm) $200 $350 

Reseda Room $120 $200 

[CSUN Administrator- name redacted) 
224 


22161A.187

June 10, 2015 

The Honorable Trent Franks. 

Chair Subcommlltee on the Constilution and Civil Justice. 

The Judiciary Committee or the United States House or Representatives 

2141Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington.O.C. 20515 

Dear Chairman Franks: 

My name is Or. Ra'sheedah Richardson. and it is an honor to submit this letter for your review 

on the behalf of ReJOVce In JESUS Campus Fellowship (RJCF) at Texas A&M University (T AMU). twas a 

member ofRJCF at TAMU during graduate school from 2003-2012. RJCFhas been a recognized student 

organization on the campus of TAMU since 1996.RJCF enjoyed this status uninterrupted for well over a 

decade, until the 2011-2012 school year when TAMU restricted our status as a campus group. 

RJCF hosts a number of activities and services open to the Texas A&M community.such as a 

weekly Bible study, weekend fellowship events and prayer. RJCF typically has from 20-30 students who 

participate. Personally, RJCF not only supported me through spiritual development and in my 

relationship with the Lord Jesus, but the fellowship encouraged me to pursue academic excellence 

and to develop character traits like integrity, wisdom, composure and faithfulness that have been 

essential for a successful professional career. RJCF has helped me as well as countless other students 

make the adjustments needed to stand through the pressures and challenges faced in college life and 

beyond. 

In October 2011, the TAMU Office of Student Organization Development and Administration 

(OSOOA) within the Department of Student Activities sent us an email taking exception to RJCF's criteria 

for voting membership and/or leadership. RJCF seeks to preserve the intent of our organization through 

our voting member/leadership requirements. OSOOA cited the University's statement on harassment 

and discrimination which states, "Texas A&M University in accordance with applicable federal and state 

taw prohibits discrimination. including harassment on the basis of race. color, national or ethnic origin, 

religion. sex, disability, age, sexual orientation. or veteran status." The email went on to state that, "This 

statement extends to student organization membership and leadership. and since ReJOVce in Jesus has 

a religious component outlined for its voting membership and leadership eligibility, your criteria 

warrants further review." 

Following a review process which Included a face-to-face meeting with Office of Student 

Organization Development and Administration personnei,RJCF was asked to change Its constitution in 

order 10 remain a recognized student organization at TAMU. I and others in our group were greatly 

troubled by what we felt was an attack on our rights as students of faith on campus and a misuse of 

TAMU's non-discrimination policy. We were informed that many other religious student groups at Texas 

A&M received similar notices and were forced to review and/or revise their constitutions. 

For a Christian student organization having leadership that holds to the same beliefs and values 

is essential. Without it. we would not be able to preserve the integrity of our values, beliefs and 

purposes as a faith-based group. I would have personally felt very uncomfortable if the leadership of 

our organization had been someone who did not subscribe to the tenets of the Christian faith as it 

would have changed the direction of RJCF monumentally. RJCF would have ceased to have the same 

1 
225 

f 


22161A.188

meaning and purpose as a Christian organization if a non-Christian was an officer. This would 

have subsequently caused me to w ithdraw my membership.As a result I would not have received 

the support offered by RJCF through college. 

W ithout student group recognition, we would not have been able to continue to meet freely on 

campus to encourage each other in our growth both spiritually and academically. According to TAMU 

policy non-recognized student groups are required to pay $100 per instance for each room reservation. 

It would have cost our group up to $7.600 per academic year to continue to operate on campus. This is 

far too great a hardship for a small student group like RJCF to maintain. 

Additionally. non-recognized student groups have a much more difficult time advertising for the 

group on campus. Specifically, they are unable to post fliers, reserve other advertising media or reserve 

campus outdoor space. Non-recognized student groups are also not allowed to participate in the MSC 

Open House-the most significant campus-wide event that allows students to connect with and learn 

about organizations consistent with their interests, needs or beliefs and What they have to offer. 

I have no doubt that had not we sought legal assistance clarifying the interpretation of federal 

law, RJCF would have ceased to exist on Texas A&M University's campus. After reviewing a letter 

received from our legal counsel. the University changed its position and acknowledged that RJCF "meets 

the criteria necessary for an exemption to the open membership requirement outlined in Texas A&M 

Student Rule 4 1.1.S which states that student organiZations should 'be open in its membership unless 

otherwise permitted under applicable federal law."' RJCF's recognized status was subsequently 

restored. 

Sincerely, 

Ra'sheedah Richardson, Ph.D. 
226 


22161A.189

Young America's Foundation 

Memo Re: Pt·otecling tbe Right to Free Expression on CoUegc Campuses 

Prepared by Emily Jasbinsky, Program Officer for Public Relation.s, Young America's 

Foundation 

Apri112, 2016 

Young America's Foundation would like to thank the Way & Means Subcommiucc on Oversight for 

investigating the critically important issue of censorship on college campuses. 

The Foundation serves as the principal outreach organization oftbe Conservative Movement. We are 

committed to ensuring that increasing numbers of young Americans understand and are inspired by 

the ideas of individual freedom, a strong national defense, free enterprise. and traditional values. We 

accomplish our mission by providing essential conferences. seminars, educational materials, 

internships, and speakers to yotmg people across the country. 

for ycllrs, our organization has worked on a daily basis with conservative students around the country 

whose ability to speak freely on their campuses is regularly cur1ailed. The situation has escalated tO 

the point of violence in recem months. 

Due to the efforts of politically correct professors and administrators, ideologically fair and balanced 

conversations rarely occur at many, if not most. of our nation's colleges and universities. To make 

matters worse, sntdents who express conservative viewpoints have literally been confronted by violent 

protests. threats, and organized censorship initiatives recently. 

The Foundation understands and :tppreciates the Subcomminee 's particular focus on the problem of 

public universities wielding their tax exempt statuses in an effort to censor ideological expression. 

We would like to offer a few key examples of the broader pattern of general censorship to demonstrate 

the overall severity of the sintation. 

Califomia State University Los Angeles, public, JRC Section 501 (c)(3) * 

Last month. the Young Americans for Freedom chapter at California State University Los Angeles 

attempted to host a lecture by Ben Shapiro on the culture of political correctness. Unfornmately. 

however, a mob of violent students and professors blocked the entrance tO the event, physically 

assaulted the conservative students trying to hear the lecture. and forced police to escor1 a ttendees into 

the lecture in small groups due to the fear <>f physical hann. 

Robert Weide, a professor of sociology, called the Y AF students ''white supremacists" and threatened 

to wrestle them. Another professor, Melina Abdullah, largely organized the dangerous protest against 

theY AF chapter. University presidelll William Covino a!tempted to cancel the event the day before it 

was scheduled to occur. claiming be would only let Shapiro speak if a liberal speaker were also 

present at the event in order to provide balance. a ll in the interest of"diversity." Not surprisingly, 

CSULA has never applied this standard when liberals have spoken on campus. 

In the aftermath of the protests, students demanded Covino step down, not because he ancmpted to 

stiOe free speech, but because he allowed the lecture to happen. The YAF chapter has since been 

targeted by campaigns labeling them "Young AmeriKKKans for Freedom." 

Virginia Tech University, public, IRC Section 115 
227 

Æ 


22161A.190