IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 191 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives relating to protecting 

freedom of speech, thought, and expression at institutions of higher education. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 7, 2019 

Mr. DAVID P. ROE of Tennessee (for himself, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, 

Mr. WEBER of Texas, Mr. LOUDERMILK, Mr. BABIN, Mr. FLEISCHMANN, 

Mr. BYRNE, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. GROTHMAN, Mr. GOSAR, 

Mr. RUTHERFORD, Mr. GIANFORTE, Mr. ALLEN, Mr. HICE of Georgia, 

Mr. WALBERG, Mr. LUETKEMEYER, Mr. NORMAN, Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania, Mr. KUSTOFF of Tennessee, and Mr. HUDSON) submitted the 

following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Education 

and Labor, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives relating to protecting freedom of speech, thought, and expression at institutions of higher education. 

Whereas in Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169 (1972), the Supreme Court of the United States held that the First 

Amendment applies in full force on public college and 

university campuses; 

Whereas in Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263 (1981), the Supreme Court of the United States observed that ‘‘the 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 191 IH 

campus of a public university, at least for its students, 

possesses many of the characteristics of a public forum’’; 

Whereas lower Federal courts have also held that the open, 

outdoor areas of public college and university campuses 

are public forums; 

Whereas section 112(a)(2) of the Higher Education Act of 

1965 (20 U.S.C. 1011a(a)(2)) contains a sense of Congress noting that ‘‘an institution of higher education 

should facilitate the free and open exchange of ideas, students should not be intimidated, harassed, discouraged 

from speaking out, or discriminated against, students 

should be treated equally and fairly, and nothing in this 

paragraph shall be construed to modify, change, or infringe upon any constitutionally protected religious liberty, freedom, expression, or association’’; 

Whereas despite the clarity of the applicable legal precedent 

and the vital importance of protecting our Nation’s public 

colleges as true ‘‘marketplaces of ideas,’’ the Foundation 

for Individual Rights in Education has found that roughly 1 in 10 of America’s top colleges and universities quarantine student expression to so-called ‘‘free speech 

zones,’’ that more than 20 speakers were disinvited from 

speaking on campuses in 2016, and a survey of 449 

schools found that almost 40 percent maintain severely 

restrictive speech codes that clearly and substantially prohibit constitutionally protected speech; 

Whereas according to the American Civil Liberties Union, 

‘‘Speech codes adopted by government-financed state colleges and universities amount to government censorship, 

in violation of the Constitution. And the ACLU believes 

that all campuses should adhere to First Amendment 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 191 IH 

principles because academic freedom is a bedrock of education in a free society.’’; 

Whereas in December 2014, the University of Hawaii at Hilo 

settled a lawsuit for $50,000 after it was sued in Federal 

court for prohibiting students from protesting the National Security Agency, unless those students were standing in the institution’s tiny, flood-prone free speech zone; 

Whereas in July 2015, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, settled a lawsuit for $35,000 after it was 

sued in Federal court for prohibiting a student from 

handing out flyers about animal abuse outside of the 

school’s free speech zone, comprising less than 0.01 percent of campus; 

Whereas in May 2016, a student-plaintiff settled her lawsuit 

against Texas’ Blinn College for $50,000 after administrators told her she needed ‘‘special permission’’ to advocate for Second Amendment rights outside of the school’s 

tiny free speech zone; 

Whereas in September 2016, two students from the Kellogg 

Community College in Battle Creek, Michigan, were arrested for handing out copies of the Constitution while 

talking with their fellow students on a sidewalk; 

Whereas a policy of the Los Angeles Community College District—the largest community college district in the country—declares that all of its campuses ‘‘are considered 

non-public forums, except for those portions of each college designated as Free Speech Areas are hereby designated as limited public forums, which designation may 

be removed and reverted to non-public forum designation 

by the Board of Trustees.’’; 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
4 

•HRES 191 IH 

Whereas in March 2017, a student sued officials of Los Angeles Pierce College and the Los Angeles Community College District after administrators at Pierce College told 

him that he could not distribute Spanish-language copies 

of the Constitution on campus unless he was standing in 

the college’s free speech zone, which comprises approximately .003 percent of the total area of Pierce College’s 

426 acres; 

Whereas the States of Virginia, Missouri, Arizona, Kentucky, 

Colorado, and Utah have passed legislation prohibiting 

public colleges and universities from quarantining expressive activities on the open outdoor areas of campuses to 

misleadingly labeled free speech zones; 

Whereas free speech zones have been used to restrict political 

speech from all parts of the political spectrum, and have 

thus inhibited the free exchange of ideas at campuses 

across the country; and 

Whereas in March 2017, Middlebury College students and 

protesters from the community prevented an invited 

speaker from giving his presentation and then attacked 

his car and assaulted a professor as the two attempted 

to leave, resulting in the professor suffering a concussion: 

Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that— 

3 (1) free speech zones and restrictive speech 

4 codes are inherently at odds with the freedom of 

5 speech guaranteed by the First Amendment of the 

6 Constitution; and 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
5 

•HRES 191 IH 

1 (2) institutions of higher education should fa2 cilitate and recommit themselves to protecting the 

3 free and open exchange of ideas. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS