IV 
115TH CONGRESS 
1ST SESSION 
H. RES. 307 
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 
MAY 3, 2017 
Mr. ROE of Tennessee (for himself, Mr. ALLEN, Mr. ROKITA, Mr. GROTHMAN, 
Mr. LEWIS of Minnesota, Mr. BYRNE, and Mr. RASKIN) submitted the 
following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Education 
and the Workforce, 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 relat-
ing to protecting freedom of speech, thought, and expres-
sion at institutions of higher education. 
Whereas in Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169 (1972), the Su-
preme 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 Su-
preme Court of the United States observed that ‘‘the 
campus of a public university, at least for its students, 
possesses many of the characteristics of a public forum’’; 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
04:23 May 04, 2017
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6300
E:\BILLS\HR307.IH
HR307
lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
•HRES 307 IH 
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 Con-
gress noting that ‘‘an institution of higher education 
should facilitate the free and open exchange of ideas, stu-
dents 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 in-
fringe upon any constitutionally protected religious lib-
erty, 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 rough-
ly 1 in 10 of America’s top colleges and universities quar-
antine 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 pro-
hibit constitutionally protected speech; 
Whereas according to the American Civil Liberties Union, 
‘‘Speech codes adopted by government-financed state col-
leges and universities amount to government censorship, 
in violation of the Constitution. And the ACLU believes 
that all campuses should adhere to First Amendment 
principles because academic freedom is a bedrock of edu-
cation in a free society.’’; 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
04:23 May 04, 2017
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6300
E:\BILLS\HR307.IH
HR307
lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
•HRES 307 IH 
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 Na-
tional Security Agency, unless those students were stand-
ing in the institution’s tiny, flood-prone free speech zone; 
Whereas in July 2015, California State Polytechnic Univer-
sity, 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 per-
cent of campus; 
Whereas in May 2016, a student-plaintiff settled her lawsuit 
against Texas’ Blinn College for $50,000 after adminis-
trators told her she needed ‘‘special permission’’ to advo-
cate 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 ar-
rested 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 Dis-
trict—the largest community college district in the coun-
try—declares that all of its campuses ‘‘are considered 
non-public forums, except for those portions of each col-
lege designated as Free Speech Areas are hereby des-
ignated as limited public forums, which designation may 
be removed and reverted to non-public forum designation 
by the Board of Trustees.’’; 
Whereas in March 2017, a student sued officials of Los An-
geles Pierce College and the Los Angeles Community Col-
lege District after administrators at Pierce College told 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
04:52 May 04, 2017
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6300
E:\BILLS\HR307.IH
HR307
lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
•HRES 307 IH 
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 approxi-
mately .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 expres-
sive 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 
Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep-
resentatives that— 
(1) free speech zones and restrictive speech 
codes are inherently at odds with the freedom of 
speech guaranteed by the First Amendment of the 
Constitution; and 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
04:23 May 04, 2017
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR307.IH
HR307
lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
•HRES 307 IH 
(2) institutions of higher education should fa-
cilitate and recommit themselves to protecting the 
free and open exchange of ideas. 
Æ 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
04:23 May 04, 2017
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6301
E:\BILLS\HR307.IH
HR307
lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS