Ohio Administrative Code › Title 3337 - Ohio University › Chapter 3337-1 - Policies In General › Section 3337-1-40 - Statement of commitment to free expression

Current through all regulations passed and filed through July 1, 2024
(A) Preamble
Freedom of expression is the foundation of an Ohio university
				education. Open debate and deliberation, the critique of beliefs and theories,
				and uncensored academic inquiry are all essential to our shared mission of
				discovery and dissemination of knowledge. (See "Forms, References and History"
				a.)
We enjoy the freedoms of speech and assembly on our campuses
				not by virtue of this statement or any university policy. Those rights are
				secured by the First Amendment and other federal and state constitutional
				provisions and laws, which establish our freedoms far beyond what a university
				policy may supplement or diminish.
Beyond their constitutional significance, freedom of inquiry
				and expression also are hallmarks of a worthy education. We are entrusted with
				the intellectual and civic preparation of those who will create, build,
				discover, teach, and lead in our community, nation, and world. To meet this
				charge, we must teach the essential nature of free speech to a democratic
				society. The robust exercise of free expression illuminates our search for
				truth and progress. It nourishes an informed democracy. It gives voice to the
				oppressed. Its presence guarantees all other freedoms; its loss foretells
				tyranny.
Many generations of Ohio university students, faculty, and
				staff have walked beneath our alumni gateway and its inscription: "So enter
				that daily thou mayest grow in knowledge, wisdom, and love." For those who have
				walked through those gatesand for the generations that will follow themthis
				statement affirms that our daily pursuit of knowledge, wisdom, and love is
				possible only through our dedication to the preservation and celebration of the
				freedom of expression. Just as the alumni gateway inscription dedicates our own
				community to a more universal mission, this statement is a lasting affirmation
				of these established freedoms and their meaning to our institution.
In his "1962 Speakers Policy," Ohio university president Vernon
				R. Alden described freedom of expression as "a profound part of our heritage,"
				asserting that "freedom of inquiry and discussion is essential to a students
				educational development." The students, faculty, and staff of our institution
				today are stewards of Ohio universitys legacy of activism and free speech. We
				must preserve and protect this legacy, both by word and deed, for our students
				and for the generations that will follow us. (See "Forms, References and
				History" b.).
Ohio university welcomes free expression in all its forms,
				including the expression of dissent. Universities at their best are lively,
				sometimes tumultuous places. This is especially true here, where today we walk
				the same greens where our predecessors assembled to call for civil rights and
				an end to the Vietnam war, to mourn the assassinations of heroes, and to
				express concern for campus issues of their day. Recent years have shown this
				legacy of activism to be alive and well on our campuses. We welcome this, and
				we recognize that robust debate and civil disagreement are healthy signs of an
				engaged university community and a diversity of perspectives.
Moreover, an important corollary to free expression is our
				dedication to academic freedom: the faculty of our university must always be
				free to pursue their research, scholarship, creative activity, teaching, and
				other academic endeavors consistent with the professional standards of their
				disciplines.
(B) Free
			 expression: principles of application We affirm the value of free expression,
			 but applying these broad values to our campuses is complex. For example, all
			 enjoy free speech rights, but their exercise by competing groups sometimes
			 brings those rights into conflict. Most agree that mere inconvenience should be
			 tolerated while genuine disruption should not, but defining the difference
			 between the two in some scenarios can be difficult. And while almost everyone
			 in the United States is aware of the First Amendment, we do not always share a
			 common understanding of what the law actually requires, prohibits, or permits.
			 This section includes brief discussions of principles and challenges that arise
			 in the application of free expression rights to our campuses, informed by the
			 First Amendment and court decisions applying the law.
(1) Constitutional limitations: time, place,
			 manner rules and disruption The robust exercise of free speech is essential to
			 our mission, and this includes expressions of dissent and protest. Ohio
			 university welcomes demonstrations, marches, and similar assemblies in almost
			 all outdoor areas and many indoor spaces of our campuses, and generally we
			 should accept any inconveniences that may result as a unique and necessary
			 feature of university life. Of course, this does not mean there are no
			 limitations governing the use of university spaces for expression. Under
			 constitutional law, there are two types of permissible limitations:
(a) Rules that regulate the permissible time,
			 place, and manner of speech in advance (e.g., prohibiting use of bullhorns in a
			 library) (See "Forms, References and History" c.); and
(b) Rules prohibiting activities that
			 substantially and materially disrupt important university operations, which
			 often can be determined only at the time of an event. (See "Forms, References
			 and History" d.).
To ensure that everyday university functions can be
				accomplished, the institution has adopted both types of rules for use of
				outdoor and indoor spaces. The precise legal tests for these rules vary
				depending on the nature of the space. Generally, they must be content-neutral,
				reasonable, and leave ample alternative methods of expression. These are
				"narrow exceptions to the general principle of freedom of expression, and it is
				vitally important that these exceptions never be used in a manner inconsistent
				with the universitys commitment to a completely free and open discussion of
				ideas." (See "Forms, References and History" e.) Even with university rules,
				our community members have innumerable opportunities to express themselves on
				campus: for example, through publications, debate, tee-shirts, and signs, along
				with spontaneous marches, protests, demonstrations, and assemblies in almost
				all outdoor spaces and many indoor spaces.
Our community also should consider the difficulty in
				distinguishing mere inconvenience from disruption. "Disruption" unavoidably
				depends on the context. It may take very little noise to disrupt an intense
				studying session in Alden library. That same level of noise is less likely to
				be disruptive in Baker center at lunchtime on a Tuesday, and may not even be
				noticedmuch less be disruptiveoutdoors on the college green. As a general
				matter, a wider range of activities may be disruptive indoorswhere most
				university work takes place, and where people are in closer proximitythan
				outdoors. (See "Forms, References and History" f.)
It is not possible to define disruption with perfect clarity
				for all scenarios in all places, and courts do not expect such precision. (See
				"Forms, References and History" g.) Those who enforce these policies and those
				who seek to comply with them must use reasonable judgment and common sense,
				informed by the values of our institution, to apply a general definition to the
				specifics of the moment. By structuring our policies to clarify the many spaces
				in which demonstrations, marches, and similar assemblies are permissible, along
				with basic rules for use of spaces, we decrease the number of situations in
				which subjective judgments about disruption are required.