Opinion ID: 4582595
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Arguably Proscribed

Text: Next, Speech First must clearly show a likelihood that its members’ constitutionally protected speech is arguably proscribed, or at least arguably regulated, by the University speech policies. See id.; Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1, 11, 92 S. Ct. 2318, 2324 (1972) (“[C]onstitutional violations may arise from the deterrent, or ‘chilling,’ effect of governmental regulations that fall short of a direct prohibition against the exercise of First Amendment rights.”); see also Schlissel, 939 F.3d at 764–65. As has been noted, Speech First members plan to engage the University community in debate encompassing a broad array of controversial political topics. Comparably broad, however, are the categories of speech arguably covered by the University’s Institutional Rule on “verbal harassment,” the Acceptable Use Policy’s requirement to be “civil” and not to send “rude” correspondence, the Residence Hall Manual proscriptions of “harassment,” “intimidation,” and “incivility,” and the Hate and Bias Incidents policies against “bias incident[s]” and “campus climate incident[s].” Terms like “harassment,” “intimidation,” “rude,” “incivility,” and “bias” beg for clarification. 9 These pejoratives arguably cover the plaintiffs’ intended speech. Adding credibility to their argument, the University itself eliminated or materially altered the challenged definitions—pending appeal. It is far- 9 Similar terms have in fact been declared overbroad and vague when embedded in speech policies at other universities. See, e.g., Dambrot, 55 F.3d at 1182–84. 19 Case: 19-50529 Document: 00515621737 Page: 20 Date Filed: 10/30/2020 No. 19-50529 fetched to suppose that the policies were amended in a relevant way absent any likelihood that they arguably covered Speech First’s members’ speech. Undeterred, Fenves argues the policies have no bearing on the students’ speech. He denies that any speech at all is “arguably proscribed” except by the Institutional Rules. 10 Ostensibly, the other speech regulations must be precatory, not sanctionable. In addition, he commends the policies’ provisions that declare the value of free speech and argumentation. First, even assuming that actual proscription is necessary, contra Laird, 408 U.S. at 11, 92 S. Ct. at 2324; Schlissel, 939 F.3d at 764–65, the Institutional Rules are not the exclusive vehicle for imposing speech penalties. The Acceptable Use Policy lists “punitive sanctions,” all the way up to “criminal prosecution.” The Residential Hall Manual threatens, in addition to referral to the Dean of Students for punishment under the Institutional Rules, independent Housing sanctions for violating the Manual’s rules. Such sanctions include compelled participation in educational modules, paperwriting, and presentations, as well as room reassignment and more. Finally, the Hate and Bias Incidents Policy provides for “Interim Measures and Final Sanctions,” including suspension from campus, residence hall, or classes—or any of the sanctions authorized in the Institutional Rules. It is uncontradicted, to be sure, that “the Dean of Students testified that ‘[s]tudent discipline is administered only for violations of the Institutional 10 Parroting the district court, Fenves also contends that the “relevant inquiry is whether the policy actually prohibits the speech in question—not whether some might mistakenly believe it does.” This is wrong. Under Susan B. Anthony List, the question is simply whether speech is “arguably . . . proscribed by” the challenged policies.” 573 U.S. at 162, 134 S. Ct. at 2344; see also Babbitt v. United Farm Workers Nat’l Union, 442 U.S. 289, 298, 99 S. Ct. 2301, 2309 (1979). Even though a plaintiff does not intend to violate a policy, the policy’s language may still be claimed to fall within the statutory regulation, e.g., of “false” statements, and the plaintiff may thus have standing. 573 U.S. at 163, 134 S. Ct. at 2344– 45. 20 Case: 19-50529 Document: 00515621737 Page: 21 Date Filed: 10/30/2020 No. 19-50529 Rules.’” Nevertheless, in light of the plain language concerning sanctions in all of the challenged policies, the Dean appears to have testified as to definition, indicating that “student discipline” is the University’s name only for what follows from violations of the Institutional Rules. In contrast, sanctions described in the Residence Hall Manual, for example, are not “student discipline” but rather “educational measure[s] implemented by the Housing Conduct Board or Residence Hall Conduct Administrator designed to affect [sic] a change in behavior and to help the student understand how their behavior impacted others in the residence hall community.” The Dean and University are entitled to their own definitions, but their nomenclature does not alter reality and does not contradict the proscriptive nature of the policies. Nor is it tenable, as the district court found, that the CCRT “does not engage in investigations or punishment of any sort.” The implicit suggestion here is that, insofar as the Hate and Bias Incidents Policy is enforced by the CCRT, it is not sufficiently proscriptive. This point fails under Schlissel. In that case, the court “recognize[d] that [the University of Michigan’s Bias Response Team] lacks any disciplinary power and that bias incidents are not directly punishable.” 939 F.3d at 765. Nevertheless, it found that “[t]he Response Team’s ability to make referrals—i.e., to inform [the Office of Student Conflict Resolution] or the police about reported conduct—is a real consequence that objectively chills speech.” Id. So, too, when the “CCRT determines there is a possible violation of the university’s [Institutional Rules] or policies outlined in the General Information Catalog, [the] CCRT refers the 21 Case: 19-50529 Document: 00515621737 Page: 22 Date Filed: 10/30/2020 No. 19-50529 incident to the appropriate entity.” Under Schlissel, a policy thus enforced is sufficiently proscriptive to objectively chill student speech. 11 Fenves ultimately wraps the University in the flag of its policies’ paeans to the freedom of speech. According to Fenves, “the University’s policies expressly protect and encourage [the speech at issue].” Without exception, he contends, the Institutional Rules, Acceptable Use Policy, and Residence Hall Manual, respectively, exclude arguments about ideas from “verbal harassment,” affirm the “great value of freedom of thought and expression,” and “encourage all members of [the University’s] community to support the freedom of speech.” Examined more closely, however, none of these statements detracts from the likelihood that the University’s policies arguably cover Speech First’s members’ intended speech. First, the Residence Hall Manual’s “encourage[ment]” of the freedom of speech does not appear in the sections on “Harassment” and “Incivility,” nor anywhere in the chapter on “Personal Responsibility and Student Conduct.” Instead, it appears in a subsection of the Guidelines on “Posters,” where freedom of speech is qualified by admonishments to “respect the mission and value[] . . . [of] providing all residents with a ‘comfortable, friendly environment’ and ‘sense of community’” and to “not engage in gratuitously offensive expression.” Second, the Acceptable Use Policy states that “[w]e do not punish or prevent expression that . . . violates no specific law or university regulation” and that “[i]n general, expressions of opinion by members of the university community that do not otherwise violate state and federal laws or university rules are protected as 11Accordingly, we need not consider, for example, Speech First’s suggestion that the CCRT’s public logging of incidents in a manner easily identifiable by members of the University community also indicates that the Hate and Bias Incidents Policy is proscriptive. 22 Case: 19-50529 Document: 00515621737 Page: 23 Date Filed: 10/30/2020 No. 19-50529 ‘free speech’” (emphasis added). The Residence Hall Manual and Acceptable Use Policy clearly delimit the freedom of speech by their prohibitions, not the other way around. The Institutional Rules, on the other hand, explicitly exclude from “verbal harassment” the “mak[ing] [of] an argument for or against the substance of any political, religious, philosophical, ideological, or academic idea.” Fenves suggests that this phrase “straightforwardly conveys that the exclusion applies to speech that conveys the substance of an idea” and is qualified only to discourage expression extraneous to the idea itself. We disagree. Stated more precisely, the definition is this: “verbal harassment” includes “hostile or offensive” speech that “is not necessary to the expression of any idea [defined as “an argument for or against the substance of any political . . . idea].” 12 Interpreted grammatically, the exclusion applies only to speech that conveys the substance of an idea and is necessary to such conveyance. Such a qualified limitation on the scope of the term “verbal harassment” increases rather than decreases its uncertainty. In sum, while purporting to invoke free speech, the Institutional Rules qualify protected speech and fail to cabin the terms “harassment,” 12 Section 13–204(b)(1) and (2) state in full: 1. “Verbal harassment” means hostile or offensive speech, oral, written, or symbolic, that A. is not necessary to the expression of any idea described in subsection 13–204(b)(2); B. is sufficiently severe, pervasive, or persistent to create an objectively hostile environment that interferes with or diminishes the victim’s ability to participate in or benefit from the services, activities, or privileges provided by the University; and C. personally describes or is personally directed to one or more specific individuals. 2. To make an argument for or against the substance of any political, religious, philosophical, ideological, or academic idea is not verbal harassment, even if some listeners are offended by the argument or idea. The categories of sexually harassing speech set forth in Policy 3-3031 of the Handbook of Operating Procedures are rarely, if ever, necessary to argue for or against the substance of any political, religious, philosophical, ideological, or academic idea. 23 Case: 19-50529 Document: 00515621737 Page: 24 Date Filed: 10/30/2020 No. 19-50529 “intimidation,” “rude[eness],” “incivility,” and “bias.” It is likely that the University’s policies arguably proscribe speech of the sort that Speech First’s members intend to make.