FEATURED: Award-winning artist Common speaks with the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley community as part of the Distinguished Speakers Series on Tuesday, February 1, 2022, at the Performing Arts Complex in Edinburg. The artist, actor, and activists has won awards including the Academy Award, Golden Globe, Emmy and Grammy.
Photograph By PAUL CHOUY
••••••
Freedom of Speech and Expression policy at University of Texas Rio Grande Valley and all other UT campuses approved by UT System Board of Regents, reports attorney Omar Ochoa
By DAVID A. DÍAZ
[email protected]
A longstanding policy to promote and protect freedom of speech and expression at the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley and all other campuses in the UT System was recently approved by the UT System Board of Regents, attorney Omar Ochoa has reported.
On Thursday, November 17, 2022, the nine-member UT System Board of Regents unanimously required the continuation of the “Freedom of Speech and Expression” code for its 13 institutions, which have a combined enrollment of 224,000 students.
The UT System also is one of the largest employers in Texas, with more than 22,000 faculty – including Nobel laureates and members of the National Academies – and more than 93,000 health care professionals, research and support staff.
“As a graduate of UT Austin and of UT Austin Law School, I am proud that the regents – and top administrators in the UT System throughout the Texas, including here at the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley – so strongly support freedom of speech and expression on their campuses and throughout the nation that they sought fit to publicly and once more announce their support for the most powerful rights of everyone who lives in the United States,” Ochoa said.
The endorsement for the “Freedom of Speech and Expression” code, which the regents call the “UT Commitment”, comes after a national survey in 2020 of 478 higher education institutions in the U.S. found that 88 percent of those surveyed maintain policies that restrict, or could be interpreted to restrict, expression, according to FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Eduction.’’
FIRE is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of students and faculty members at American colleges and universities.
According to the execute summary of its most recent findings, FIRE’s “Spotlight on Speech Codes 2021:
Most college students in the United States should be able to expect that freedom of expression will be upheld on their campuses. After all, public institutions are legally bound by the First Amendment, and the vast majority of private colleges and universities promise their student commensurate free speech rights.
In spite of this legal landscape, far too many colleges across the country fail to live up to their free speech obligations in policy and in practice. Often, this occurs through the implementation of speech codes: university policies that restrict expression protected by the First Amendment.
https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/spotlight-speech-codes-2021?show_popup=false
What is “Freedom of Speech and Expression”?
In general, “Freedom of Speech and Expression” means:
• The United States Constitution’s First Amendment gives individuals the right to express themselves. Freedom of speech is a basic form of expression, but the First Amendment covers much more than just speech;
• An individual can express herself through religious practice; through political speech or actions; by associating with others; by petitioning the government; or by publicizing written speech. Even certain “speech actions” like flag burning are considered protected speech; and
• Free speech and expression are rights against the government. They are not rights against other people.
https://subscriptlaw.com/free-speech-and-expression/
Ochoa is an advocate for transparency in government, provides regular reports to the public on federal, state, and local laws that impact journalism, communications, freedom of speech issues, and transparency in government.
He was the editor-in-chief of the prestigious Texas Law Review at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law, becoming the first Latino to serve in that position.
In the context of law school, a law review is an entirely student-run journal that publishes articles written by law professors, judges, and other legal professionals; many law review journals also publish shorter pieces written by law students called “notes” or comments.
According to Ballotpedia, which is a nonprofit and nonpartisan online political encyclopedia that covers federal, state, and local politics, elections, and public policy in the United States:
• Openness, accountability, and honesty define government transparency.
• In a free society, transparency is government’s obligation to share information with citizens. It is at the heart of how citizens hold their public officials accountable.
• Governments exist to serve the people. Information on how officials conduct the public business and spend taxpayers’ money must be readily available and easily understood.
This transparency allows good and just governance. Government transparency is traditionally broken into three different types: proactive disclosure, requesting public records, and campaign finance disclosure.
https://ballotpedia.org/Government_transparency
Among other cherished values the First Amendment protects freedom of speech, according to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AO) is the administrative agency of the United States federal court system, established in 1939. The central support entity for the federal judicial branch, the AO provides a wide range of legislative (legislative assistance), administrative, legal, financial, management, program (program evaluation), and information technology support services to the federal courts.
The First Amendment states, in relevant part, that:
“Congress shall make no law…abridging freedom of speech.”
Freedom of speech includes the right:
• Not to speak (specifically, the right not to salute the flag). West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).
• Of students to wear black armbands to school to protest a war (“Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.”). Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
• To use certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages. Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971).
• To contribute money (under certain circumstances) to political campaigns. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
• To advertise commercial products and professional services (with some restrictions). Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977).
• To engage in symbolic speech, (e.g., burning the flag in protest). Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989); United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).
Freedom of speech does not include the right:
To incite imminent lawless action. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).
To make or distribute obscene materials. Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957)
To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest. United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968)
To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event. Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event. Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).
https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does
The University of Texas System Commitment to Freedom of Speech and Expression
According to the agenda packet for the University of Texas System, the following background and key highlights provide more details into the history and reasons for the “Freedom of Speech and Expression” official policy in the largest university system in the Lone Star State:
The Chancellor, the Executive Vice Chancellors, and the Vice Chancellor and General Counsel recommend that the UT System Board of Regents approve The University of Texas System Commitment to Freedom of Speech and Expression as set out (in the agenda packet).
It is further recommended that, by approving the UT Commitment, the Board formally endorses and acknowledges the long-standing commitment of the UT System to these principles and expects that the Commitment will serve to continue to protect the freedom of speech and expression on campuses in a way that promotes free and open inquiry and provides transparency regarding the UT System commitment to the promotion and protection of free speech and expression within the UT System community.
The University of Texas System’s Commitment to Freedom of Speech and Expression is based on the statement originally drafted and adopted by the University of Chicago.
The Chicago Statement on Free Speech articulates a commitment to free and open inquiry in all matters and guarantees members of the university community broad latitude to speak, write, listen, and learn. The Chicago Statement recognizes that there must, at times, be restrictions on speech, as long as such restrictions are not used in a manner inconsistent with the law and free and open discussion of ideas.
Over 80 institutions and faculty bodies have adopted or endorsed the Chicago Statement or a substantially similar statement.
Because The University of Texas System is committed to free and open inquiry in all matters, it guarantees all members of the UT System the broadest possible latitude to speak, write, listen, challenge, and learn.
Except insofar as limitations on that freedom are necessary to the functioning of the UT System, the UT System and the UT institutions fully respect and support the freedom of all members of the UT System community “to discuss any problem that presents itself.”
Of course, the ideas of different members of the UT System community will often and quite naturally conflict. But it is not the proper role of the UT System or the UT institutions to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive.
Although the UT System greatly values civility, and although all members of the UT System community share in the responsibility for maintaining a climate of mutual respect, concerns about civility and mutual respect can never be used as a justification for closing off discussion of ideas, however offensive or disagreeable those ideas may be to some members of the UT System community.
The freedom to debate and discuss the merits of competing ideas does not, of course, mean that individuals may say whatever they wish, wherever they wish.
Speech and expression that may be restricted by UT System campuses
UT institutions may restrict speech and expression that violates the law, that falsely defames a specific individual, that constitutes a genuine threat or harassment, that unjustifiably invades substantial privacy or confidentiality interests, or that is otherwise directly incompatible with the functioning of any UT institution.
In addition, the UT institutions may reasonably regulate the time, place, and manner of speech and expression to ensure that it does not disrupt the ordinary activities of the institution.
But these are narrow exceptions to the general principle of freedom of speech and expression, and it is vitally important that these exceptions never be used in a manner that is inconsistent with the UT System commitment to a completely free and open discussion of ideas.
In a word, the 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 individual members of the UT System community to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed.
It is for the individual members of the UT System community, not for the UT System or the UT institutions, to make those judgments for themselves, and to act on those judgments not by seeking to suppress speech, but by openly and vigorously contesting the ideas that they oppose.
Indeed, fostering the ability of individual members of the UT System community to engage in such debate and deliberation in an effective and responsible manner is an essential part of the educational mission of the UT System and the UT institutions.
As a corollary to the commitment to protect and promote free speech and expression, members of the UT System community must also act in conformity with the principle of free speech and expression. Although members of the UT System community are free to criticize and contest the views expressed on campus, and to criticize and contest speakers who are invited to express their views on campus, they may not obstruct or otherwise interfere with the freedom of others to express views they reject or even loathe.
To this end, the UT System and the UT institutions have a solemn responsibility not only to promote a lively and fearless freedom of debate and deliberation, but also to protect that freedom when others attempt to restrict it.
••••••
For more on this and other Texas legislative news stories that affect the Rio Grande Valley metropolitan region, please log on to Titans of the Texas Legislature (TitansoftheTexasLegislature.com).
