User:Laxfri/sandbox

Campus free speech laws are laws created by states or provinces and governments to protect or regulate free speech on campus. This article also covers proposed and failed legislation. Many of these laws were put forth since 2017, after violence on the University of California-Berkeley, which effectively prevented a speaker invited by a campus group from speaking and are based on the Goldwater Institute template for campus free speech legislation which was drafted in 2017. Most new laws protecting free speech on campuses use at least parts of this template, which is inspired by three fundamental document, Yale University's 1974 Woodward Report, the University of Chicago’s 1967 Kalven Report, and the University of Chicago’s 2015 Stone Report." Over 50 universities or faculties have adopted campus free speech policy statements after the University of Chicago lead the way with their “Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression”, which is know known as the “Chicago Statement."It reads as follows:  "“Because the University is committed to free and open inquiry in all matters, it guarantees all members of the University community the broadest possible latitude to speak, write, listen, challenge, and learn.” – The Chicago Statement" Twenty colleges instituted free speech statements in 2018 alone

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, an organization which defends students civil rights classifies each college's free speech regulations on a red, yell, green light scale. In their 'Spotlight on Speech Codes 2019" report, they found that "the percentage of schools earning an overall “red light” rating ...has gone down for the eleventh year in a row...to 28.5 percent. This is a nearly four percentage point drop from last year, and is over 45 percentage points lower than the percentage of red light institutions in FIRE’s 2009 report. The percentage of private universities earning a red light rating went below 50 percent for the first time ever this year, coming in at 47.1 percent. 61.2 percent of institutions now earn an overall “yellow light” rating.... yellow light policies restrict expression that is protected under First Amendment standards, and invite administrative abuse. 42 institutions earn FIRE’s overall “green light” rating, up from 35 schools from last year’s report. (Since this year’s report was written, three more universities have earned green light status, bringing the total to 45.) Policies earn a green light rating when they do not seriously threaten protected expression. Only eight institutions earned a green light rating in FIRE’s 2009 report. Approximately ten percent of institutions surveyed maintain “free speech zone” policies, which limit student demonstrations and other expressive activities to small and/or out-of-the-way areas on campus.

Notable red light schools in 2019, which have been in the news for campus free speech include the following: Bates College, Boise State University, Boston College, Boston University, California State University – Channel Islands, Dominguez Hills, Fresno and Monterey Bay, Carleton College, Chicago State University, Clemson University, Dartmouth College, Delaware State University, Drexel University, Evergreen State College, Florida State University, George Washington University, Georgetown University, Harvard University, Idaho State University, Johns Hopkins University, Kentucky State University, Louisiana State University –Baton Rouge, Missouri State University, Mount Holyoke College, Oklahoma State University, Pennsylvania State University, Portland State University, Princeton University, Southern Oregon University, State University of New York – Albany, Fredonia and New Paltz, Tufts University, University of Alaska, University of Illinois at Chicago, University of Massachusetts - Dartmouth and Lowell, University of Michigan – Ann Arbor, Dearborn and Flint, University of Montana, University of Notre Dame, University of Rhode Island, University of South Carolina Columbia, University of Texas - Austin, Dallas, university of Wisoncons - Oshkosh, University of Wyoming, Virginia State University. The full listing of red, yellow and green rated schools can be accessed here

United States Federal Laws and Legal Initiatives
The First Amendment to the United States constitution, in the Bill of Rights, states that “Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech.” The constitution however is expressed through legislation which is, over time, approved by the courts as constitutional or not. Thus far there is no federal laws specifically interpreting the first amendment and explaining how it applies to institutions of higher education. There has, however, been legislation put forth which could clarify the first amendment for all publicly funded institutions of higher education in the country. President rump has signed an "executive order mandating all colleges comply with First Amendment and free speech requirements" but has not proceduralized this mandate to explain what this should look like.

Campus Free Speech Restoration Act (CAFSRA) NOT PASSED
In The CAFRSA was proposed in September 2020 "to ensure a campus that protects rather than obstructs what Yale’s C. Vann Woodward Report of 1975 called “the right to think the unthinkable, discuss the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable.” It authorizes "federal intervention to public institutions that fail to honor the First Amendment" and render[] a noncompliant institution ineligible for federal funding." "For many colleges and universities, this would mean insolvency" "Private schools that violate their own stated free speech policies would also be subject to severe sanctions." "Secretary of Education will enforce the new law" "Secretary of Education might determine, for example, that there is a “compelling government interest” in discouraging speech deemed hostile to protected minorities."

Free Right to Expression in Education Act” (FREE Act)
In March 2019 bill HR1672 was put forth in congress to "prohibit misleadingly labeled “free speech zones” across American public colleges and universities." The bill said "Each public institution of higher education . . . may not prohibit . . . a person from freely engaging in noncommercial expressive activity in an outdoor area on the institution’s campus if the person’s conduct is lawful." It permits colleges to impliment “reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions on an expressive activity in an outdoor area of the institution’s campus” so long as they are “narrowly tailored to serve a significant institutional interest,” “based on published, content-neutral, and viewpoint-neutral criteria,” and leave “open ample alternative channels for communication.” Those are the criteria courts have used to evaluate free speech zones. .

United States State Level Laws and Legal Initiatives
"At least 17 states have since enacted free speech laws" Alabama, Arkansas, South Dakota, Iowa, Kentucky, and Oklahoma all enacted legislation in 2019.

Alabama PASSED
Alabama bill HB498 was signed into law in 2019 with bipartisan support. "Alabama’s public colleges are no longer allowed to quarantine students to free speech zones under the new law. It also tries to rein in any overly broad harassment policies that might be in place." It states that “freedom of expression is critically important during the education experience of students, and [that] each public institution of higher education should ensure free, robust, and uninhibited debate and deliberation for students.” "HB 498 prohibits Alabama’s public colleges and universities from quarantining student expression in misleadingly labeled free speech zones." "...the bill uses the same test that courts use to determine whether university time, place, and manner restrictions are constitutionally permissible. It ensures that any restriction on speech in the outdoor areas of campus must be “narrowly tailored to serve a significant institutional interest and employ clear, published, content neutral, and viewpoint-neutral criteria, and provide for ample alternative means of expression.” "The bill helps students and administrators understand the line between protected protests on campus and the unprotected “heckler’s veto” that materially and substantially disrupts another person’s free speech rights. The bill’s carefully crafted language sets forth: "That the public institution of higher education shall not permit members of the campus community to engage in conduct that materially and substantially disrupts another person’s protected expressive activity or infringes on the rights of others to engage in or listen to a protected expressive activity that is occurring in a location that has been reserved for that protected expressive activity." "To ensure that the bill does not unintentionally chill the speech of students who wish to engage in lawful protest, the new law further clarifies what does and does not constitute material and substantial disruption: "Conduct that materially and substantially disrupts shall not include conduct that is protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901. Such protected conduct includes, but is not limited to, lawful protests and counter-protests in the outdoor areas of campus generally accessible to members of the public, except during times when those areas have been reserved in advance for other events, or minor, brief, or fleeting nonviolent disruptions of events that are isolated and short in duration." It also supports freedom of association. "It declares that “public institutions of higher education shall support free association and shall not deny a student organization any benefit or privilege available to any other student organization or otherwise discriminate against an organization based on the expression of the organization.”

Arizona PASSED
In May 2016 Arizona passed HB2615 and HB2548 protecting campus free speech making it the third state to ban college free speech zones. Both prevent public colleges from limiting student speech to small inconvenient free speech zones. The second also makes it a "misdemeanor penalty for any person who obstructs another person’s right to gain access and attend a hearing, political event, or government meeting. Governor Ducey said that "part of the university experience is to be able to express diverse views, openly, without fear of retribution or intimidation—and to be exposed to other views and perspectives, even if they aren’t politically correct or popular" and that the “bills protect free speech throughout our college campuses, and also ensure an individual’s right to engage in free speech isn’t shut down by someone else who disagrees with his or her perspective.”

HB 2548 "seeks to prevent universities from unlawfully limiting students’ right to speak" and "prohibits community colleges and universities from establishing free-speech zones. It also imposes “six-month jail terms on protesters who stop traffic headed to political rallies” and on “those who, after ignoring a warning, block anyone on their way to government meetings or hearings.” "The latter provisions were a reaction to a protest that, the previous March, had stopped traffic to prevent Donald Trump from attending a campaign rally. HB 2615 was related in part to an incident at Paradise Valley Community College in Phoenix in which a student was prevented from distributing copies of the US Constitution on behalf of a chapter of Young Americans for Liberty because of a rule requiring forty-eight hours’ advance warning and limiting such activities to a “free-speech zone.” This legislation was written before the Goldwater Institute put forth a template for legislative change to secure free speech on campuses.

Arkansas PASSED
Arkansas passed law S.B. 156 in February 2019 with bipartisan support. It passed the House of Representatives 75 to 3 and the Senate 27 to 0. It prohibits “state-supported institutions of higher education” from restricting student expression" and prevents them from having misleading free speech zones. The “outdoor area of campus of a state-supported institution of higher education shall be deemed a public forum for members of the campus community.” They assumed the harassment definition in Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education. It also prohibits view point based discrimination and prevents student organizations from having to “affirm and adhere to the organization’s sincerely held beliefs or statement of principles.” They definition for “state-supported institutions of higher education” is unclear as whether it applies only to public institutions or any which receive state funding. It also includes a good standard for determining if restrictions are acceptable, by adoption the definition of harassment from the US Supreme Court decision in Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education which has been used by many courts to strike down defintions of harassment at colleges through the country. the law also prevents colleges from viewpoint based discrimination or requiring student leaders to “affirm and adhere to the organization’s sincerely held beliefs or statement of principles.”

California INTRODUCED
In May 2017 California put forth a bill based off the Goldwater Institute's template for campus free speech legislation which did not pass. It differed from the template, and to campus free speech legislation put forth by most other states, in that it applied to public and private colleges. State colleges would have to follow the legislation to obtain funding. This legislation would have been considered a constitutional amendment and needed approval by two thirds of the legislature to appear on the ballot, which it did not receive.

Shortly after, in August 2017 California passed a campus free speech resolution influenced by the University of Chicago. It said that “[a]t least 16 universities across the country have adopted a version of the University of Chicago statement on free speech,” and urged “all private and public universities in California” to implement campus free speech regulations based on Chicago Statement and another put forth by Howard Gillman. It quoted Barak Obama, Howard Gillman the Chancellor of UC Irvine and Janet Napolitano the president of the University of California, as well as a number of other notable figures. It passed in the assembly 76-0 and in the Senate 39-0. They It discussed principles of free expression and the need to protect free speech. Janet Napolitano said that “the way to deal with extreme, unfounded speech is not with less speech — it is with more speech, informed by facts and persuasive argument. Educating students from an informed ‘more speech’ approach as opposed to silencing an objectionable speaker should be one of academia’s key roles.” At the Howard University commencement Barak Obama said, in 2016, that "There’s been a trend around the country of trying to get colleges to disinvite speakers with a different point of view, or disrupt a politician’s rally. Don’t do that – no matter how ridiculous or offensive you might find the things that come out of their mouths…There will be times when you shouldn’t compromise your core values, your integrity, and you will have the responsibility to speak up in the face of injustice. But listen. Engage. If the other side has a point, learn from them. If they’re wrong, rebut them. Teach them. Beat them on the battlefield of ideas.” The resultuion also quotes Howard Gillman's open letter to UC Irvine called “Rights of Free Speech and Academic Freedom,” which says "Free speech requires us to accept that we will be exposed to viewpoints, arguments or forms of expression that make us uncomfortable or even offend us. It is in precisely these circumstances that free speech often serves its most vital purpose, especially in an educational context. Throughout history, speech that challenges conventional wisdom has been a driving force for progress. Speech that makes us uneasy may compel us to reconsider our own strongly held views – in fact, a willingness to reconsider strongly held views is one of the reasons why people pursue higher education. Hearing offensive viewpoints provides opportunities for those sentiments to be exposed, engaged and rebutted. Universities exist to provide the conditions for hard thought and difficult debate so that individuals can develop the capacity for independent judgment. This cannot happen if universities attempt to shield people from ideas and opinions they might find unwelcome, or if members of the university community try to silence or interfere with speakers with whom they disagree. As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis advised in his famous Whitney v. California opinion in 1927, ‘If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.’"

Colorado PASSED
In April 2017 Colorado passed SB21 and 17-062 which protect student's rights to free speech on campus. This bill was supported by the ACLU of Colorado and passed with bipartisan support. It did not follow the Goldwater institute's template for campus speech rights legislation. The summary of the bill says it is “[c]oncerning the right to free speech on campuses of public institutions of higher education.” "Under the new law, any lawful student speech in the open, outdoor areas of Colorado’s public campuses may now be subject only to reasonable, content- and viewpoint-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions that are narrowly tailored in furtherance of a significant institutional interest."Colleges which will have to change their policies to comply with the new legislation include include "Colorado State University–Pueblo which requires demonstrators to apply for permission to gather three days in advance, without publishing the criteria by which those applications will be evaluated" and the "University of Colorado Boulder (which) designates only one location on campus where students can assemble to exercise their free speech rights without obtaining advance permission, and requires 10 days’ notice for all other outdoor areas on campus."

Florida PASSED
In March 2018 Florida passed SB4, which was a broad higher education bill that also protects student's rights to free speech on public campuses. This law had bipartisan support. Florida is the ninth state to enact such legislation. The new law "prohibits Florida public colleges and universities from quarantining student expression into small, misleadingly labeled “free speech zones"" and allows students to bring lawsuits against public colleges for breach of rights. universities which must make changes to their policies include "Florida State University’s policy that limits the distribution of literature to a small stretch of campus, Florida Atlantic University’s policy that requires students to submit materials to the Office of Student Development and Activities for approval before they can be displayed or distributed, and the University of West Florida’s policy that restricts speech to one area of campus and problematically declares, “The University does not contain any traditional public forum areas.”"

Georgia PASSED
In 2018 Georgia passed SB339, to protect free speech on public college campuses. This law was inspired by the Goldwater institute which provides campus free speech legislation templates. The law prevents colleges from limiting free speech to small “free speech zones” and requires colleges implement content-neutral policies for student groups and speakers. This also pertains to the application of security and facility rental fees. It also requires the board of regents establish a range of disciplinary penalties for students “who materially and substantially interferes with the free expression of others.” This includes a minimum one year suspension for second-time offenders and expulsion is a viable penalty. This helps ensure that students are able to speak independently of the values of the institution and invite speakers with diverse messages to campus.

Iowa PASSED
Iowa passed S.F.274 in 2019 with bipartisan support. "Rep. Dustin Hite, R-New Sharon...said the bill requires public colleges to promote free expression, avoid trying to protect students from others’ speech, and get rid of “free speech zones” he said unreasonably limit public expression to a few areas on campus. Several House Democrats said they agree with most of the bill, but they said one section could allow discrimination. It says colleges cannot deny benefits to student groups that require their leaders to “agree to and support” the group’s beliefs." "It was inspired by a lawsuit a student organization called Business Leaders in Christ (BLinC) brought against the University of Iowa in 2017.The university pulled BLinC’s registered status after it found the group discriminated against a gay student. According to the lawsuit, BLinC had notified the student he wasn’t eligible for a leadership position because “his decision to enter into same-sex relationships was inconsistent with BLinC’s religious beliefs." "Sen. Amy Sinclair, R-Allerton, said students should be allowed to join any activities they want without the threat of discrimination. “But it is also not our place to tell a Christian group, a Muslim group, or any other belief-based organization that they must be led by people who do not affirm the very beliefs on which the group was founded,” Sinclair said."

Illinois INTRODUCED
Illinois passed HB2939 in February 2017 and was inspired by the Goldwater Institute's template for student speech legislation. The summary for the bill “Requires the governing board of each public university and community college to develop and adopt a policy on free expression; sets forth what the policy must contain. Requires the Board of Higher Education to create a Committee on Free Expression to issue an annual report. Requires public institutions of higher education to include in their freshman orientation programs a section describing to all students the policies and rules regarding free expression that are consistent with the Act.”

Kentucky PASSED
Kentucky passed HB254 in March 2019. It gives students at public colleges the “broadest possible latitude to speak, write, listen, challenge, learn, and discuss any issue" and requires colleges to maintain "a marketplace of ideas where the free exchange of ideas is not suppressed”. It also prohibits restrictive free speech zones. "University of Kentucky, Morehead State University, and Murray State University are among the institutions that will need to change or clarify their policies to comply with the law" "Under the law, Kentucky’s public colleges and universities are prohibited from charging students security fees based on the expressive content of their campus events or the ideas of their invited guest speakers. The law also prevents institutions from “disinviting” speakers invited by a student, student organization, or faculty member. Importantly, the new legislation also provides a cause of action, which allows students to sue institutions in state court for violations of the act."

The law says public colleges must maintain “a marketplace of ideas where the free exchange of ideas is not suppressed” “College leaders should promote the fact that their campuses host diverse viewpoints, not corral dissenting speakers into pre-approved areas where they determine it’s ‘safe’ to have an opinion,” said FIRE Executive Director Robert Shibley. “We commend Kentucky legislators for making free speech a priority, and encourage other states to follow their lead.” Institutions which will need to make changes include "the University of Kentucky, Morehead State University, and Murray State University"

Louisiana PASSED
In June 2019 Louisiana passed SB364, which protests students right of free speech on public campuses. It had bipartisan support and received a 58-25 vote in the House of Representatives and 33-0 in the Senate. It effectively bans free speech zones stating that the “outdoor areas of a public postsecondary education shall be deemed traditional public forums and open to expressive activities.” This provision, along with following language, eliminates so-called “free speech zones”. It also helps ensure that students do not have to agree with the institution and public colleges cannot require its “leaders or members of the organization” to “affirm or adhere to the organization’s sincerely held beliefs.” While it defines time, manner and place regulations the same as the US supreme Court, it then contradicts that definition. the Louisiana and the Supreme Court say that a “public postsecondary education institution may maintain and enforce reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions narrowly tailored in service of a significant institutional interest..." but this law then says that time place and manner restrictions must be “necessary to achieve a significant institutional interest."

Michigan NOT PASSED
In July 2017 Michigan put forth SB349 and SB350, the Campus Free Speech Act, bills to protect free speech on public campuses, which were not passed. Colleges would have been required to suspend students for a year or expel them if they'd been “twice been found responsible for infringing upon the expressive rights of others.’” it would also have “eliminate[d] ‘free speech zones’” which limit student expression on campus. The Wisconsin bill uses virtually the same language. The bill says “any person lawfully present on campus [has] the right to protest or demonstrate there but making clear that protests and demonstrations that infringe upon the rights of others to engage in or listen to expressive activity are not permitted and are subject to sanction.”

Minnesota INTRODUCED
In February 2018 Minnesota introduced the Campus Free Expression Act to help protect free speech on public college campuses but it has not passed. It restricts faculty speech in the classroom limiting teachers from sharing personal views or introducing controversial subjects not related to the class they were hired to teach, especially if they do not have credentials to teach it. The may not speakin authoritiy on subjects they are not experts in and this could effect employment. One article provides an example: “If you’re teaching nuclear physics, that would mean you can’t talk about anything other than nuclear physics.”

Missouri PASSED
In July 2015 Missouri passed the Campus Free Expression Act, SB 93. it primarily banned free speech zones. this law was passed with bipartisan support as well as support from the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri and passed with a 34-0 vote. The bill was passed prior to the release of the Goldwater institute's proposed campus free speech legislation or template

Nebraska INTRODUCED
In January 2018 Nebraska put forth LB718, the Higher Education Free Speech Accountability Act which included campus free speech protections for public colleges. It requires public colleges to "set free speech policies on their campuses and make annual reports to the Legislature.” Legislators also received assistance from FIRE in rewriting an earlier version of the bill. This was introduced after Courtney Lawton, a graduate student from the University of Nebraska–Lincoln, was removed as a teaching assistant. She protested a recruiting event for Turning Point USA, an organization that publishes a Professor Watchlist.

North Carolina PASSED
North Carolina passed SB527/SL2017-96 in July 2017 to protect students right to free speech on public college campuses. It had bipartisan support and passed the Senate 34-11, and the House of Representatives 80-31. It was almost a direct transcript of the Goldwater Institute's template for campus speech legislation. It protects students from punishment for sharing literature outdoors on campus, effectively eliminating free speech zones, and requires institutions create a number of punishments for those who “substantially disrupts the functioning of the constituent institution or substantially interferes with the protected free expression rights of others … .” This ensures that students may still boo because it s a protected form of speech and other attempts to silence can still be punished. It's different than other states legislation in that it requires students to be disciplined if they act to limit the free speech of others. the law says that colleges “may not take action, as an institution, on the public policy controversies of the day in such a way as to require students, faculty, or administrators to publicly express a given view of a social policy.” and coerce people into taking the views of the institution. It requires colleges be neutral on public issues, and requires the board of governors at the University of North Carolina’s to put out annual campus free speech reports. The board of governors drafted the policy document to fulfill the new law, entitled “Free Speech and Free Expression within the University of North Carolina" and posted it on their website. It prohibits expression that “substantially interferes with the protected free speech rights of others,” including “protests and demonstrations that materially infringe upon the rights of others to engage in and listen to expressive activity when the expressive activity (1) has been scheduled pursuant to this policy or other relevant institutional policy, and (2) is located in a nonpublic forum.”

Oklahoma PASSED
Oklahoma passed law 361 in 2019. "First, the bill abolishes so-called “free speech zones” at public institutions of higher education in the state." "Oklahoma is the 15th state to ban the use of these misleadingly labeled zones." "The bill reaffirms that expressive activities such as lawful verbal, written, audio-visual, or electronic means by which individuals may communicate to one another are constitutionally protected forms of speech. To avoid any confusion, it goes further to explicitly include “all forms of peaceful assembly, protests, speeches, guest speakers, distribution of literature, carrying signs and circulating petitions.” The bill reaffirms decades of legal precedent — which only allows public higher educational institutions to restrict speech in the open, outdoor areas of campus if the regulation is reasonable, content- and viewpoint-neutral, narrowly tailored to achieve a significant institutional interest, and leaves open other channels of communication. Furthermore, the state adopted the definition of student-on-student harassment set forth by the Supreme Court of the United States’ holding in Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, which defined student-on-student harassment as conduct that is “so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive” that a student-victim is effectively denied equal access to educational opportunities or benefits. "SB 361 mandates that institutions make public their free speech policies and regulations in their student handbook, website, and orientation programs. This way, the campus community of students, administrators, faculty, and staff (and their invited guests) have several opportunities to be made aware of their rights and responsibilities." Colleges which will have to reform procedures include "Oklahoma State University, the University of Oklahoma, Cameron University, Northwestern Oklahoma State, Rogers State, and the University of Central Oklahoma"

South Dakota PASSED
South Dakota’s intellectual diversity bill, HB1087, which passed in March 2019 "requires all of the state’s public universities to make intellectual diversity an institutional priority and to report on their progress." It "respects institutional autonomy in educational decisions" and has thus far been "met with a remarkably high level of acceptance from the state Board of Regents." It bans public colleges from requiring student contain free speech to small free speech zones, effectively banning them. The law also prohibits public colleges from discriminating “against any student or student organization based on the content or viewpoint of their expressive activity.” Funding to student groups may not be provide din a discriminatory manner and student groups founde dob belief do not have to “affirm and adhere to the organization’s sincerely held beliefs.”

Tennessee PASSED
In May 2017 Tennessee passed SB723 to protect student's free speech rights on public campuses. It has bipartisan support, with a 85-7 vote in the House of Representatives and a 30-0 vote in the Senate. The law says that public colleges must 1. institute policies in line with the University of Chicago’s Free Speech Policy Statement, one of the first statements in support of student speech rights on campus 2. defines “student-on-student harassment in a way that is consistent with the definition provided by the Supreme Court of the United States in Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education.” This is also in line with many other states campus free speech legislation. 3. It prohibits “viewpoint discrimination in the allocation of student fees to student organizations," 4. bans public colleges from disinviting speakers invited by students or faculty and 5. “protect[s] faculty from being punished for speech in the classroom, unless the speech is both ‘not reasonably germane to the subject matter of the class as broadly construed, and comprises a substantial portion of classroom instruction.’” It does not protect faculty speech which is “not reasonably germane to the subject matter of the class as broadly construed, and comprises a substantial portion of classroom instruction.” <ref.https://www.aaup.org/report/campus-free-speech-legislation-history-progress-and-problems

Texas PASSED
Texas SB18, in support of campus free speech, in June 2019. It is the 17th state to enact such protections. The law states that “all persons may assemble peaceably on the campuses of institutions of higher education for expressive activities, including to listen to or observe the expressive activities of others" and says that “common outdoor areas of the institution’s campus are deemed traditional public forums." The college must inform new students and staff of these policies in orientation. Employees “may not consider any anticipated controversy related to the event” when charging fees and essentially vetoing the speaker. The Supreme Court in Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, outlawed this kind of veto. The Court struck said government officials involved with parade applicants were not able to assign feed on the basis of expected protests. the court said: “Speech cannot be financially burdened, any more than it can be punished or banned, simply because it might offend a hostile mob.” the law also requires colleges institutions to institute policies to discipline students who  “unduly interfere with the expressive activities of others.” The law does not, however, define the term “unduly interfere.” This was introduced after Texas Southern University (a historically black institution) canceled a Republican speaker who had introduced an earlier free speech bill, claiming that he had not been approved to speak. The same college cancelled a US Senator claiming that the speech had not been approved.

Utah PASSED
In March 2017 Utah passed HB54 which protects students right to free speech on public campuses. It eliminates policies that limit campus speech to small "free speech zones" and allows students or other parties to sue the state through the Attorney General's office for breach of rights. It was not inspired by the Godwater institute's template for student rights law

Virginia PASSED
In April 2017 Virginia passed HR431 and HB1401 protecting free speech on public campuses. This was inspired by campus free speech legislation put forth by the Goldwater Institute. It "effectively designating outdoor areas on the Commonwealth’s public college campuses as public forums, where student speech is subject only to reasonable, content- and viewpoint-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions. Under this new law, college students at Virginia’s public universities will not be limited to expressing themselves in tiny “free speech zones” or subject to unreasonable registration requirements." It says that “Except as otherwise permitted by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, no public institution of higher education shall abridge the constitutional freedom of any individual, including enrolled students, faculty and other employees and invited guests, to speak on campus.”

Wisconsin INTRODUCED
In June 2017 Wisconsin put forth SB444/AB299 otherwise known as the campus free speech bill This bill was inspired by the Goldwater Institute template for campus speech report legislation. It "requires University of Wisconsin system colleges to adopt certain rules on free speech, including suspending for at least a semester students who have twice been found responsible for “interfering with the expressive rights of others.” "Students who violate free speech policies three times must be expelled." This bill was proposed after Ben Shapiro was invited to speak at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. In October 2017 the Wisconsin Board of Regents instituted a free speech policy with the same sanctions. The policy says that "students found to have twice engaged in violence or other disorderly conduct that disrupts others’ free speech would be suspended. Students found to have disrupted others’ free expression three times would be expelled.”

Wyoming INTRODUCED
In February 2018 Wyoming introduced, HB 137, the Wyoming Higher Education Free Speech Protection Act, which includes free speech protections for public campuses. It appears to be inspired by the Goldwater Institute which provides a template for campus free speech legislation. This legislation was proposed after university of Wyoming students protested a conservative speaker, Dennis Prager, who was invited by the student group Turning Point USA. The student group was defended for not following student college regulations. In 2010 the same college tried to cancel Bill Ayers but courts prevented them from doing so.

American Council of Trustees and Alumni
"The American Council of Trustees and Alumni prefers that governing boards and administrators develop free speech policies, said Armand Alacbay, the association's vice president of trustee and government affairs....The ideal process is for lawmakers to signal they want colleges to work on these issues and for university leaders to work out the specifics of such rules, Alacbay said." "Laws should only be lightly prescribed"

Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE)
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education defends college civil liberties. Their website says that "FIRE’s Stand Up For Speech Litigation Project has brought suits against colleges and universities maintaining these zones, including on behalf of a student distributing animal rights literature at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona; a student advocating for Second Amendment rights at Blinn College in Texas; a student asking fellow students at Citrus College to sign a petition protesting the National Security Agency; and a Los Angeles Pierce College student handing out Spanish-language copies of the Constitution." Joe Cohn, the legislative director says “I think we and other organizations are trying to help craft language for colleges that uses a lighter touch." “College leaders should promote the fact that their campuses host diverse viewpoints, not corral dissenting speakers into pre-approved areas where they determine it’s ‘safe’ to have an opinion,” said FIRE Executive Director Robert Shibley." "Ten percent of colleges and universities surveyed by FIRE maintain a free speech zone, according to FIRE’s Spotlight on Speech Codes 2019 report."

Goldwater Institute
The Goldwater Institute, named after senator Barry Goldwater, is located in Phoenix AZ. In 2017, it developed a template for the creation of student rights laws after violence on the University of California, Berkeley, campus during the Milo Yainnopolus speaking tour. Many new laws protecting free speech on campuses use parts of this template. The template sates that young people need to be “confronted with new ideas, especially ideas with which they disagree.”

The text says verbatim:
 * It creates an official university policy that strongly affirms the importance of free expression, nullifying any existing restrictive speech codes in the process.
 * It prevents administrators from disinviting speakers, no matter how controversial, whom members of the campus community wish to hear from.
 * It establishes a system of disciplinary sanctions for students and anyone else who interferes with the free-speech rights of others.
 * It allows persons whose free-speech rights have been improperly infringed by the university to recover court costs and attorney’s fees.
 * It reaffirms the principle that universities, at the official institutional level, ought to remain neutral on issues of public controversy to encourage the widest possible range of opinion and dialogue within the university itself.
 * It ensures that students will be informed of the official policy on free expression.
 * It authorizes a special subcommittee of the university board of trustees to issue a yearly report to the public, the trustees, the governor, and the legislature on the administrative handling of free-speech issues.

The Goldwater Institute modeled their template on three main documents : Yale University’s 1974 Woodward Report, the University of Chicago’s 1967 Kalven Report, and the University of Chicago’s 2015 Stone Report."

University of Chicago
In 2015 the University of Chicago put out a report called the "Committee on Freedom of Expression", which was headed by legal professor Geoffrey R. Stone. President Robert J. Zimmer and Provost Eric D. Isaacs. They said that "in light of “recent events nationwide that have tested institutional commitments to free and open discourse"....“[T]he University’s 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 members of the University community to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed. It is for the individual members of the University community, not for the University as an institution, 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.” It also drew a line at obstructing the free speech of others: “Although members of the University 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.”

A number of colleges have come together to put forth principles for free speech that they hope colleges will choose to ascribe to without legal intervention. "Seventy-four colleges and universities to date have adopted the Chicago Principles on Freedom of Expression, the gold standard for an institutional commitment to academic freedom, or a similar pledge to the free exchange of ideas." In 2015 Princeton University also issued a report influenced by the University of Chicago's statement. This was followed by Perdue, the Winston-Salem State University/University of North Carolina, Johns Hopkins and the faculty senate at American University. FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education also promoted these principles. "Greg Lukianoff, connected the Chicago principles to the Woodward and Kalven reports—as well as to the AAUP’s foundational documents. He commented that the Stone report “deserves to take a place alongside the American Association of University Professors’ famous 1915 ‘Declaration of Principles,’ its 1940 ‘Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure,’ Yale University’s Woodward Report, and the University of Chicago’s own Kalven Report as inspiring statements on the unique importance of free speech to any university community.”