BILL ANALYSIS �
ACR 76
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
ACR 76 (Lowenthal)
As Amended August 29, 2013
Majority vote
HIGHER EDUCATION 7-3
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Williams, Bloom, Fong, | | |
| |Fox, | | |
| |Jones-Sawyer, Levine, | | |
| |Medina | | |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Ch�vez, Linder, Olsen | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Recognizes the supreme importance of the right to
freedom of speech on college campuses as a mechanism for sharing
and discussion of diverse ideas and opinions; condemns biased,
hurtful, and dangerous speech intended to stoke fear and
intimidation in its listeners; and encourages public
postsecondary institutions to ensure that they provide a safe,
encouraging environment for exercising the right to freedom of
speech and for the vibrant discussion of ideas and opinions from
people of all walks of life.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires the Regents of the University of California (UC), the
Trustees of the California State University (CSU), and the
governing board of every community college district (CCD), to
adopt, and inform students of, specific rules and regulations
governing student behavior along with applicable penalties for
violation of the rules and regulations. (Education Code (EC)
Section 66300).
2)Prohibits the UC Regents, CSU Trustees, and CCD governing
boards from making or enforcing a rule subjecting a student to
disciplinary sanction solely on the basis of conduct that is
speech or other communication that, when engaged in outside a
campus of those institutions, is protected from governmental
restriction by the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution or Section 2 of Article I of the California
ACR 76
Page 2
Constitution. Authorizes a student to commence a civil action
against an institution that has made or enforced such a rule.
(EC Section 66301).
3)Clarifies that the aforementioned law does not prohibit the
imposition of discipline for harassment, threats, or
intimidation, unless constitutionally protected; nor does it
prohibit an institution from adopting rules and regulations
designed to prevent hate violence from being directed at
students in a manner that denies full participation in the
educational process, if the rules and regulations conform to
constitutional rights. (EC Section 66301).
4)Prohibits an employee from being dismissed, suspended,
disciplined, reassigned, transferred, or otherwise retaliated
against solely for acting to protect a student engaged in
conduct protected by the constitution or the aforementioned
laws, or for refusing to infringe upon conduct that is
protected by the constitution or the aforementioned laws. (EC
Section 66301).
5)Requests the UC Regents, the CSU Trustees, and the governing
boards of CCD, adopt and publish policies on harassment,
intimidation, and bullying. (EC Section 66302).
6)Requires the CSU Trustees, and requests the UC Regents,
designate an individual to serve as a liaison between campus
law enforcement agencies and students exercising
constitutionally guaranteed rights. (EC Section 66302).
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS :
Purpose of this resolution . According to the author, ACR 76
seeks to recognize the supreme importance of the right to
freedom of speech and its rightful place on college campuses as
a mechanism for the sharing and discussion of diverse ideas and
opinions, including those that challenge a person to consider
the merits of his or her own positions.
Background . Freedom of speech is a fundamental American
freedom, and many believe that nowhere should it be more valued
and protected than at colleges and universities. Recognizing
ACR 76
Page 3
the importance of protecting freedom of speech on college
campuses, the state and federal government have enacted a series
of laws ensuring campus policies do not infringe on a student's
First Amendment right. However, incidents of hate crimes and
hate speech on campuses have led students, campus leaders, and
policy makers to question the appropriate role of colleges and
universities in ensuring the safety and well-being of the campus
community, as well as creating an environment that is free of
hate and bigotry.
The Assembly Higher Education Committee has convened several
oversight hearings on campus climate issues in recent years,
including Hate, Violence, and Bigotry on Public College and
University Campuses (June 2010) and two hearings on the
appropriate use of force in response to unlawful student protest
(December 2011 and May 2012). As witnesses at all hearings
observed, the underlying challenge is determining when speech or
action cross the line into violence or fear of violence or
infringes upon others' Constitutional rights.
The UC, CSU, and CCDs have system wide policies that prohibit
discrimination, harassment and retaliation against students and
govern campus organizations and sponsored activities on campus,
as well as student and faculty codes of conduct.
Analysis Prepared by : Laura Metune / HIGHER ED. / (916)
319-3960
FN: 0002007