Chapman receives worst freedom of speech rating
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) gave Chapman’s freedom of speech codes its “red light” rating. Graphics by RENEE ELEFANTE, Editor-in-Chief
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) gave Chapman University’s freedom of speech codes their worst rating. In FIRE’s 2024 Spotlight on Speech Codes report, Chapman earned the “red light” rating.
Since 1999, the FIRE organization has advocated for freedom of speech in settings such as college campuses. FIRE’s policy reform department has a group of lawyers that reads college expression policies to see if they meet First Amendment standards.
FIRE Director of Policy Reform Laura Beltz explained the difference between the red and yellow light ratings.
“If a policy has a clear and substantial restriction on speech, it earns a red light rating,” Beltz said. “So, an example of that would be like saying you can't use offensive speech anywhere on campus. That is clearly unconstitutional on its face since that includes protected speech and it applies everywhere on campus, so it's a substantial restriction.”
Beltz continued: “And then the yellow light rating is for either a more vague policy, like saying, ‘You can't use abusive speech.’ That could be harassment at that point, or it could be protected speech. Or a yellow light rating is for a clear restriction, but it's on a more narrow area of the campus, so it only applies to the residence halls — a policy like that one would earn a yellow light.”
Here are other California universities and their FIRE speech code ratings:
University of Southern California (red)
California State University, Long Beach (yellow)
University of California, Los Angeles (green)
Chapman’s harassment policy earns red light rating
The policy that earned Chapman the red light rating is regarding Harassment of Other Students or Student Groups or Third Parties under Student Conduct. FIRE flagged the following statements in the policy:
“Harassment is defined as unwelcome conduct on the basis of actual or perceived membership in a class protected by policy or law. Students are prohibited from engaging in harassment under this Code. The University will act to remedy all forms of harassment on the basis of a protected category when reported, whether or not the harassment rises to the level of creating a “hostile environment.” Specific forms of prohibited conduct include:
Harassing conduct by a student (e.g., physical, verbal, graphic, or written) that is sufficiently severe, pervasive or persistent so as to interfere with or limit the ability of an individual to participate in or benefit from the services, activities or privileges provided by a recipient.
...
The University reserves the right to address offensive conduct and/or harassment that 1) does not rise to the level stated above, or 2) that is of a generic nature and not based on a protected status. Addressing such conduct will not result in the imposition of discipline under this Code but may be addressed through respectful conversation, remedial actions, education, effective Alternative Resolution and/or other informal resolution mechanisms. For assistance with Alternative Resolution and other informal resolution techniques and approaches, employees should contact the Equal Opportunity and Diversity Officer, and students should contact the Director of Student Conduct.”
According to Beltz, this harassment policy is too vague. Beltz is part of FIRE’s small group of lawyers and earned her law degree from the University of Pennsylvania.
“Harassment is, of course, not protected by the First Amendment,” Beltz said. “Speech that is a part of harassment isn't protected speech, but this policy defines harassment really broadly. So much that the administration could call pretty much anything harassment. It says harassment is any unwelcome conduct based on membership in a class that's protected by policy or law. And then it says even if conduct doesn't rise to the level of (a) hostile environment, Chapman will remedy any offensive conduct. It even goes on to say even if it doesn't meet the definition of this policy, we will act to remedy that.”
Beltz continued: “The problem there is that all harassment is unwelcome conduct, but not all unwelcome conduct is harassment. I'm thinking about if a student is trying to take part in a protest about a controversial topic like Israel and Hamas, or if they're trying to talk about abortion rights, a person that is on the other side of that issue might find their speech offensive. But, just seeing someone with a protest sign that they disagree with could be unwelcome verbal conduct, but it isn't necessarily hostile environment harassment. So, the problem with the Chapman policy is that it lets the administration take action whether or not it actually constitutes the legal definition of harassment.”
Chapman Dean of Students Jerry Price offered his perspective:
“I get what they're saying. But as an administrator, I like somewhat broad policies because it's very hard to write a policy that speaks to a lot of the different situations that come up,” Price said. “So in this respect, I would say that I get the criticism, but it does allow us some flexibility. And we don't abuse that flexibility.
Price continued: “We have a University statement on free expression. We have a free expression website on the Dean of Students page to reinforce the notion of the freedom that people have. And I even do a presentation during Orientation Week for undergraduates on free expression. So, I think we have a really good track record of doing that.”
Price also pointed out that some of Chapman’s policies include what he refers to as “federal language” that Chapman's attorneys encourage the school to include to meet legal standards. He states that the harassment policy reads more as federal language as opposed to “Chapman wording” included in other school policies like the Abusive Behavior Policy.
Other Chapman policies earn a yellow light and green light rating
FIRE flagged the following Chapman policies with the yellow light rating:
Student Policy on Sexual Harassment Prohibited by Senate Bill 493
Student Conduct Policies: Posting Policy
Computer and Network Acceptable Use Policy
Student Conduct Policies: Abusive Behaviors
Part of the computer and network policy states: “It is appropriate to use Chapman Information Resources for classroom and instructional activities, research-related activities, correspondence and support and administrative functions. Misuse includes but is not limited to violation of federal or state law, violation of University policy, unauthorized use of the system for commercial purposes, displaying sexually graphic images or text, abusive language, harassing behavior, unauthorized use of copyrighted materials and excessive use for non-official or frivolous purposes.”
Beltz points out FIRE's concern of including abusive language in this policy.
“What does abusive language mean?” Beltz said. “If you tweet about Chapman on the university Wi-Fi and you say something negative about the school, is that suddenly abusive language? Is a curse word abusive language?”
FIRE gave the following policies a green light rating:
Policies on Bias and Hate Speech: Cross-Cultural Education and Resource Team (CERT)
Student Policy on Sexual Harassment Prohibited by Title IX
“The green light rating is for policies that don't seriously imperil free speech,” Beltz said. “So, not necessarily exactly how we would've written the policy, but doesn't pose a big threat.”
“What does abusive language mean? If you tweet about Chapman on the university Wi-Fi and you say something negative about the school, is that suddenly abusive language? Is a curse word abusive language?”
The importance of Leonard Law
Price is “very familiar” with and has “a lot of respect for FIRE.” He is disappointed in FIRE’s red light rating for Chapman. He mentioned that he gets “a lot of grief from people who think we allow too much.”
“When students were — not just students — complaining about some of the stuff in the Gaza-Israel exhibits and they were saying, ‘Those are threats, those are promoting genocide’ or whatever, I'd say, ‘But the comparison would be if I put that poster on the stick and walked down a public sidewalk, could I be arrested?’ And if the answer is no, then it's protected,” said Price.
He continued: “Because if it's not unlawful, then the Leonard Law allows it as long as you're eligible to do it and you do it in a place that we allow such things to be done.”
In FIRE’s summary of SB 1115, Leonard Law “extended free speech protections to students enrolled in non-religious, private institutions of higher education in California. The law prohibits those institutions, as well as the governing boards of public institutions, from making or enforcing rules that would authorize discipline for students engaging in speech or conduct that would be protected from governmental restrictions under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or Section 2 of Article I of the California Constitution.”
“The Leonard Law in California is really unique,” Beltz said. “It's the only state in the country that has a law that says that secular private schools have to follow the First Amendment. There's no other state in the country that does that. And so, Chapman as a secular private school — whether it promises students free speech rights or not — they can't put into effect rules that violate the First Amendment. So, it's especially important that Chapman gets these regulations right.”
Price states that Chapman is an advocate of counterspeech. The Dangerous Speech Project defines counterspeech as “any direct response to hateful or harmful speech that seeks to undermine it.”
“With the Israel-Gaza conflict, people with one perspective would put up posters, then people with another, then people exhibit. To me, that’s what it’s supposed to be like. We’re not saying ‘You can put this up, but you can’t.’ Or ‘You can put this many up and you can only put up this many,’ or ‘You can have this space, but you can only have this space.’ We don’t do that. The same is available to everybody.”
Discussion about Chapman’s policies
What do students think about freedom of speech in general and at Chapman? The Panther asked students in Atallah Piazza to share their thoughts. Video by ANASTASIA KUPLINOVA, Video & Podcast Editor
“If someone were to complain that we're allowing students of a certain identity to be under constant attack, then we could be vulnerable,” Price said. “But even then, I can't even think of a time we intervened and took anything down. The only time we took anything down was when it was an outside white supremacist group. And someone said, ‘Are you saying that if that was a student organization's name on there, you'd leave it up?’ And I said, ‘Yes,’ but it's a moot point because no student organization would do that.”
Price continued: “My private belief — and I'll probably differ with FIRE in this too — at a college campus, I think you should own what you say. If you're a recognized student organization, you can put up a poster, but you also have to register your members with the Office of Students. And so people will know who's in that organization. And if you're gonna put up something that's so hurtful and hateful that you don't want people to know you put it up, well, then you should rethink whether you're putting it up.”
Chapman Republicans president Charlie Sisk states that FIRE’s red light rating for Chapman “makes a decent amount of sense.”
Sisk believes Chapman does “their best” in protecting students’ freedom of speech and expression.
“I do think that in classrooms and everything like that, I don't have to really hide being conservative too much in my papers and everything like that,” said Sisk, a sophomore studying political science. “For the most part, it's been pretty fine to write whatever. As long as I can back up my argument, I'm not getting an ‘F’ for supporting the free market or something like that in a political science paper.”
Jerry Price shared how he feels about the Chapman Republicans’ campus presence.
“One of the things I joke about — every Involvement Fair, Chapman Republicans puts out a table,” Price said. “And as you probably know, college Republicans often feel unwelcome on college campuses. So, I go up to their table, and I say, ‘I haven't voted for a Republican in 44 years, but I'm glad you're here because I worry about college campuses being places where multiple other perspectives just aren't available. And if people don't like you, they should at least understand why they don't like you. And not just read it in the news and such.’”
“My private belief — and I’ll probably differ with FIRE in this too — at a college campus, I think you should own what you say. If you’re a recognized student organization, you can put up a poster, but you also have to register your members with the Office of Students. And so people will know who’s in that organization. And if you’re gonna put up something that’s so hurtful and hateful that you don’t want people to know you put it up, well, then you should rethink whether you’re putting it up.”
Working with FIRE
Price explained why FIRE’s evaluation of Chapman upsets him.
“Normally, criticism doesn't bother me, but criticism from FIRE bothers me because I do think their organization is doing the right stuff in many ways,” Price said.
FIRE works closely with universities to help them adopt various free speech commitments, such as implementing orientation materials to educate incoming students about their rights. Some California schools FIRE has worked with include UCLA and Claremont Mckenna College.
About five years prior, pre-pandemic, Chapman worked with the organization to improve its policies. Price did not directly work with the organization, but rather, as a Chapman faculty member.
“I thought we changed everything they recommended, with the exception of the anonymous speech,” Price said.
“I'm not interested in First Amendment rights,” Price said. “I'm interested in student free expression rights, so that's one of the things that they did complain about before, and that is we don't allow anonymous speech like posters and things on campus. And we don't because we want to make sure our campus spaces are available for students to express themselves, not outside groups to express themselves. And the only way that we can really do that is to make sure that the posters and things that are up — or the exhibits that get put up — that we can verify that they are students or student groups who are doing it.”
Price continued: “They felt like we should allow more anonymous speech. And I'm like, ‘Well that's really more of a First Amendment issue,’ which is not my concern. But we say if you're eligible to post something, to reserve space, to reserve an exhibit or whatever, we are content-neutral in what that is. So, you just have to be eligible to it, and you just have to make sure it's happening in a place where it's permitted. And we're very liberal about that. We just have to make sure you're not obstructing anybody else's rights when you do it.”
According to Price, FIRE has not reached out to Chapman recently, though he is open to working with the organization in the future.
“I believe we actually are preparing people to be leaders of our country and global societies going forward,” Price said. “And these are the problems that those societies face. So why would we not want them to be addressed here? And so, that's always been my approach. By suppressing those conflicts here, we're not allowing our students to exercise some ability to process them, debate them, defend them, refute them. So I think we should be doing that.”