Category Archives: Free Speech

Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribunes daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

A jury has rejected a former Collin College professors claim that the North Texas school violated his First Amendment rights by not renewing his contract after it expired at the end of the 2022 school year.

History professor Michael Phillips claimed in a lawsuit filed last year that school leaders retaliated against him for speaking out against the McKinney community college's COVID-19 policies and his support to remove Confederate statues in Dallas.

But a jury, located in nearby conservative Grayson County, rejected that claim Monday, stating that Phillips did not prove beyond a preponderance of evidence that the school retaliated against him. The jury also found that Collin College President Neil Matkin would have reached the same conclusion not to renew Phillips contract even if the professor hadnt spoken out publicly on those issues.

Despite repeated attacks by the plaintiff, his supporters, and various advocacy groups with their own agendas, this case resulted in a legal victory, including affirmation that the colleges policies are not unconstitutionally vague as alleged, Collin College spokesperson Marisela Cadena-Smith said in a press release Monday night.

Phillips was represented by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a legal group that represents students and faculty in free speech legal issues across the country.

We are deeply disappointed by the outcome of todays trial, said FIRE attorney Greg Greubel. However, we remain incredibly proud to represent Dr. Phillips. FIRE will continue to fight for the expressive rights of faculty across the country.

FIRE also represented two other former Collin College professors whose contracts were not renewed. They also sued the community college district over alleged violations of free speech.

Former history professor Lora Burnett sued the school last year alleging that she was fired for public statements she made about former Vice President Mike Pence. According to Burnett, the college decided not to renew her contract due to insubordination, making private personnel issues public that impair the colleges operations, and personal criticisms of co-workers, supervisors, and/or those who merely disagree with you. She settled with the school, accepting an offer to receive $70,000 plus her attorneys fees, though the school did not admit liability.

Another professor, Suzanne Jones, who taught education, also sued Collin. She alleged she was fired for publicly criticizing the schools handling of the pandemic and her work to start a local campus chapter of the Texas Faculty Association, a statewide higher education faculty union that lacks bargaining rights. She also settled with the school last year and was reinstated as a professor.

In his lawsuit, Phillips claimed his issues with the college first began in August 2017 when he co-wrote an open letter calling for the removal of Confederate monuments in Dallas. The school told him that writing the letter violated the schools policy because it was something that made the college look bad and mentioned his institutional affiliation, the lawsuit read.

According to the lawsuit, two administrators told Phillips that the college policy requires faculty and staff to exercise appropriate restraint, exhibit tolerance for differing opinions, and indicate clearly that they are not an official spokesperson for the College District when they speak or act as private citizens because their actions will inevitably be judged by the public and reflect upon their profession and institution.

In 2019, Phillips was issued an employee coaching form after he gave an interview to The Washington Post to discuss race relations in the Dallas area after a Collin College student opened fire in a Walmart in El Paso.

According to the lawsuit, administrators said such interviews violated the schools policies because faculty are identified as Collin College professors, even if they are speaking as private citizens.

The lawsuit said Phillips was told in the coaching form that expectations moving forward are to follow the Presidents directives when approached by the media.

During the first year of the pandemic, Phillips wrote a post in his Facebook page criticizing Collin Colleges decision to return to full-time, in-person learning in fall 2020.

That feeling when your employer doesnt care about your health and safety, the post read.

The school again called him into a Zoom meeting alerting him his post violated the colleges code of professional ethics and its policy manual, the suit says.

In summer 2021, Phillips again posted a message on social media from a faculty meeting about the colleges COVID-19 guidelines, showing a slide that said faculty members are forbidden from requesting, requiring or recommending mask usage on signs or in their syllabi.

He posted the picture of the slide and wrote, Note what we were told about discussing masks and Covid with students at my college today. Phillips said he was issued a warning for the posts.

At the end of August that year, the school alerted Phillips his three-year contract would not be renewed, the lawsuit says. He filed a challenge to that decision and applied for a new contract through a faculty group at the college called the Council on Excellence, which helps faculty review applicants for new contracts.

As he was appealing the schools decision not to renew his contract, Phillips covered the history of pandemics in his classes and assigned his students to write a paper on the history of epidemics, from Christopher Columbus expedition to the American continent to COVID-19. During those teachings, the lawsuit says, Phillips reviewed anti-masks advocacy groups during the 1919 influenza pandemic and explained that historians found such resistance seriously damaged efforts to bring the flu under control.

According to the lawsuit, Chaelle OQuin, associate dean of academic affairs, told Phillips that students complained about his comments about mask-wearing and he was placed on a performance improvement plan.

While the faculty-run Council on Excellence recommended that Phillips receive a new contract, administrators ultimately disagreed and President Matkin decided not to offer him a contract, the lawsuit says.

When Johnson met with Phillips and told him it was unlikely he would get a new contract, he asked Phillips whether there was a way they could create a narrative that would allow Phillips to make a graceful exit from Collin College, the lawsuit states.

Collin College leaders said they have disagreed with Phillips characterization of events since the lawsuit was filed and said they were pleased a jury agreed.

Dr. Phillips signed a term contract which ended in May 2022. Under that contract, there is no right or reasonable expectation of continued employment beyond the term of the contract, Cadena-Smith said. As an employer, the college has every right to determine who it employs, particularly based on the recommendations of supervisors.

Phillips is now a senior research fellow at Southern Methodist University in Dallas.

The Texas Tribune partners with Open Campus on higher education coverage.

Disclosure: Collin College, Facebook and Southern Methodist University have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

Correction, Nov. 14, 2023 at 3:12 p.m.: An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated that a Collin County jury rejected a former Collin College professors claim that the school had violated his First Amendment rights. The jury was in Grayson County.

See original here:
Texas jury rules against ex-Collin College professor in free speech suit - The Texas Tribune

ARTICLE 19 is horrified by the humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in the occupied Gaza Strip. The relentless and disproportionate attacks by Israel, a retaliation for the killing and kidnapping of civilians carried out by Hamas last month, have inflicted a devastating toll. The blatant disregard for human rights and humanitarian law principles we are witnessing is deeply disturbing. We condemn in the strongest terms the all-out assault on freedom of expression, which perpetuates cycles of violence and disinformation, obstructs reporting on the conflict, limits access to lifesaving information and disrupts the vital operations of hospital and humanitarian organisations. This needs to stop now. Respect for freedom of expression is essential to bring an end to the ongoing hostilities and ensure accountability for international crimes. We reiterate our urgent call for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to end this unprecedented humanitarian crisis and prevent further loss of civilian lives.

According to the United Nations, as of 12 November 2023, over 12,200 people have been killed since 7 October 2023. At least 1,200 Israelis and foreign nationals were killed, and more than 240 abducted in the horrific attacks carried out in Israel by Hamas. At the time of writing at least 11,078 Palestinians have been killed by the subsequent relentless Israeli bombardment in Gaza, of whom 68% are said to be children and women. The UN estimates that 160 children are killed in Gaza every day. More than 3,250 people, including 1,700 children, have been reported missing and may be trapped or dead beneath rubble.

In the West Bank, 172 Palestinians have been killed since the 7 October attacks, including 46 children, at the hands of Israeli forces. Eight Palestinians, including one child, have been killed by armed Israeli settlers. Three Israelis have been killed in attacks by Palestinians.

The devastation is continuing at a deeply alarming scale.

In an environment marked by a blatant disregard for international law, all human rights are under threat. Any party to a conflict, regardless of how said conflict was prompted, is obliged to comply with the laws of war. The attacks by Hamas on 7 October do not exempt Israel from its obligations under international humanitarian law, which is rooted in the acknowledgement that armed conflicts exist but that even during these conflicts the harm that can be caused is not without limits. These rules protect fundamental principles of humanity, such as the prohibition of collective punishment and the obligation to avoid unnecessary suffering, and they apply without regard to the conduct of the adversary.

ARTICLE 19 is also gravely concerned about freedom of expression and information being another casualty of the conflict. We recall that the belligerents in this conflict are also bound by international human rights law, including freedom of expression, which is essential for the protection of civilians during conflicts. Violations of the basic right to free speech and to access information cannot find any justification.

The ongoing conflict has developed into a freedom of expression crisis in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Israel and beyond. As the situation is fast becoming a humanitarian catastrophe, ARTICLE 19 is alarmed by the unprecedented killing of journalists carrying out their professional duties, the use of internet shutdowns, suppression of free expression and protest, and increasing online harms and hate speech, all of which will continue to perpetuate the violence, deaths, and humanitarian crisis on the ground.

So far, Israel has imposed three internet shutdowns in Gaza, on 27 October, lasting close to 36 hours, 1 November and 5 November. The blackouts exacerbated the humanitarian catastrophe, with humanitarian organisations losing contact with aid workers, and media houses not being able to reach their reporters preventing them from reporting from Gaza in real time as Israels ground invasion intensified. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) called for immediate restoration of connectivity in response to the 28 October shutdown. Even beyond the blackouts, phone and internet communications in Gaza have been challenged by fuel shortages and damage to infrastructure caused by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF).

ARTICLE 19 recalls that in times of conflict, internet connectivity becomes a lifeline. It is vital for the distribution of aid, the operations of humanitarian organisations, enabling communication for those trapped under the rubble, or ambulance calls. The internet is also the primary means through which people can document and share information about the situation on the ground, including that of unfolding atrocities. When the internet is shut down, human rights violations are often committed with impunity.

Even in times of conflict, shutting down entire parts of communications systems can never be justified under international human rights law. Internet shutdowns of the sort we have seen in this conflict are also likely to violate a number of international humanitarian law rules. Attacks against any civilian infrastructure must adhere to targeting rules, including the distinction between military and civilian objects, the principle of proportionality and the prohibition of indiscriminate attacks. International humanitarian law further forbids collective punishment by imposing penalties on people without a clear lawful basis.

The ongoing situation makes it increasingly difficult to obtain critical information and evidence () and to hear directly from those experiencing the violations.Where shutdowns are implemented with the intent of covering up violations of international humanitarian law, they also constitute a breach of the obligation to ensure respect for international humanitarian law under Common Article 1 of the Geneva Conventions and customary international law. This obligation requires States to put in place measures to prevent violations from happening in the first place and to provide accountability for any violations that do take place.

This conflict has been the deadliest period for journalists covering conflicts since the Committee to Protect Journalists began documenting the death of journalists in 1992. As of 12 November 2023, they report that at least 40 journalists and media workers were killed, 8 journalists were reported injured and 3 were reported missing.

ARTICLE 19 recalls that international humanitarian law is crystal clear: journalists are considered civilians and cannot be military targets. We remain profoundly concerned about reports indicating that media workers may have been deliberately targeted by Israel.

Journalists operating in conflict zones carry out vital work and the warring parties must take steps to protect them. Despite this, the IDF has informed Reuters, Agence France-Presse and other outlets that it cannot guarantee the safety of their journalists in the Gaza Strip. Israel has continued to attack sites known to be sheltering civilians and journalists.

Many Palestinian journalists have also experienced arrests, assaults, threats, cyberattacks, and killings of family members while carrying out their journalistic duties. Suggestions made in certain Israeli outlets without evidence that some journalists may be linked to Hamas can put them at further risk.

For well over a decade, media access to the Gaza Strip has been severely limited: since the Gaza blockade imposed by Israel in 2007, journalists are not allowed to enter the territory without authorisation from Israel. On 31 October 2023, members of the French media called on the Israeli authorities to expand access granted to international journalists to Gaza, so more impartial, on-the-ground reporting can reach the world from the centre of the conflict.

Sweeping access restrictions for journalists cannot be justified by either international humanitarian or human rights law. The international humanitarian law for the protection of journalists who are engaged in dangerous professional missions in conflict areas in fact presupposes the general acceptance of news providers in the territory of armed conflict. Furthermore, restrictions to conflict zones for media even where based on national security criteria must meet the necessity and proportionality test and factor in the fundamental importance of an objective coverage of armed conflicts by an independent press. Overbroad restrictions that serve to control reporting on the conflict do not meet these criteria.

In this context we must also express alarm about recent confirmations by CNN about the conditions imposed by Israel for the outlet to be able to embed their reporters with the IDF. CNN has agreed to submit all the materials and footage to the Israeli army for review prior to publication, raising questions of the problematic trade-offs between access and independence of reporting. This comes amidst existing concerns over how this conflict has been covered by the media. Seven hundred and fifty journalists have signed a statement criticising asymmetric coverage of the conflict and expressing immense concern over the killing of their colleagues in Gaza.

On 15 October 2023, Israels communications minister confirmed he was seeking to shut down the local bureau of Al-Jazeera, accusing the outlet of pro-Hamas incitement. A few days later, the Israeli government approved emergency regulations allowing for a temporary shut down of foreign news organisations that are believed to harm national security, paving the way for the outlets possible closure.

Reportedly, approval to shut down Al Jazeeras local office is now being sought from Israels defence minister and security cabinet.It is further reported that the IDF last month ordered a closure of Palestinian news agency J-Media.

ARTICLE 19 reminds the authorities that the banning of media outlets be it domestic or foreign is a severe restriction of freedom of expression and is rarely justified. While, under international law, free expression can be restricted on national security grounds, this is subject to strict limitations. Media bans need to demonstrate the specific threats that a certain media outlet may pose to national security. Any restrictions must always be transparent, and provide evidence as to the necessity and proportionality of the specific action taken and consider the impact that restrictions might have on the right of the public to receive information, particularly in times of conflict.

Any restrictions on media outlets should be imposed in respect of due process, transparency and by an independent media regulator, not executive branches of the government that are in charge of defence, national security, or the armed forces.

We are also troubled by the most recent reports that Israels parliament passed an amendment on 8 November 2023 to its counterterrorism law that, among others, is aimed to combat radicalisation of individuals through media consumption. It introduces the consumption of terrorist materials as a new criminal offence, which, as human rights groups have warned, could criminalise even passive social media use. We are very concerned that this amendment may be employed to target individuals whose online activities show their opposition to the way this conflict is being conducted, particularly in light of previous designations of Palestinian civil society organisations as terrorist entities.

The conflict has brought with it an exponential rise in instances of hate speech and antisemitic and islamophobic attacks. Tell Mama, which collates data on islamophobic attacks in the UK, recorded 515 incidents of anti-Muslim hate between 7 and 29 October, a sevenfold increase on the same period last year. In a tragic escalation internationally, on 16 October, a 6-year-old Palestinian American boy, Wadea Al-Fayoume, was murdered and his mother severely injured by their landlord in an islamophobic and anti-Palestinian attack in Illinois.

Synagogues and Jewish community centres have been attacked in cities around the world, including Berlin and Montreal, and Jewish people have faced antisemitic threats, harassment and intimidation on the streets and in their neighbourhoods. In the UK, at least 893 antisemitic incidents were recorded between 7 and 31 October.

The antisemitic and islamophobic attacks are abhorrent. Authorities must ensure that crimes committed against Muslim and Jewish communities are subject to independent, speedy and effective investigations and prosecutions. At the same time, we warn against using such incidents as a pretext to unduly curb freedom of expression as not all forms of hate speech rise to the level of prohibited speech under international law.

In an environment where freedom of expression is attacked and journalists ability to report from Gaza is made extremely difficult, if not impossible, the role of social media companies and their ability to allow for information about the hostilities to circulate in and get out of Gaza cannot be overstated. Voices of local reporters and ordinary social media users on the ground are vital in informing the world about the realities of the conflict.

Despite their crucial role in this conflict, and despite repeated criticism over their handling of previous conflict situations, social media companies continue to fail, in many ways, to respect international human rights and international humanitarian law norms and to uphold freedom of expression during conflicts.

In particular, Palestinian voices are once again being silenced on social media platforms. Palestinian activists have for a long time complained about their accounts being unfairly suspended, shadowbanned or their content demoted. Last year, a review of Metas content moderation practices in relation to Israel and Palestine found evidence of bias that negatively impacted Palestinian users and their right to freedom of expression. During the current conflict, Palestinian users are now again facing similar issues, with TikTok and Instagram taking down or suspending accounts of Palestinians sharing on-the-ground news from Gaza.

From the very beginning, the conflict has also been mired with disinformation, illegal content and incitement to violence proliferating on social media. The biggest platforms, including Meta and X, have in recent months made deep cuts into their trust and safety teams, making the task of dealing with the content moderation issues at this time all the more challenging. On X, the decision to algorithmically amplify posts by paid subscribers supercharged the reach of accounts spreading unverified and misleading information and glorifying terrorist messages. It has also been reported that Telegrams lack of robust content moderation allowed heavy use by Hamas to broadcast violent videos and images of its attacks on southern Israeli communities in real time.

At the same time Israels widespread paid digital presence raises concerns about the monetisation of conflict-related content. The 2022 report on disinformation in armed conflicts by the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression has warned of the role of monetisation of conflict-related content during armed conflicts, noting that monetisation has taken place in spite of company policies that purport to limit the types of content deemed suitable for advertising.

Since Hamass attack, Israel has been heavily investing in the use of social media advertising, pushing out ads targeting specific countries and demographics to garner support for its ongoing offensive actions. The online ads are reported to include graphic videos. There is yet to be a review of the content of these ads to ascertain validity of claims and statistics used, partly due to a lack of transparency and accessibility of ad repositories. Google reportedly removed about 30 ads containing violent images, which means there is no public record that such ads ran for several days on YouTube. Given the potential for wide amplification of content contained in ads, platforms must meet the highest level of diligence in ensuring that those ads meet their community standards.

Antisemitism and islamophobia have risen exponentially on social media. For instance, reports show an over 4963% increase in the number of antisemitic comments on YouTube videos about the Israel/Palestine conflict and a 422% increase in language associated with anti-Muslim hate on X.

This is exacerbated by the AI systems of major social media companies. Metas use of AI tools has had an additional negative impact on users rights, exposing the bias inherent in those technologies. Instagrams automated translation model replaced Palestinian meaning Palestinian followed by the Arabic phrase Praise be to Allah with Palestinian Terrorist. On WhatsApp, an AI image generator created emojis of children holding guns when prompted with the word Palestinian. Palestinian rights organisations and Meta staff themselves have called on Meta to take immediate action to address this deep-rooted bias, which perpetuates harmful stereotypes.

Since 7 October, around the world, expressions of solidarity and protests have been met with clampdowns and rising restrictions.

In Israel, Arab citizens have been arrested by the police for expressing solidarity with Gaza on social media. Since 7 October 2,200 Palestinians have been arrested in the West Bank alone. On 6 November, for example, the Israeli army confirmed the arrest of prominent Palestinian activist Ahed Tamimi during a raid in the occupied West Bank territories. Her father, who was arrested in an earlier raid, is held under administrative detention. ARTICLE 19 remains extremely concerned about the continuing and widespread use of administrative detention by Israel against activists and protesters.

In Western Europe, France and Germany have banned a number of pro-Palestinian demonstrations. In the UK, politicians stirred up divisive rhetoric with the Home Secretary referring to protests as hate marches and the Prime Minister putting pressure on the police officials to ban a rally scheduled on the same weekend as the Armistice Day celebrations. The blanket categorisation of protests against the war as pro-Hamas or suggestions that they are inherently disruptive raises serious concerns for the right to protest across the continent and beyond.

In various professional settings around the world, from newsrooms to academia and workplaces, individuals have been harassed, intimidated and their positions threatened because of their views of the conflict. In response to increasing risks to students on US campuses from doxxing campaigns and physical intimidation, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has written to US college administrators reminding them that addressing antisemitism and islamophobia are vitally important , but that it cannot come at a cost to justified and peaceful expression. It urged them to reject baseless calls to investigate or punish student groups for exercising their free speech rights. In another concerning development, US congress has censured its only Palestinian member over comments critical of Israel and in support of Palestinians.

With the unfolding humanitarian crisis in Gaza, increasing death tolls, and rising tensions reaching far beyond the conflicts geographical borders, ARTICLE 19 joins the UN, aid agencies and experts in calling for an immediate and maintained ceasefire. International standards, including international humanitarian law and international human rights law, must be adhered to by the belligerent parties. Any violations of international law committed during the conflict must be independently investigated, including by the International Criminal Court and the Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem and Israel.

We also urgently call for an end to the freedom of expression crisis that has accompanied this conflict, in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Israel, and beyond. The safeguarding of free expression and access to information must be at the centre of the response to this conflict.

Read more:
Israel and Occupied Palestinian Territories: Stop the assault on free ... - Article 19

The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act became law on 11 May 2023. The new statutory duties on free speech for universities and colleges, and for relevant students unions, will come into force on 1 August 2024 and the new conditions of registration (rules that universities have to follow) on free speech and academic freedom come into force on the 1 September 2025.

In the meantime, we have some information to consider. The Office for Students published an Insight Brief: Freedom to Question, Challenge and Debate in December 2022. Universities UK have released some further, helpful, guidance. This includes a summary of the complex and interacting legal duties around freedom of speech.

As someone who spent an inordinate amount of time translating national policy, regulation and guidance into organisational procedure, there are several conundrums set out within this complex and interacting legal framework. Im going to consider three of these issues in a short HEPI blog series.

Issue number one objective harassment.

The issue of whether someones behaviour constitutes harassment, or not, has been the discussion of many articles and debates. This blog will consider the practical implications of ensuring the objectivity test on harassment is met in universities.

The OfS insight brief sets out the following:

Harassment (as defined by section 26 of the Equality Act 2010) means unwanted conduct that has the purpose or effect of violating a persons dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment for that person because of, or connected to, one or more of the persons relevant protected characteristics. In deciding whether conduct has the effect referred to, it is necessary to consider:

The last point is important because it introduces an element of objectivity into the test. The perception of the person who is at the receiving end of the conduct is not the only relevant consideration in determining whether the conduct amounts to unlawful harassment.

The protected characteristics included under the harassment section of the Equalities Act are age, disability, gender reassignment, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation.

The Insight Brief also outlines:

Speech that is offensive and hurtful, but lawful, is protected.

If a person raises an allegation of harassment, the university must decide 1) that it was reasonable that this person felt harassed by this conduct; or,

2) that it was not reasonable that this person felt harassed by this conduct.

Specifically, they will need to consider if the conduct was:

unwanted conduct that had the purpose or effect of violating a persons dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment for that person.

Who are the objective people who can make this decision?

The decision will likely land in the lap of a student (or staff) misconduct panel, who are to decide whether behaviour about or towards a person, based on their personal characteristic, constitutes harassment. This is where it gets tricky.

Can an all-white misconduct panel have an objective understanding of how offensive and hurtful comments about race feel for a student of colour? Can an entirely heterosexual panel have an objective understanding of how offensive and hurtful comments about sexuality feel for a gay student? Could a gender-critical panel member objectively review an allegation of harassment made due to gender reassignment? Could a trans person objectively review an allegation of harassment made by a gender-critical feminist?

Should we expect panel members to declare their belief systems at the start of a panel, the way we ask them to declare conflicts of interest?

Should student complainants and respondents be allowed to object to the presence of panel members based on their protected characteristics (or lack of), the way they can when there is a perceived conflict of interest? Would excluding panel members based on their protected characteristics in itself contravene the Equality Act?

Should a panel be 50/50 between those who believe microaggressions constitute harassment and those who think people are offended too easily?

Im making these points facetiously, but the point is that we may believe that we as individuals are considering harassment objectively, but we would all be bringing our own lived experiences and beliefs to this decision-making process. This happens in the criminal justice system also, with jury members selected very purposefully at random. With each juror bringing their own knowledge, biases and lived experiences to the decision-making process.

If Im deeply honest, 10 years ago, I may have dismissed some allegations of racial harassment that I now would not. I would argue that my increased understanding of how racial harassment manifests would make me more objective. Others could argue that my increased understanding of racism was woke ideology brain-washing making me less objective.

Finding staff with the time, inclination, and specialist skills needed to analyse and weigh evidence appropriately to fill misconduct panels is a difficult task. Ensuring that the panel is also diverse, more so. Particularly when there is a risk of adding unpaid workload and mental burden to those with protected characteristics.

There is no national training scheme for misconduct panel members. (And given the expectations on these panels to adjudicate over cases of serious sexual misconduct, there really should be). Institutions are often doing their best to provide training, but having to develop a deep understanding of racism, homophobia, biphobia, religious- or belief-based harassment, ageism, ableism, sexism, and transphobia, starts to make these feel like they should be professionalised roles, rather than added on to someones already full workload.

An alternative option is to provide experts who advise the panels on why something may constitute harassment based on a particular characteristic. But these experts may be hard to find in small institutions and difficult to pull in from overstretched charities working in these fields.

It is, of course, possible, that someone could make an objective assessment about harassment based on a characteristic one does not have. But to expect this to be objective when the whole panel doesnt have this characteristic, they are provided with no expert voice on this, and have no training on this topic, seems a stretch morally, if not legally.

Recommendations:

Universities are being asked to preside over these incredibly complex cases of harassment and free speech, as well as undertaking quasi-judicial expectations when it comes to sexual misconduct cases. The associated workload, expectations, and risk (to students, staff, and institutions) will only increase as the two new conditions of registrations are implemented. One on harassment and sexual misconduct (expected in the coming months) and one on freedom of speech, expected in 2025. Expecting each institution to grapple with these issues individually will lead to a frustrating waste of resources and a postcode lottery of outcomes.

To undertake these duties, and to do them well, a national framework of training for misconduct panel members should be developed. This should cover:

Unfortunately, training on student misconduct decision making doesnt fit neatly into remit of any of the sector organisations. The OIA has the expertise on best practise, the OfS is taking an increasing role on regulation in this area and Advance HE offer training to the sector on other areas but not this one. Given their expertise, I would be thrilled to see the OIA take up this mantle but perhaps the discussion about where this vital provision should sit needs to be the first port of call.

Institutions should consider working regionally to develop staffing resources capable of undertaking the training needed to fulfil these roles. A wider pool of investigators and misconduct panel members may additionally increase diversity in this pool of staff.

Where is misconduct panel is not well-versed in a particular form of harassment, an expert voice should be sought to provide additional context.

Continued here:
Free speech in HE, part 1: We need to talk about objective harassment - Higher Education Policy Institute

Nov. 8, 2023

Dear Brandeis Community,

Monday, the university issued a decision to no longer recognize the Brandeis chapter of the National Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP). This decision was made because SJP openly supports Hamas, which the United States has designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, and its call for the violent elimination of Israel and the Jewish people.

Many people have asked about this decision and there has been some confusion about what is and is not permitted. We did not enter into this decision lightly. We are a university dedicated to ensuring free speech as outlined in Brandeis Principles of Free Speech and Free Expression. These principles state that the university may restrict expression that constitutes a genuine threat or harassment. All students, faculty, and staff are welcome here, and encouraged to participate in the free exchange of ideas. To promote such free exchange, we must not and do not condone hate, the incitement of violence, or threats against or harassment of anyone, be they Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Israeli, Palestinian, or any other religion or ethnicity.

I join those who are distressed by the loss of civilian life in Israel and in Gaza. Our faculty, staff, and student community members who wish to gather to express their support for the rights of Palestinians, or to acknowledge Palestinian deaths during the current Israel-Hamas war, are welcome to do so on our campus. They may do so as individuals, or they may seek to form student organizations through established procedures that comply with Brandeis policies.

It is critical that all students, and all of their diverse experiences and viewpoints, be allowed to engage in constructive dialogue and live together as a community, in an environment that is free of intimidation and harassment. A commitment to openness is one of Brandeis founding values, but that openness is challenged when speech is used to intimidate and silence others.

Sincerely,

Ron Liebowitz

Original post:
A space for free speech, not hate speech | Letters and Addresses ... - Brandeis University