��֭����

University of Florida president Ben Sasse has historically  in defense of   on campus. ��֭����  that colleges must clearly articulate their policies to students and then follow through on their word by both protecting free speech and holding students accountable for their behavior. Allowing violence, shoutdowns, classroom occupations, and other disruptive conduct to go uninvestigated and unpunished threatens free inquiry on campus.

But targeting pro-Palestinian protesters with a new list of vague and overbroad rules and punishing even minor alleged violations with a three-year suspension is not accountability. It is unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. 

How UF’s hastily drafted anti-protest rules punish protected speech 

UF graduate student Keely Gliwa’s saga began in late April, on the second day of pro-Palestinian demonstrations on campus, when UF police distributed flyers to participants with a list of activities and items prohibited at protests. The list included amplified sound, camping, sleeping, unmanned signs, disruption, and “building structures (chairs, stakes, benches, tables).” The flyers warned that students found violating the rules would face a “3 year trespass and suspension” from campus. 

But neither the threatened three-year suspension nor the list of prohibitions reflect official UF policy. Official policy does not restrict use of chairs in outdoor areas at all, and it allows amplified sound and unmanned signs with prior approval. 

Given the list’s divergence from official UF policy and the slap-dash appearance of the flyers — undated, with numerous typos and no explanation of broad terms like “disruption” or references to official policies for more details — some protesters initially questioned the flyers’ authenticity. But UF  to local media the flyers were, in fact, issued by its Division for Student Life. 

Yet, according to students, in the days after the flyers were circulated, the law enforcement officers responsible for interpreting and enforcing UF policy inconsistently applied whatever that policy was supposed to be. At various times, police told demonstrators that the ban on chairs exempted lawn chairs before 7 p.m., applied to all chairs at all hours, and applied only to those participating in the demonstration.

On April 29, demonstrators, including Gliwa, gathered at and around the Plaza of the Americas on campus. An officer approached a student sitting in a lawn chair across the street from the plaza and reportedly told him the new protest rules forbid chairs — despite students’ frequent use of chairs and hammocks on and around the plaza at previous demonstrations. The student moved to the plaza where other protesters were located and was soon joined by two other students with lawn chairs. According to witness statements and video footage, the three students in lawn chairs were playing Uno when, sometime after 7:00 p.m., the officer returned with a contingent of about 20 campus, local, and state police. 

Several officers walked past the gathered students to arrest the Uno players on their lawn chairs, while one officer ordered those present to disperse. One of the demonstrators had a panic attack upon seeing the arrival of the police. Gliwa attempted to console her, urging her to leave the scene, but to no avail. ( of the scene shows these events unfolding. Keely has dark hair and is in a white T-shirt, black shorts, and black face mask, with a black backpack. Her arrest is at the 9:42 mark.)

While a crowd of students followed the police as they walked their initial arrestees to the street, Gliwa lingered on the sidewalk by herself. Within minutes, two officers grabbed her and arrested her for failing to obey the earlier dispersal order. Gliwa was one of nine individuals arrested. Following the arrests,  the police broke up the demonstration because the protesters had violated the recently announced protest rules — seemingly referring to the three Uno enthusiasts in lawn chairs. 

UF immediately placed Gliwa on interim suspension and charged her with four violations of the Student Code of Conduct: disruptive conduct, failure to comply with a directive, violation of law, and violation of university policy. The University Officials Board overseeing Gliwa’s conduct hearing determined she was not responsible for engaging in disruptive conduct or violating the law. 

The board concluded Gliwa’s failure to obey the dispersal order was not willful, but found her responsible for failing to comply and for violating university policy. It recommended two years’ probation based on Gliwa’s spotless disciplinary record and the large number of letters testifying to her positive character and contributions to the community. 

Florida dean tramples due process to punish student protesters

Enforcing a constitutionally-suspect chair ban to break up a peaceful demonstration and arrest participants is bad enough, but unfortunately the story doesn’t end there. Dean of FIREChris Summerlin rejected the hearing body’s findings and recommended sanctions, unilaterally finding Gliwa responsible for all four charged violations. Notably, he found Gliwa responsible for engaging in a disruption and violating the law solely on the basis that she was arrested at the demonstration, not found guilty. 

Summerlin imposed a three-year suspension on Gliwa, withholding the degree she was meant to receive just days after the April 29 protest. She will have to reapply to UF in three years and be readmitted simply to receive her already-completed master’s of science degree. 

The hearing boards overseeing the conduct hearings of the other students arrested at the April 29 protest also rendered mixed verdicts and recommended sanctions far less onerous than a three-year suspension. Yet in each case, Summerlin rejected the hearing board’s determination and recommended sanction, finding the students responsible for all charges brought against them and imposing a minimum suspension of three years.

FIRE Letter to University of Florida, July 3, 2024

Resource

��֭����'s mission is to defend and sustain the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought—the most essential qualities of liberty.

Read More

FIRE wrote UF on July 3, urging the university to rescind Gliwa’s suspension and revise its newly adopted protest rules to meet its constitutional obligation to protect student speech on campus. 

While public universities like UF may establish and enforce reasonable restrictions on the , they may not target a particular viewpoint or selectively enforce their rules on that basis. UF’s hastily crafted flyers appear to run afoul of this constitutional standard. As we wrote, “Even if the flyers’ new rules are facially content- and viewpoint-neutral, their last-minute adoption and substantive departure from existing university policy strongly suggest UF adopted the rules specifically to restrict the pro-Palestinian demonstrations.” The same would be true, of course, if UF had adopted the rules specifically to target MAGA hat-wearing students playing Go Fish.

Even worse, it appears the police decided to break up the peaceful demonstration and order those present to disperse solely to enforce the flyers’ constitutionally suspect ban on chairs. There is no evidence that protesters at the Plaza of the Americas that day violated any other policy or law that would justify breaking up the demonstration. Even the charges filed against those arrested support this view — all of the charges are based on alleged conduct that occurred after police ordered protesters to disperse. 

Summerlin’s uniform rejection of the hearing board recommendations in Gliwa’s and the other protesters’ cases also raises serious First Amendment and due process concerns. Imposing a three-year suspension on pro-Palestinian protesters that would not be imposed on other students for similar alleged infractions is unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. And imposing uniform findings of responsibility for all charges and three-year suspensions on all student protesters presumes a level of collective guilt that ignores the individual facts or mitigating circumstances of each case and denies each student the due process to which they are entitled under . 

As we explained to UF, the hearing board concluded that “Gliwa did not willfully engage in misconduct. Punishing her as though she did suggests UF’s goal is not to hold students accountable for their own conduct . . . but to deter peaceful protest.” 

FIRE defends the rights of students and faculty members — no matter their views — at public and private universities and colleges in the United States. If you are a student or a faculty member facing investigation or punishment for your speech, . If you’re faculty member at a public college or university, call the Faculty Legal Defense Fund 24-hour hotline at 254-500-FLDF (3533). If you’re a college journalist facing censorship or a media law question, call the Student Press Freedom Initiative 24-hour hotline at 717-734-SPFI (7734).