Northwestern must reverse student government’s freeze on College Republicans’ funding 

FIRE is asking Northwestern University’s Associated Student Government to reverse the funding freeze it imposed on the campus chapter of the College Republicans after complaints that the group’s promotional materials for a campus event were offensive. We also addressed our letter to Northwestern President Michael Schill, who must step in to preserve students’ expressive rights if the student government does not reverse course.

The funding freeze reportedly occurred the day after the College Republicans hosted a May 2 lecture on campus featuring prominent political and social commentator James Lindsay. According to what its co-president told the Daily Northwestern, the student government imposed the freeze in response to the College Republicans’ advertising of the event with flyers that featured sunglasses with a gay pride flag and a skull and crossbones superimposed over the lenses. The student government co-president claimed the College Republicans’ political viewpoint did not factor into the decision, claiming the flyers instead violated Northwestern’s Policy on Discrimination and Harassment. 

But basing the funding freeze on the flyers for either reason is unacceptable. That’s because Northwestern makes strong promises of free expression to its students, offensive speech is still protected speech, and the flyers cannot satisfy the strict standard for what constitutes sanctionable discrimination or harassment. As a university body charged with making decisions regarding student organization funding, the student government must abide by the free speech promises Northwestern makes. 

As we told the university and its student government in our letter today: 

The posters described here notably do not even approach Northwestern’s own definition of discriminatory harass­ment, which applies only to conduct “directed toward someone because of their membership in a protected class . . . that has the purpose or effect of substantially interfering with the individual’s educational or work perform­ance, or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive working or academic environment.” The policy explicitly warns that an individual’s “subjective belief that behavior is intimidating, hostile, or offensive does not make that behavior harassment.” Instead, the behavior must “be so severe, persistent, or pervasive that it unreasonably interferes with, limits, or deprives a member of the community of the ability to participate in or to receive benefits, services, or opportunities from the University.” This definition tracks the standard established by the Supreme Court in Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, which properly balances universities’ equally im­portant obligations to prevent actionable harassment on campus while also honoring students’ expressive rights.

These flyers cannot meet this stringent standard because they are not directed at any specific student, and thus cannot be said to interfere with any “individual’s educational or work performance,” nor are they “so severe, persistent, or pervasive” that they deprive a student from accessing “benefits, services, or opportunities from the University’s education or employment programs and/or activities.” Those who dislike the flyers, the Supreme Court has noted, are free to “avert their eyes.”

Northwestern’s policy on harassment explicitly states that a “person’s subjective belief that behavior is intimidating, hostile, or offensive does not make that behavior harassment.” And offensive speech remains protected without more that would cause it to rise to the level of an unprotected category of speech such as harassment. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that expression cannot be restricted on the mere basis that others find the expression offensive, writing that as a nation, we have chosen “to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.” 

We urge the student government to reverse its funding freeze on the College Republicans. Failing that, Northwestern’s administration must intervene to ensure its chapter of the College Republicans can continue to operate on campus.

Northwestern’s student government accordingly may not punish or retaliate against the College Republicans for protected expression. Not only are sanctions like funding freezes therefore impermissible, they chill the group's expression by establishing an atmosphere of concern over angering members of the student government. 

The general track record of college and university student governments failing to uphold expressive rights is troubling, especially as FIRE has seen a pattern of wavering commitments to viewpoint neutrality. 

Dartmouth continues to violate College Republicans’ rights, imposing $3,600 in security fees following Andy Ngo event

News

Dartmouth initially canceled the event hosted by the campus chapters of the College Republicans.

Read More

• The George Washington University student senate called on the university last April to suspend the campus chapter of Young America’s Foundation.
• The California Institute of Technology’s graduate student council implemented new funding guidelines based on an invited speaker’s contributions to the university’s “values of diversity, equity, and inclusion.” 
• The University of North Texas student government passed a resolution stating any organization “that engages in harassment, discrimination, hate crimes, and/or violation of UNT policy through transphobic posts, statements, and actions” be suspended. (That’s not to mention the track record of student governments making viewpoint-based decisions regarding group recognition.)

Northwestern’s student government punishing the College Republicans for protected speech is a misguided move that subtracts from campus dialogue and violates students’ expressive rights conferred by the university’s free speech promises. We urge the student government to reverse its funding freeze on the College Republicans. Failing that, Northwestern’s administration must intervene to ensure its chapter of the College Republicans can continue to operate on campus. Students may have taken offense to the flyers, or the event itself, but many answered with non-disruptive protests of the event — a protected response to objectionable speech that FIRE fully endorses. The retaliatory funding freeze, however, is beyond inappropriate.

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, submit your case to FIRE today. If you’re a 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).