Ohio University’s Commitment to Freedom of Expression reads: “Freedom of expression is the foundation of an Ohio University education. Open debate and deliberation, the critique of beliefs and theories, and uncensored academic inquiry are all essential to our shared mission of discovery and dissemination of knowledge.”
OU has a history of commitment to free speech, but ambiguous parts of policies exist today that could potentially interfere with every student’s First Amendment rights.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression gave OU a “yellow light” speech code rating. According to their website, “A ‘yellow light’ institution has at least one yellow light policy that restricts a more limited amount of protected expression or, by virtue of vague wording, can too easily be used to restrict protected expression.”
In 2023, FIRE further analyzed OU’s policies relating to free expression – and they reported two main issues. It gave both policies a ‘yellow light’ which they deem unconstitutional.
Policy 23.050: Posting of Material for Advertisement or Notification sets regulations on items posted on bulletin boards. The two specific regulations FIRE highlighted were that flyers and other advertisements must have the identity of the student or the organization, and the university is allowed to remove outdated materials and those not following the regulations.
If this policy is enforced by OU uniformly and does not target certain individuals, messages or viewpoints, it does not necessarily violate the First Amendment. However, FIRE likely flagged these parts of the policy because they too easily encourage administrative abuse in that the university can remove materials from a public space to share information.
As long as the materials do not cross the line of protected speech and veer toward harassment, their identity – especially in the context of controversial materials – should be able to be protected.
OU also must acknowledge that just as public forums are open to protest, bulletin boards designated for student use in general areas should be offered the same rights. Students protesting in a public area are not asked to identify themselves, and the university can’t tell them to stop protesting if they refuse. The same principle should be applied to materials on bulletin boards.
The second policy, Policy 03.004: Sexual Harassment and Other Sexual Misconduct- Sexual Harassment under University Policy, details how sexual harassment is defined and dealt with by the university. FIRE pointed out the specific definition of sexual harassment under university policy, which differs from the Title IX definition.
Under OU’s policy, sexual harassment must be “physical or verbal conduct, of a sexual nature, that is unwelcome, and sufficiently severe, or pervasive.”
However, the policy is alone in including that sexual harassment is defined as “creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment for working, learning, or living on campus.” FIRE likely noticed the subjective nature of words such as intimidating, hostile and offensive, which leads to arbitrary application.
Sexual harassment is certainly not protected by the First Amendment, but the ambiguous definitions of the policy can unfortunately lead to protecting unprotected speech. Victims of sexual harassment may not be able to prove their harassment was “sufficiently severe” and “intimidating, hostile and offensive” because those scales are different for each individual.
Blank spaces in such a serious policy can lead to students being dismissed because the university applied the policy arbitrarily.
FIRE gave a ‘green light’ on several other OU policies that are typically controversial at public universities, but left OU ranked 64 out of 251 colleges surveyed.
The rankings are based upon “openness, tolerance, self-expression, administrative support for free speech, and campus policies,” according to their website. Many students would agree that the university does not prohibit their self-expression and free speech regularly – but it is likely these policies keep OU from a higher ranking.
As OU continues its commitment to free expression, both Policy 23.050 and Policy 03.004 need to be updated to discourage administrative abuse and remove ambiguous wording that can protect unprotected speech.
Layne Rey is a junior studying journalism at Ohio University. Please note that the views and opinions of the columnist do not reflect those of The Post. What are your thoughts? Let Layne know by tweeting her @laynerey12.
