Lately with Layne: Update OU policy that violates the First Amendment

Ohio University’s commitment to freedom of expression states: “Freedom of expression is the foundation of education at Ohio University. Open debate and deliberation, the critique of beliefs and theories, and uncensored academic research are all essential to our shared mission of discovery and dissemination of knowledge.”

OU has a history of commitment to freedom of speech, but ambiguous parts of its policies exist today that could potentially hinder every student’s First Amendment rights.

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression gave OU a “yellow light” rating for speech codes. According to their website, “A ‘yellow light’ institution has at least one yellow light policy that restricts a more limited range of protected speech or, based on vague language, can be too easily used to restrict protected speech.”

In 2023, FIRE further analyzed the OU’s policies on free speech – and reported two key issues. It gave both policies a “yellow light,” which they consider unconstitutional.

Policy 23.050: Posting Materials for Advertising or Notices sets rules for items posted on message boards. The two specific rules FIRE emphasized were that flyers and other advertisements must include the identity of the student or organization, and that the university may remove outdated and non-compliant materials.

If this policy is uniformly enforced by the OU and does not target any particular person, message, or viewpoint, it does not necessarily violate the First Amendment. However, FIRE likely flagged these parts of the policy as too easily encouraging administrative abuse, as the university can remove material from a public space to share information.

As long as the material does not cross the line of protected speech and veer towards intimidation, their identity – especially in the context of controversial material – should be able to be protected.

The OU should also recognize that just as public forums are open to protest, notice boards intended for student use in common areas should also be given the same rights. Students who protest in public spaces are not asked to identify themselves, and the university cannot tell them to stop protesting if they refuse. The same principle should be applied to materials on noticeboards.

The second policy, Policy 03.004: Sexual Harassment and Other Sexual Misconduct – Sexual Harassment under University Policy, describes how sexual harassment is defined and addressed by the University. FIRE pointed to the university policy’s specific definition of sexual harassment, which differs from the Title IX definition.

According to OU policy, sexual harassment must be “physical or verbal conduct, of a sexual nature, that is unwelcome and sufficiently severe or pervasive.”

However, the policy stands alone in defining sexual harassment as “creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment for working, learning, or living on campus.” FIRE has likely noticed the subjective nature of words like harassing, hostile, and insulting, which leads to indiscriminate application.

Sexual harassment is certainly not protected by the First Amendment, but the policy’s ambiguous definitions can unfortunately lead to the protection of unprotected speech. Victims of sexual harassment may not be able to prove that their harassment was “sufficiently serious” and “intimidating, hostile and offensive” because these scales are different for each individual.

Blank spots in such a serious policy could result in students being dismissed because the university applied the policy arbitrarily.

FIRE gave a “green light” to several other OU policies that are typically controversial at public universities, but left OU ranked 64th out of 251 colleges surveyed.

The rankings are based on “openness, tolerance, self-expression, administrative support for freedom of expression and campus policies,” according to their website. Many students agree that the university does not regularly ban their self-expression and freedom of speech, but it is likely that this policy keeps OU from ranking higher.

As the OU remains committed to free speech, both Policy 23.050 and Policy 03.004 should be updated to discourage administrative abuse and remove ambiguous language that could protect unprotected speech.

Layne Rey is a junior journalism student at Ohio University. Please note that the views and opinions of the columnist do not reflect those of The mail. What are your thoughts? Let Layne know by tweeting her @laynerey12.