AB553: Bill Text

LRB-4708/1

ARG:amn

2023 - 2024 LEGISLATURE

2023 Assembly BILL 553

October 23, 2023 - Introduced by Representatives Nedweski, Murphy, Allen, Behnke, Brandtjen, Dittrich, Edming, Goeben, Gundrum, Maxey, Moses, O'Connor, Penterman, Rettinger, Schraa and Tusler, cosponsored by Senators Cabral-Guevara and Tomczyk. Referred to Committee on Colleges and Universities.

AB553,1,7 An Act to amend 36.11 (6) (c) and 38.04 (7m); and to create 36.41, 36.42, 38.34, 38.35 and 39.285 (1) (c) of the statutes; relating to: free speech and academic freedom at University of Wisconsin System institutions and technical colleges, due process in disciplinary proceedings at University of Wisconsin System institutions and technical colleges, Wisconsin grant funding allocation, and causes of action against the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System and technical college district boards.

Analysis by the Legislative Reference Bureau

This bill establishes certain standards related to free speech and academic freedom at University of Wisconsin System institutions and technical colleges. For violation of these standards, the Board of Regents of the UW System or technical college district board may be subject to a civil cause of action and must provide certain public notice of the violation.

The bill also establishes certain due process standards in disciplinary proceedings at UW System institutions and technical colleges. For violation of these standards, a UW institution or technical college may become ineligible for Wisconsin grant funding allocation.

free speech and academic freedom

First Amendment protections

Under the bill, a UW institution or technical college may not do any of the following: 1) restrict speech protected under the First Amendment, if the speaker's conduct is not unlawful and does not materially and substantially disrupt the functioning of the UW institution or technical college; 2) maintain and enforce time, place, and manner restrictions on expressive activities on the publicly accessible, open outdoor areas of its campus and indoor areas that have been designated as public forums, except classrooms while they are in use for instructional purposes, unless those restrictions meet specified requirements; 3) designate any area of a campus a “free speech zone” or otherwise create policies restricting noncommercial expressive activities to a particular area of a campus; 4) subject to an exception, require a permit as a condition of being allowed to engage in expressive activities protected under the bill; 5) charge security fees, as part of a permit application, based on the content of expression or anticipated reaction; or 6) sanction individuals or groups for discriminatory harassment unless the speech targets its victim on the basis of a protected class under law, and is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively bars a student from receiving equal access to educational opportunities or benefits. Under the bill, if a permit is required, the permitting process and any security fee must be content and viewpoint neutral.

The bill also specifies that all of an institution's or technical college's indoor areas that have been designated as public forums and publicly accessible outdoor areas, except classrooms while they are in use for instructional purposes, are governed by rules applicable to traditional public forums. The bill specifies that its provisions do not 1) enable individuals to engage in conduct that intentionally, materially, and substantially disrupts another's expressive activity in a campus space reserved for that activity; or 2) limit the right of student expression at campus locations not specified in the bill.

The bill requires an institution or technical college to do all of the following: 1) conduct a survey biennially of students and employees on First Amendment rights, academic freedom, perceived political or other bias at the institution or technical college, and whether campus culture promotes self-censorship; 2) submit a report biennially to the legislature detailing the results of this survey; and 3) annually provide all students and employees with instruction in academic freedom, due process, and First Amendment protections.

Academic freedom

Under the bill, a UW or technical college policy or employee may not limit the expressive rights and academic freedom of an instructor to 1) conduct research, publish, lecture, or teach in the academic setting; 2) require students to participate in instructional exercises with legitimate pedagogical purposes that involve exploring, or arguing for or against, any argument or assertion; or 3) speak publicly as a private citizen on matters of public concern.

Principles

The bill sets forth principles of academic freedom and freedom of expression to which the UW System and each institution must adhere, as well as UW System and institution responsibilities associated with these principles.

Notice and cause of action

The bill requires a UW institution or technical college that is found by a state or federal court, by a preponderance of the evidence, to have violated any of the free speech or academic freedom provisions described above to include, for four years, the following disclaimer on all notices to individuals regarding admission to the UW institution or technical college: “NOTICE: We are required by the State of Wisconsin to inform you that within the last four years ... [insert name of UW institution or technical college] has violated the free speech or academic freedom provisions in the Wisconsin statutes.”

Under the bill, the attorney general, a district attorney, or any person whose expressive rights were violated may bring a court action against the Board of Regents of the UW System or the technical college district board for violation by a UW institution or technical college of any of the free speech or academic freedom provisions described above and may seek an injunction and recovery of damages, court costs, and attorney fees for persons aggrieved by the violation. In such an action, if the court finds a violation, the court must award to the plaintiffs all of the following: 1) total damages for all prevailing persons aggrieved by the violation of not less than $500 for the initial violation plus $50 for each day after the complaint is served that the violation remains ongoing, but not exceeding an aggregate amount of $100,000 for all cases stemming from a single controversy; and 2) court costs and reasonable attorney fees. An award to the plaintiffs of damages, court costs, or attorney fees must be paid from the UW institution's or technical college's administrative expense moneys.

due process in disciplinary proceedings

Due process guarantees

Under the bill, a student enrolled in a UW institution or technical college has a property interest in maintaining the student's status as a student that may be terminated against the student's will only for due cause, including failure to meet academic standards or attendance requirements, failure to pay tuition or other fees, or violating conduct rules. A student accused of a disciplinary or conduct violation that carries a potential penalty of expulsion or suspension of more than nine days, and a UW institution's or technical college's employee accused of a disciplinary or conduct violation, have the right to be represented, at the person's own expense, by a licensed attorney or non-attorney advocate who is permitted to fully participate during the disciplinary proceeding. The same right applies to a student organization, employee organization, or independent organization recognized by the UW institution or technical college (organization) accused of a violation and to a complaining student if the disciplinary proceeding arises from the student's complaint. Prior to initiating a disciplinary proceeding or investigation, a UW institution or technical college must notify the student, employee, or organization that a complaint has been made and inform the student, employee, or organization of the student's, employee's, or organization's due process rights. A UW institution or technical college must ensure that all parties to a disciplinary proceeding, including if applicable an accusing student, have access to all material evidence, including both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence, not later than one week prior to the start of any formal hearing or similar adjudicatory proceeding. Before a disciplinary proceeding is scheduled, and at least two business days before a student, employee, or organization may be questioned about allegations of violations of the institution's or technical college's disciplinary or conduct rules, the institution or technical college must advise the student, employee, or organization in writing of these rights. A UW institution or technical college is not obligated to follow the state's rules of evidence in a disciplinary proceeding, but must make a good faith effort to include only relevant, probative evidence and must exclude evidence that is neither relevant nor probative. A UW institution or technical college must ensure that a disciplinary proceeding is carried out free from conflicts of interest by prohibiting overlap of administrative or adjudicative roles.

Penalties and Wisconsin grants

Under current law, the Wisconsin grant program, administered by the Higher Educational Aids Board, provides grants to resident students enrolled in eligible types of postsecondary schools, including UW institutions and technical colleges. The amount of funding available for these types of eligible postsecondary schools varies, and the UW System and technical colleges must annually submit to HEAB a proposed formula for awarding Wisconsin grants to students enrolled in UW institutions or technical colleges. HEAB must then approve, modify, or disapprove these proposed formulas for awarding grants to UW or technical college students in the next fiscal year.

Under this bill, a UW institution or technical college that violates any of the due process provisions described above more than once in a 10-year period is ineligible for allocation of Wisconsin grants for the longer of 1) a period of no less than one fiscal year; or 2) if the institution's or technical college's administrator causes the violation, until the administrator is permanently removed from his or her administrative role. HEAB's formula for awarding Wisconsin grants must take these loss of allocation penalties into consideration. The violation giving rise to this penalty may be found, by a preponderance of the evidence, by any of the following: 1) a state or federal court; 2) HEAB; or 3) a legislative standing committee having jurisdiction over matters relating to higher education.

For further information see the state and local fiscal estimate, which will be printed as an appendix to this bill.

The people of the state of Wisconsin, represented in senate and assembly, do enact as follows:

AB553,1 Section 1 . 36.11 (6) (c) of the statutes is amended to read:

AB553,5,6 36.11 (6) (c) By February 10 of each year, the board shall develop and submit to the higher educational aids board for its review under s. 39.285 (1) a proposed formula for the awarding of grants under s. 39.435, except for grants awarded under s. 39.435 (2) or (5), for the next fiscal year to students enrolled in the system. The proposed formula shall take into consideration any institution's loss of funding allocation under s. 36.42 (3) (a) and (b).

AB553,2 Section 2 . 36.41 of the statutes is created to read:

AB553,5,11 36.41 Campus free speech and academic freedom. (1) Definition. In this section, “employee” means a member of the faculty, academic staff, or university staff assigned to an institution. “Employee” also includes the institution's graduate assistants and employees in training.

AB553,5,15 (2) Principles of academic freedom and freedom of expression. (a) The system and each institution shall adhere to the following principles of academic freedom and freedom of expression in order to achieve the system's mission under s. 36.01 (2):

AB553,5,25 1. Academic freedom includes the freedom to explore all avenues of scholarship, research, and creative expression, and to reach conclusions according to one's own scholarly discernment. Freedom of expression includes the right to discuss and present scholarly opinions and conclusions on all matters both in and outside the classroom. These freedoms include the right to speak and write as a member of an institution's community or as a private citizen without institutional discipline or restraint on scholarly matters or on matters of public concern. The system and each institution shall remain committed to these principles and provide all members of an institution's community the broadest possible latitude to explore ideas and to speak, write, listen, challenge, and learn.

AB553,6,7 2. Although different ideas in an institution's community often and quite naturally conflict, it is not the proper role of an institution to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions the institution or others find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive. Despite the great value of civility, concerns about civility and mutual respect may never be used as justification for closing off discussion of ideas, however offensive or disagreeable those ideas may be to some members within an institution's community.

AB553,6,20 3. The freedom to debate and discuss the merits of competing ideas does not mean that members of an institution's community may say whatever they wish, wherever they wish. Consistent with long-standing practice informed by law, the system and each institution may restrict expression that violates the law, that falsely defames a specific individual, that constitutes a genuine threat or discriminatory harassment, that unjustifiably invades substantial privacy or confidentiality interests, or that is otherwise directly incompatible with the functioning of an institution. In addition, subject to sub. (3) (a) 2., the system and each institution may reasonably regulate the time, place, and manner of expression to ensure that it does not disrupt ordinary activities. However, these exceptions to the general principle of freedom of expression shall be construed narrowly and may not be applied in a manner that is inconsistent with the system's and each institution's commitment to a completely free and open discussion of ideas.

AB553,6,21 (b) The principles stated in par. (a) carry responsibilities, as follows:

AB553,7,3 1. Academic freedom carries the responsibility for the faithful performance of professional duties and obligations. All members of an institution's community share in the responsibility for maintaining civility and a climate of mutual respect. Although members of an institution's community are free to criticize and contest the views expressed on campus, they may not obstruct or otherwise interfere with the freedom of others, including speakers who are invited to campus, to express views they reject or even loathe.

AB553,7,6 2. Freedom of expression carries the obligation to make clear that when speaking on matters of public interest or concern, one is speaking on behalf of oneself, not the institution.

AB553,7,18 3. An institution has a solemn responsibility not only to promote lively and fearless exploration, deliberation, and debate of ideas, but also to protect those freedoms when others attempt to restrict them. Exploration, deliberation, and debate may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even by most members of an institution's community, or those outside the community, to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrongheaded. It is for the members of an institution's community, not for the institution itself, to make those judgments for themselves, and to act on those judgments not by seeking to suppress exploration of ideas or expression of speech, but by openly and vigorously contesting the ideas that they oppose. Fostering the ability of members of an institution's community to engage in such debate and deliberation in an effective and responsible manner is an essential part of an institution's educational mission.

AB553,7,20 (3) First Amendment protections. (a) Except as specified in this section, an institution may not do any of the following:

AB553,8,3 1. Restrict speech protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, including noncommercial expressive activities protected under the provisions of this section, which include all forms of peaceful assembly, protests, speeches, distribution of literature, carrying signs, circulating petitions, and the recording and lawful publication, including Internet publication, of video and audio lawfully recorded in public outdoor areas of public institutions of higher education, if the speaker's conduct is not unlawful and does not materially and substantially disrupt the functioning of the institution.

AB553,8,8 2. Maintain and enforce time, place, and manner restrictions on expressive activities on the open outdoor areas of its campus that are generally accessible to the public and indoor areas that have been designated as public forums, except classrooms while they are in use for instructional purposes, unless those restrictions meet all of the following requirements:

AB553,8,11 a. The restrictions are reasonable, in furtherance of a significant institutional interest, and employ clear, published, content-neutral, and viewpoint-neutral criteria.

AB553,8,14 b. The restrictions provide for ample alternative means for communication of the information and allow for members of the institution's community to spontaneously and contemporaneously distribute literature and assemble.

AB553,8,17 3. Designate any area of a campus a “free speech zone” or otherwise create policies restricting noncommercial expressive activities to a particular area of a campus.

AB553,8,23 4. Require a permit from any individual or group as a condition of being allowed to engage in expressive activities protected under this section, unless the individual or group is seeking exclusive control of a location for its expressive activity at a reserved time. Any such permitting process may not be overly burdensome, and applications for permits shall be evaluated solely using published content and viewpoint-neutral criteria.