# data[].attributes.body
Upon completion of a Master of Education in Student Development and Leadership in Higher Education I plan to transition to secondary education by beginning my journey of becoming a certified teacher. My long term goal is to become an assistant principal or high school counselor.

# data[].attributes.body
To no surprise Title IX was a recurring issue for many articles. However, in the article One Person as ‘Prosecutor, Judge and Jury’ the author Jeremy Bauer-Wolf writes about one colleges' decision to transition from a panel of students and professors to a single investigator who will handle campus sexual assault cases.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As speculation swirls over how the Trump administration will direct colleges to handle campus sexual assaults, George Washington University has moved away from a panel of students and professors judging these cases, handing them over instead to a single investigator.

Institutions relying on one official -- whether that is an internal employee or an outside contractor -- is nothing new for adjudicating cases that fall under the federal gender antidiscrimination law, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.

But the shifts at George Washington speak to a larger debate on how colleges will respond to an Education Department that has given them far more flexibility under Title IX than the previous administration did -- which is detrimental, supporters of sexual assault survivors say. The "single-investigator" model remains unpopular among those advocates, as well as civil liberties and legal experts. Those who favor the system believe it removes the responsibility from a mix of panelists who may be inexperienced with sexual assaults and the proper procedures.

The Education Department is also investigating George Washington, which has been the subject of two recent Title IX complaints, one from an alumna blaming the university for neglecting her after she reported alleged sexual violence. The woman sued the university last month. A second lawsuit, filed in D.C. Superior Court last month, alleges that the institution didn't protect five female current or former student workers from a sexual predator who harassed them in the workplace and allegedly raped three of them when they were drunk.

Coinciding with the legal pressure on the university come the changes to its Title IX policies, which the Board of Trustees approved this month and which take effect July 1.

"This policy unifies our Title IX procedures and policies for all of our GW community members and places them all under the aegis of the Title IX office," Caroline Laguerre-Brown, vice provost for diversity, equity and community engagement, said in a statement. "It also provides additional detail about the processes involved and the preparation that goes into the decision making around those processes and gives more detailed guidance on questions that individuals may have as they are considering what is the best way for them to come forward."

Laguerre-Brown said by email later that the single-investigator system was "the preferred approach to provide a just, equitable and thorough process for our community." She added that the policy includes "numerous steps and procedures" for a fair investigation.

No longer does a six-person group of students and professors collect evidence on a case and then determine whether there was a sexual misconduct violation. Now one official, either from the university or an outside hire, will make that call after interviewing both parties and witnesses and conducting an investigation. Then another administrator will hand down a punishment, if needed.

The policy doesn't spell out who investigators might be, other than that they need annual training on sexual violence.

Among the other changes: mandating that professors and academic advisers report sexual assault that they learn about, previously only a requirement for department chairs and administrators.

Though faculty members generally believe the policy is an improvement, they said they have been displeased with how rushed the process was and how they were not given adequate time to review it. Some student activists, however, say they are satisfied with the changes.

"It's comforting to know that trained Title IX investigators will be helping survivors navigate what can be a very challenging, scary and long process," Kalpana Vissa, a George Washington senior and co-president of GW Students Against Sexual Assault, said in a statement. "To have someone who understands the policy and whose job it is to support survivors is going to make a world of difference."

Students can also now choose not to pursue a traditional process at all. The Education Department last year allowed institutions to start using alternative resolutions to cases, which for George Washington isn't specified in policy, other than possible education or training programs for an accused student, or conversations with him or her. Other institutions have green-lit "alternative resolutions" in their policies, but generally not for rape cases. Laguerre-Brown said the decision to proceed with an alternative resolution is done case by case.

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos last fall rolled back Obama-era guidelines on Title IX, which survivor advocates credit with drastically improving the culture and campus processes for rape and sexual violence victims. Critics of the Obama rules have said they were an unfair overreach (though they largely were based on existing guidance on Title IX) and that accused students often weren't provided "due process" rights. New draft direction from the department is expected this fall.

Interim directives from the department permit alternative resolutions, remove certain time frames for sexual assault investigations, and allow institutions to use whatever evidentiary standard they wish -- a particularly controversial point. The temporary rules don't favor either a full panel or a single investigator.

A department spokeswoman didn't respond to request for comment on what the department's preference might be.

But outside of colleges and universities, a single-investigator model is often disliked, experts say.

"Title IX sex discrimination procedures, especially ones involving allegations of gender-based violence, are complex matters not well suited to having a single official with sole responsibility for resolving them," S. Daniel Carter, a college safety consultant and president of Safety Advisors for Educational Campuses, wrote in an email. "While Title IX systems ought not to mimic full court proceedings too closely, given the serious issues involved, basic checks and balances beyond a single decision maker are warranted. This is especially so in the rapidly evolving legal landscape that higher education finds itself in now, where the mistakes or biases of even one official can result in an adverse legal ruling."

For the last several years, accused students have swamped institutions with lawsuits that allege bias against them during sexual assault proceedings. Some of these plaintiffs have been successful.

When one investigator has been involved with the cases that Carly Mee, a lawyer and interim executive director for legal advocacy group SurvJustice, has handled, they haven't gone well.

Often one official doesn't know all the questions to ask to yield the important information to resolve a case, Mee said. Despite that these investigators are often trained, sometimes they haven't been prepared to sensitively handle survivors, she said.

When a hearing occurs, both sides can submit questions for the panelists to ask, too, Mee said. This, and cross-examination, isn't always possible with an investigator, she said.

"I think schools like it because it is a simpler process," Mee said. "You don't have to train as many people ... it gives the school more control. They're the ones getting to ask the questions and not handing over any control to the parties."

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a civil liberties watchdog that often lobbies for due process rights, believes that a single investigator can deprive students of this.

Even if a person is unbiased, he or she is still serving as a prosecutor, judge and jury, said Samantha Harris, FIRE's vice president of policy research.

She also noted the problems with the accused not being able to confront their accuser in some fashion.

But Brett A. Sokolow, president of the Association of Title IX Administrators, said that George Washington isn't truly using a "single-investigator" system because of its extensive new appeals process.

An appeal is made to a reviewer that the university hires, no one internal, but often an outside attorney.

Sokolow did recommend that George Washington add one additional step. Instead of the investigator determining whether a violation happened, then an administrator administering the consequences, have another university representative review the investigator's report and then decide whether to move forward with punishment, he said.

"I am opposed to the single-investigator model ... except at the very smallest and resource-strapped private schools and colleges," Sokolow said by email.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
George Washington's new Title IX processes put sexual assault cases in hands of single investigator

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As speculation swirls over how the Trump administration will direct colleges to handle campus sexual assaults, George Washington University has moved away from a panel of students and professors judging these cases, handing them over instead to a single investigator.

# data[].attributes.body
The next trending topic discusses a recent Senate hearing in which Betsy DeVos, Secretary of Education is questioned about whether or not school staff could report undocumented students to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Dive Brief:

Asked at a Tuesday Senate hearing if school staff could report undocumented students to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos replied, "I don't think they can," Chalkbeat reports.

DeVos previously commented at a House hearing that it was "a school decision" whether to report undocumented students to ICE, which prompted responses from civil rights groups that the statement stood in opposition to Plyler v. Doe, a 1982 ruling that schools must educate undocumented students .

On Tuesday, however, DeVos mentioned Plyler, though Chalkbeat reported that she also sidestepped several opportunities to reply "yes" or "no" to the undocumented student question. Her spokesperson, Liz Hill, said, "She did not avoid the question and was very clear schools are not, and should not ever become, immigration enforcement zones."

Dive Insight:

The ever-changing, highly charged political landscape has left administrators and educators stymied over what they legally can and cannot do when it comes to undocumented students. Thornier still are the practical and ethical issues swirling around the situation.

The official policy of the U.S. Department of Immigration is that it can't undertake enforcement action in "sensitive areas." These include places of worship, hospitals, funerals, weddings and schools. That said, civil rights activists have called out immigration authorities for making arrests in neighborhoods near schools, thus pushing undocumented students away from classrooms.

When administrators provide information to district families on their rights under federal, state and district policies, it may be worth keeping in mind that legal experts maintain that referring to a school as a "sanctuary" may be taken literally. That could cause families to believe schools can give them greater legal protection than is actually the case.

For instance, in Clark County, Nev., and several other districts, administrators limit ICE school access by processing requests through a district lawyer or the superintendent's office. Yet, as required by law, the school authorities will assist agents if called upon to do so, reports Education Week. ICE is a federal agency with legal authority to enforce immigration law, so there could be situations in which they can gain access to a school after making a strong enough case that it's necessary.

Back in 2004 in Albuquerque, N.M., Border Patrol Agents questioned undocumented students at a school, resulting in a suit from the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund and subsequent settlements. Now, Albuquerque officers are prevented from "stopping, questioning, detaining, investigating, or arresting" minors on or in the vicinity of public school grounds.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
DeVos tells Senate schools shouldn't become ICE enforcement zones

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Asked at a Tuesday Senate hearing if school staff could report undocumented students to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos replied, "I don't think they can," Chalkbeat reports. DeVos previously commented at a House hearing that it was "a school decision" whether to report undocumented students to ICE, which prompted responses from civil rights groups that the statement stood in opposition to Plyler v.

# data[].attributes.headline
Legal and Ethical Issue:Undocumented/Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)Students

# data[].attributes.subject
Legal and Ethical Issue:Undocumented/Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)Students

# data[].attributes.body
I chose undocumented/DACA students because during one of my recent advising appointments I visited with a student who is pursuing a combined bachelors/masters degree in accounting. While nearing the completion of the bachelors portion of the program, due to the recent rescinding of DACA; the student wanted to change his major and graduate sooner because he is unsure of where he will be in the months to come.

# data[].attributes.body
When conducting my search on undocumented students using Angelo State's Virtual Library I was able to find the article Speech or Silence: Undocumented Students' Decisions to Disclose or Disguise Their Citizenship Status in School. This article explores the decision making process of undocumented students as they determine when and if they should disclose their immigration status.

Figueroa, A. M. (2017). Speech or silence: Undocumented students’ decisions to disclose or disguise their citizenship status in school. American Educational Research Journal, 54(3), 485-523. doi:10.3102/0002831217693937

# data[].attributes.body
My internet search yielded several results. However the Center for American Progress provided an interesting prospective from DACA students who are pursing law degrees.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Download the PDF here.

Lawyers play a vital role in U.S. society. In law school and throughout their careers, they hone an intimate understanding of the law as well as the ability to craft policy, serving as mediators between the law and everyday individuals.

Lawyers and law students who hold Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) are therefore in a unique position. DACA grants individuals temporary stays of deportation and U.S. work authorization. However, while DACA protections allow young immigrants without legal status to pursue legal careers, they do not ensure that the path is easy. In addition to the typical barriers that aspiring lawyers must overcome, DACA recipients face the obstacle of seeking admission to a bar with residency restrictions-on top of the inherent daily uncertainty that comes with not having legal status.

The personal lives of lawyers and law students with DACA are rooted in the broader immigrant community in the United States. The Trump administration's hard-line stance on immigration has made life difficult for this community and, by extension, for the lawyers and law students with DACA. Since President Donald Trump took office in January 2017, he and his administration have aggressively focused on stripping protections from immigrants who are permitted to live in the country. The administration has also amplified deportation efforts, increasing the number of individuals who are prioritized for deportation. In the midst of this crackdown, DACAmented lawyers and law students hold a deep understanding and specialized knowledge of the legal system, a system that is the bedrock of the U.S. immigration code. Many of these individuals serve as advocates and voices of justice for those who may not otherwise have access to such representation, often choosing to work with underserved communities.

Through interviews with 33 DACA recipients pursuing legal careers, this issue brief-a collaboration between the Penn State Law Center for Immigrants' Rights Clinic and the Center for American Progress-highlights their complex experience: the uncertainty they face, their overwhelmingly positive and determined attitudes, their coping mechanisms, their self-perceived privilege, and the futures they are planning for themselves. The brief then provides policy recommendations that would help support them, and others like them, in their education and chosen profession.

On September 5, 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced the end of DACA, claiming that the program constituted an executive overreach. DACA recipients whose protections were set to end between October 5, 2017, and March 5, 2018, were given one month to apply to renew their status, and Congress was given six months to act on a legislative solution. President Trump followed the announcement with a tweet in which he claimed that he would "revisit" the issue if Congress failed to pass a legislative solution.

This brief focuses on law students and lawyers with DACA because these individuals are intimately familiar with how policy-including immigration policy-works. Interviewees were asked about their experiences in personal, professional, and familial contexts, and certain trends were observed in all of these areas. Among those interviewed, many shared a sense of uncertainty, wide-ranging emotions, and a view that having an understanding of the law and DACA was both a privilege and a responsibility.

Primarily, interviewees expressed that, since President Trump took office, they have been uneasy about most aspects of their daily lives. In the month before the announcement ending DACA, one participant-identified here as YK-described living with anxiety, checking every day to see whether DACA would be taken away:

It's always in my mind. What if Trump deports me back to South Korea? What if he does that? What if he rescinds DACA? Back in Obama's administration, I didn't have to worry about that part. I just had to worry about, like-I just had to make sure that I renew, I don't forget that I had to renew DACA. And one day, he would build a pathway to permanent residency. But right now, every day I actually worry. I have to look up newspapers and check the internet to see if he has announced or just considered to rescind DACA this morning or maybe yesterday night.

As YK explains, participants were less concerned during the Obama administration. This makes sense given that the previous administration created the DACA program and established a series of immigration enforcement priorities that focused resources on people who posed a threat to public safety or arrived more recently to the country. And the feeling of uncertainty described by interviewees has presumably become more persistent following the termination of DACA. Just weeks after the Trump administration ended DACA, another interviewee, Ari, shared what it was like to see his protections slipping away:

It [DACA] means a lot to me. I feel like it's fading away from me. It's like I'm holding it, but it's like sand in your hand where it's fully dissolving. That's what it felt like since the election. I thought I had it, but it's going to be gone too. It's leaving. So, I guess it's also like having someone dying in your arms ... I feel like it's like you're holding something, and it's going to be leaving soon.

Some interviewees maintain a positive attitude with regards to DACA; others seem apathetic; and some express a range of attitudes throughout the day. One interviewee, MM, described this emotional rollercoaster:

It's a day-to-day thing, and it depends on how I'm feeling that day. That's how I cope with it. Sometimes I'm sad. Sometimes I am just [in] ready-to-fight mode. Sometimes I am just mad and in a bad mood.

Interviewees discussed developing coping mechanisms in order to deal with the complicated emotions that they experience. Many rely heavily on their support networks-whether they be family, friends, or faith. Others have found activities, such as journaling or exercise. A few have even reported that they simply avoid thinking about their futures too much. These feelings and coping techniques are similar to those reported in other research on DACA recipients and the unauthorized community more broadly. While interviewees were overwhelmingly determined to find a way to pursue their professional careers in the United States, those who did not actively seek support tended to be less hopeful about the future and relatively less motivated to map out future plans.

The emotions described by many participants are not unique to DACA recipients who are lawyers or law students. Yet this group's training and professional navigation of the legal system can deepen its understanding of the immigration process. Given that a main focus of lawyers is understanding complex policy and interpreting legal code, this is a congruency worth considering.

DACA recipients commonly express that the protections can be both a privilege and a burden. With work permits and access to driver's licenses, individuals with DACA have opportunities that other unauthorized immigrants do not. However, this often translates to greater familial responsibility. Furthermore, pursuing a law degree-and thus having an advanced understanding of the law and the legal system-gives some participants a greater sense of privilege and societal responsibility than the wider DACA and unauthorized immigrant community might feel.

Many of the lawyers and law students interviewed in this brief shared that they play an important role in disseminating news to their families and communities, and some use their knowledge of the law to build contingency plans for their own futures as well as those of their families. One participant, Esmerelda, describes this conflicting privilege and burden:

My parents were now living in a situation where they really were vulnerable to deportation any minute, and that was a new reality for me. And at the same time, as an attorney advising other families of their rights and trying to empower them-that they still have rights, that they still have ways to go about it-and providing consultations; and, it was very much a push-and-pull struggle in me. How, as an attorney, you give hope and information and material for the community, and, in the personal level, knowing that, even as much as I gave those advisory, we were still so vulnerable. And that doesn't change how people feel ... I am giving them tools and empowering them and talking to them. It is important, but I know that when those families go back home, they are in fear, and they're still thinking, what's going to happen to me and my kids or my family?

Overall, these interviews are further evidence of the need for a permanent solution in the form of a pathway to citizenship to protect DACA recipients and Dreamers. Participants in this study are making efforts to ensure that an end to DACA will not mean the end of their professional goals, but their immigration status-especially considering the Trump administration's decision to end DACA-places obstacles in the way of these aspirations. While they remain committed to their futures in the United States, and their professional goals remain largely the same, the rescission of DACA has left them vulnerable.

Since the Trump administration announced the end of DACA, the program's beneficiaries have been living in perilous legal limbo. Only Congress can pass a federal solution, such as the Dream Act, to alleviate the uncertainty of their futures. Although Congress has considered several other legislative solutions-which range in scope-that would help DACA beneficiaries or Dreamers more broadly, thus far, it has failed to enact any proposals.

To fill this void, there are several things that state legislative bodies and educational institutions can do to help law students and lawyers with DACA as well as DACA recipients more broadly.

In-state tuition and financial aid

A chief concern among interviewees was how to finance their education and provide for themselves. Because DACA recipients obtain work authorization only as a result of being granted this protection, by losing DACA, they would lose their ability to work lawfully, which is essential for many DACA recipients enrolled in college and graduate school.

Even in the absence of new legislation, private universities have more flexibility than public universities when it comes to providing financial aid and reducing the cost of living expenses for DACA recipients and unauthorized students who do not currently qualify for assistance; they should make this aid accessible.

Mental health support for students

Due to the constant and often overwhelming unpredictability of their situation, it is crucial that DACA recipients have access to mental health services. Educational institutions can do more to provide support for DACA students. For example, schools should prominently advertise available mental health services, such as counseling, focusing on students who may not be aware they are eligible for them, students who may not think they are particularly good candidates, and students who are unaware that such services exist. Students with DACA may fit into any of these groups. In order to maximize the usage of these services, they must be sensitive to students' different cultural realities and to the specific experiences of unauthorized students. Schools with limited resources for these services should partner with community-based organizations that can provide them.

Attorney screenings

In the absence of congressional action, DACA recipients could benefit from consultations with immigration attorneys who could help them to identify whether they have other avenues to legal status. Some DACA recipients may qualify for family- or employment-based sponsorship; visas protecting victims of domestic violence or other crimes; or other relief. Previous research estimated that 14 percent of individuals eligible for DACA were eligible for some other permanent visa as well. Some law school immigration clinics offer such screenings for free or for a minimal charge. Schools could also establish a relationship with local immigration lawyers or legal service providers in order to conduct such screenings for enrolled students and alumni.

Credentialing

Admission to a state bar is necessary to practice law. If a state requires its attorneys to demonstrate permanent residency or citizenship, regardless of DACA, law school graduates without legal status will not be admitted. Only states can ensure that individuals with DACA are eligible to practice law, and they should pass legislation that admits eligible DACA recipients to the bar. Certain states-including but not necessarily limited to Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, and Pennsylvania-have permitted DACA recipients to the bar. However, upon the expiration of their DACA protections, they will again be shut out of the profession.

The American Bar Association has begun to help pave the way for law school graduates without legal status. In 2017, it adopted a resolution supporting "the principle that bar admission should not be denied based solely on immigration status."

Under the Trump administration, lawyers and law students with DACA face unparalleled uncertainty in their personal and professional lives. In one participant's words:

We're resilient ... We are better together. We are better united. And we are going to show this administration and people that we are going to continue to fight. We're not going to be defeated, on the contrary.

It is Congress' job to pass the Dream Act and end the uncertainty facing Dreamers. Until this occurs, state legislatures and educational institutions can act in ways that support DACAmented lawyers and law students.
Raquel Muñiz and Mara Zrzavy conducted field interviews and worked on this issue brief as law students in the Penn State Law Center for Immigrants' Rights Clinic under the supervision of the clinic's director, Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia. Nicole Prchal Svajlenka is a senior policy analyst of Immigration Policy at the Center for American Progress. The authors are grateful to Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia for her direction of the Penn State Law Center for Immigrants' Rights; Philip E. Wolgin and Tom Jawetz from the Center for American Progress; and the Center for American Progress' Art and Editorial teams. They also wish to express their sincere gratitude for the participants' courage and willingness to share their stories. Institutional affiliation for faculty and students in the Penn State Law Center for Immigrants' Rights Clinic is provided for identification purposes only and does not represent the views of the institution.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
DACAmented Law Students and Lawyers in the Trump Era - Center for American Progress

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Download the PDF here. Lawyers play a vital role in U.S. society. In law school and throughout their careers, they hone an intimate understanding of the law as well as the ability to craft policy, serving as mediators between the law and everyday individuals.

# data[].attributes.headline
Professional Association: National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA)

# data[].attributes.subject
Professional Association: National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA)

# data[].attributes.body
On the NASPA website I discovered a post that discusses freedom of speech and how recent events at different campuses have prompted institutions to evaluate how to regulate without limiting the student's right of freedom of speech.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Last week's decision by NFL owners to exact penalties on players and teams who choose to kneel in protest during the playing of the national anthem is just the most recent in a long history of concerns around speech and protest - who gets to speak on which topics when and how - in our country. A number of high-profile incidents involving controversial speakers on college campuses in recent years has focused the attention of lawmakers on the idea of a crisis of free speech in higher education. The fact that public institutions of higher education are considered government actors held to the strictures of the First Amendment complicates matters, though there are many threads to the conversations around threats to speech on college campuses and not all of them apply to constitutional rights. This post will review some of those threads and provide examples from some of the nearly 50 pieces of legislation in 30 states that has been introduced or considered in 2018 relating to campus speech.

Congressional Hearings

While most of the legislation concerning speech on campus has been introduced at the state level[1], Congressional legislators have shown increased concern about campus speech holding multiple hearings on the topic in the last year. Most recently, on May 22, 2018, the House Oversight Committee Subcommittees on Healthcare, Benefits, and Administrative Rules and on Intergovernmental Affairs held a joint hearing addressing the topic ( Challenges to the Freedom of Speech on College Campuses: Part II). The witnesses included several higher education faculty members involved in some of the more publicized campus speech incidents and a number of scholars in the field. There was disagreement both among the witnesses and the Committee members as to whether the challenges to speech on college campuses presents a crisis or are simply a matter of a few extreme and highly publicized incidents that are not representative of the typical campus experience. Notably, most of the witnesses seemed to agree that the best remedy to the concerns was not to legislate additional requirements for college campuses, but rather to continue conspicuous oversight so that campuses remain vigilant in protecting the rights of all their students.

Legislative Oversight & the FORUM Act

Model state legislation proposed by the controversial conservative organization American Legislative Executive Council (ALEC) entitled the Forming Open and Robust University Minds (FORUM) Act provides a means for states to do just as the witnesses in last week's Congressional hearing recommend. As we noted in February when we first started tracking the FORUM Act in several states, the bill requires campuses to establish and communicate appropriate policies and procedures around campus speech incidents and creates an accountability process for institutions to report on free speech issues to their state legislatures or Governors. Two states, Virginia ( VA H 344) and Georgia ( GA SB 339), enacted versions of the FORUM Act in 2018, though it failed in five other states: Iowa ( SSB 3120 / SF 2344); Oklahoma ( HB 3586); South Carolina ( H 4440); Washington ( HB 2324); and West Virginia ( SB 111). A version of the bill is still pending in California ( CA SB 1388), though failed passage out of committee in April and is unlikely to progress.

Free Speech Zones & the CAFE Act

Concerns around perennially-controversial free speech zones have led to court cases and the state legislation to prohibit their use. We reviewed the history behind free speech zones in our blog post Campus Free Speech 2017 Legislative Round-up & Considerations Following Charlottesville, and noted that at least one recent court case that may work its way up to the Supreme Court to settle the question nationally. In the meantime, state legislation to prohibit campuses for using free speech zones has been considered in at least nine states in 2018. Most of the legislation includes some or all language in model legislation supported by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education called the Campus Free Expression (CAFE) Act. Some of the bills, such as Louisiana SB 364 passed by the state legislature and awaiting Governor Edwards' signature, combine restrictions on use of free speech zones with language from the FORUM Act to require institutional policies, communication, and annual reporting. Legislation prohibiting free speech zones on colleges campuses is pending in California ( SB 1381 / ACA 14 and AB 2081), Illinois ( SB 1560), New Hampshire ( HB 477), and New York ( A 4066 / S 6126). Four states considered similar legislation but did not pass it: Florida ( SB 1234 & HB 909); Kansas ( SB 340); Nebraska ( LB 718); and South Dakota ( SB 198 / HB 1073).

Intellectual Diversity

Concerns related to intellectual diversity, sometimes predicated on a belief that colleges and college faculty intentionally or inadvertently prompt conservative voices to self-censor, have prompted legislation designed to prohibit institutions and individual faculty from expressing opinions or taking stands on some issues. An optional clause in the FORUM Act prohibits campus leaders from speaking out or taking action as an institution on "the public policy controversies of the day" and several states considered legislation that either requires or recommends that faculty "should be cautious in expressing personal views in the classroom". Legislation in this vein, considered and failed in five states[2], also frequently prohibits free speech zones on campus and removes the ability of college administrators to disallow speakers invited to campus by any student, faculty, or officially recognized group. It should be noted that while self-censorship may indicate a chilled environment that is unwelcoming to some ideas, it does not necessarily constitute an unlawful restriction on speech. Self-censorship should be as much of a concern when historically marginalized or oppressed populations feel unable to speak as it seems to be when conservative students self-censor, but an individual choosing not to speak for fear of social repercussions is not necessarily the same as a government actor actively prohibiting speech. NASPA's Policy and Practice brief Safe Spaces and Brave Spaces: Historical Context and Recommendations for Student Affairs Professionals provides more resources for student affairs professionals looking to foster safe and brave spaces that foster supported risk-taking to reduce self-censorship on their campuses.

Sanctions for Disruptions

Provocateurs - speakers some accuse of speaking only to incite a reaction rather than to consider or discuss ideas in a free and open dialogue - seem to seek out colleges and universities specifically because they are noted defenders of free speech. These speakers may use institutional concerns about student safety as weapons to attack campus leaders, claiming their efforts to keep the peace equate to unconstitutional stifling of speech. Advocates seeking to defend the humanity of individuals of historically marginalized populations on the basis of their race, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, or religion are targeted by these provocateurs. Model legislation proposed by the libertarian think-tank The Goldwater Institute in January 2017, and discussed in more depth in our August 2017 blog post, represents the most concerning response to campuses seeking to ensure both free speech and student and campus safety. In addition to prohibiting campuses from disinviting speakers, the Goldwater Proposal legislatively mandates specific sanctions of suspension or expulsion for students who are found to "infringed expressive activity" twice. Given that many of those protesting conservative provocateurs are students representing historically marginalized populations, many of which continue to face increased barriers to accessing and completing higher education, this level of proscribed sanctions is especially concerning. Legislation following the Goldwater Proposal passed in Arizona ( HB 2563), is still pending in California ( SB 472), and failed in Minnesota ( SF 2451 / HF 3394), Oklahoma ( SB 1202), West Virginia ( HB 4203), Wisconsin ( AB 299 / SB 250 & AB 440 / SB 351), and Wyoming ( HB 137).

What Do Student Affairs Professionals Need to Know?

Knowing the policy conversations around campus speech is only part of the responsibility of student affairs professionals. Nimble and knowledgeable responses to emerging incidents have long been part of student affairs, though the many tangled threads of the campus speech conversation, as highlighted above, require careful consideration and planning. In November 2017, NASPA Public Policy Division held a virtual Town Hall discussion on free speech on college campuses featuring Bobby Woodard, Vice President of Student Affairs at Auburn University, and Allen W. Groves, University Dean of Students at the University of Virginia. Both speakers provided detailed descriptions of recent events on their campuses involving controversial speakers, including their preparations and lessons learned. NASPA is committed to providing the latest information and analysis to our members and is proud to announce a new Policy and Practice brief on The First Amendment and the Inclusive Campus: Effective Strategies for Leaders in Student Affairs. This brief offers strategies to address key aspects of managing controversial speakers and demonstrations on college and university campuses. Further, it provides ideas and examples for challenging divisive speech when appropriate; that is, engaging such speech as an opportunity for reflection and action in order to uphold the values and promote the intellectual vitality of our campus communities. We are also happy to welcome those who will be attending Free Speech vs. the Inclusive Campus: An Unending Struggle in Alexandria, Virginia Sunday and Monday! As always, if there are particular policy conversations we can provide more information on to help you help your campus and your students, please let us know!

Photograph by Mike Peel (www.mikepeel.net); retrieved from Wikimedia Commons.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Untangling the Threads: 2018 State Legislation Addressing Campus Speech Concerns

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Last week's decision by NFL owners to exact penalties on players and teams who choose to kneel in protest during the playing of the national anthem is just the most recent in a long history of concerns around speech and protest - who gets to speak on which topics when and how - in our country.

# data[].attributes.headline
Professional Resource: American Council on Education (ACE)

# data[].attributes.subject
Professional Resource: American Council on Education (ACE)

# data[].attributes.body
One of the most prominent issue for the American Council on Education centers on the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act (HEA). The HEA is an extremely important piece of legislation that has the potential to significantly increase the cost of higher education.

# data[].attributes.body
Since its inception in 2012, under the Obama administration the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) has permitted individuals who entered the United States as children and meet specific criteria to apply for deferred action (temporary stays and work authorization) for two years. However under the Trump administration DACA has been rescinded until further notice.

In the historic Plyler v Doe   Supreme Court case a ruling was passed down requiring education for students in grades K-12, regardless of immigration status. Rescinding DACA would be in direct violation of the ruling should be student be deported. Thus creating serious implications for educators across the country.

# data[].attributes.body
Bauer-Wolf, J. (2018, June 5). George Washington's new Title IX processes put sexual assault cases in hands of single investigator. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/06/05/george-washingtons-new-title-ix-processes-put-sexual-assault-cases-hands-single

Figueroa, A. M. (2017). Speech or silence: Undocumented students’ decisions to disclose or disguise their citizenship status in school. American Educational Research Journal, 54(3), 485-523. doi:10.3102/0002831217693937

Higher Education Associations Express Concerns with PROSPER Act. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.aau.edu/key-issues/higher-education-associations-express-concerns-prosper-act

Hinds, T. (n.d.). Untangling the Threads: 2018 State Legislation Addressing Campus Speech Concerns. Retrieved from https://www.naspa.org/rpi/posts/untangling-the-threads-2018-state-legislation-addressing-campus-speech-conc

Muñiz, R., Zrzavy, M., & Prchal Svajlenka, N. (n.d.). Immigration DACAmented Law Students and Lawyers in the Trump Era. Retrieved from https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/reports/2018/06/07/451613/dacamented-law-students-lawyers-trump-era/

Vercelletto, C. (2018, June 06). DeVos tells Senate schools shouldn't become ICE enforcement zones. Retrieved from https://www.educationdive.com/news/devos-tells-senate-schools-shouldnt-become-ice-enforcement-zones/525152/