8 July 3 - 9, 2025 dallasobserver.com DALLAS OBSERVER Classified | MusiC | dish | Culture | unfair Park | Contents “S.B. 2972 threatens the free expression of all Texans, regardless of political be- liefs,” said Caro Achar, engagement coordi- nator for free speech at the ACLU of Texas.”This bill imposes broad restrictions that allow school officials to restrict how, when and where Texans can speak on cam- pus — undermining the First Amendment rights of students, faculty, staff and the gen- eral public.” SB 2972 targets expressive activity, de- fined as “any speech or expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment. ” It car- ries over existing language that prohibits be- havior that is either unlawful or materially and substantially disruptive to the institu- tion’s functions. Under SB 18, all persons in Texas were af- forded First Amendment rights to peaceful expression on Texas’ public campuses. SB 2972 removes every mention of the term “all persons,” instead replacing it with the phrase “students enrolled at and employees of an institution of higher education” or “members of the university community. “ This leaves it to individual schools to deter- mine who can and can not engage in expres- sive activity on public campuses based on whether they are affiliated with the school. The governing boards for Texas’ public universities, including the University of Texas System, Texas State System, A&M System and Texas Tech System, are now charged with creating public forum areas on each of their campuses. In 2004, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas overturned Texas Tech’s speech code for violating the Constitution when it at- tempted to create specific public forums that ultimately limited student expression. The court ruled that, at a minimum, all side- walks on public campuses would be consid- ered public forums. Creighton said his bill targets and re- stricts “unsafe behaviors” on public cam- puses. SB 2972 prohibits students and employees from using devices for sound am- plification, like a speaker, during class hours, which typically run from 8 a.m. to 9:45 p.m., if used to intimidate others, interferes with campus operations or interferes with an em- ployee’s or police officer’s job. The bill pro- hibits expressive activities during the last two weeks of a semester if they use common outdoor areas in a way that results in mate- rial and substantial disruption to a school, involve guest speakers coming to campus, utilize sound amplification or include drums or other percussive instruments. Camping or placing tents on campus is now outlawed at the state level. Face cover- ings are banned if a police officer thinks they are intimidating or otherwise interfere with their job. Students are not allowed to lower school, state or U.S. flags to replace them with different flags, a thing that has not hap- pened at Texas public universities but did occur at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the University of California, Los Angeles in spring 2024. The section that has caused some of the most extensive controversy bans expressive activity between 10 p.m. and 8 a.m. On the upside, this could allow 15 whole minutes for speakers to use amplification devices be- tween the end of classes and the start of the blackout period, provided the cops or school employees don’t mind. The restriction on nighttime activity is not the first of its kind. Indiana University created a similar, if slightly more lenient, policy last November, prohibiting expressive activity on campus from 11 p.m. to 6 a.m., in response to pro-Palestine protests. A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction against IU because “the policy likely bur- dens substantially more speech than neces- sary to further the university’s interest in public safety and thus lacks narrow tailor- ing. Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the policy violates the First Amendment.” The American Civil Liberties Union in Indiana continues to ad- vocate strongly against the policy. The Texas chapter of the ACLU has taken a similar stance in response to SB 2972. Student Ac- tivism as the Target In 2024, over 140 U.S. universities were suddenly host to pro-Pal- estine encampments from late April to mid- May. The protests quickly spread nationwide after Columbia students erected their first “Gaza Solidarity encampment” on April 18. By the end of April, 86 encamp- ments had already formed. The first Texas encampment was at Rice University on April 24. Four more encampments at the University of Texas at Austin, UT Dallas, UT Arlington and the University of Houston soon followed. With support from state leadership, university officials at UT Austin and UT Dallas called in state troopers and police to arrest more than 100 students while dismantling the encampments. Students used speakers and megaphones to amplify their chants during those en- campments while using drums to keep a consistent beat. Students set up tents on campus overnight. Students criticized pub- lic officials and university leadership, in- vited outside speakers and activists to their demonstration, and organized all of this during the last two weeks of the spring 2024 semester. SB 2972 prohibits all of these ex- pressive activities. Sameeha Rizvi, a civic engagement orga- nizer at the Texas Council on American-Is- lamic Relations, said that SB 2972 tore apart the protections established by SB 18 while directly targeting student activists’ “funda- mental right to free speech.” “SB 2972 directly contradicts the Legisla- ture’s own commitment to campus free speech,” Rizvi said. “The restrictions on ex- pressive activities effectively silence stu- dents during critical periods.” Rizvi said that the combination of the school-day sound amplification restriction and the ban during the night made it impos- sible for students and employees to express themselves. “These restrictions create an impossible situation: protest silently during the daytime or don’t protest at all after hours,” Rizvi said. “Whether students are campaigning for hu- man rights or religious freedom, all speech across the political spectrum will be con- strained.” UT law student Gwynn Marotta said that growing up, she had always been told that the right to protest and demonstrate was one of the core tenets of the U.S. Marotta noted that when the government sought to impose itself over this right and restrict it, that decision should be met with skepticism. Marotta said that the hyperfocus on restrict- ing student activity entirely missed the issue of what happened in spring 2024. “I remember last spring watching as the University of Texas sent armed police against students who were peacefully pro- testing,” Marotta said.”This was haunting to see happen. My mom went to Kent State shortly after the massacre. I remember her calling me, terrified and concerned. Not be- cause of the protests, which I was raised to respect and revere, but instead because of the masked and armed police marching through campus. Thankfully, no one was killed, but I saw my friends beaten and pep- per-sprayed for daring to exercise their right to protest. It isn’t hard to imagine how that could have gone worse.” (Four students at Kent State in Ohio were shot to death by Na- tional Guard troops during an anti-war pro- test in May 1970, during the last weeks of their spring semester.) UT Law spring 2025 graduate Brianna Terrel said that she, as a Jewish person, appreciated efforts to counter anti-semi- tism. Still, SB 2972 was deeply misguided in its approach by reversing speech pro- tections in the state. Terrel said that with- out encampments, the successful international campaign against apartheid South Africa’s racist government could not have happened, and that this bill was limiting the fundamental tools of protest people have used for decades. Terrel said that instead of helping students or institu- tions, the bill created a stronger wedge be- tween the public and their “public” schools. “This bill walks back on that [free speech] mandate and strips the publicity of public-facing institutions in light of protests during spring [2024] ...,” Terrel said. “UT is the flagship institution of the state, it serves countless Texans through its research, med- ical care, arts and unforgettably the joy of Longhorns football. It would be a shame for this institution, a central component of the fabric of the city of Austin and this state, to disregard the free speech of the community it serves, the public.” Free Speech Concerns H emachander Rubeshkumar, chair of UTD’s student government’s stu- dent affairs committee, said that a wide variety of events held by the student government involved students expressing themselves. Rubeshkumar said that things like Final Scream happened every year at night during the last two weeks of the se- mester to allow students to express them- selves and de-stress during finals. Rubeshkumar said that UTD favorites like midnight breakfast, which consistently has turnout in the high hundreds, would likely be on the chopping block since students are making noise, talking and engaging in typical free speech activity. Still, he wor- ries that such activities will be illegal in September. “[SB 2972] would significantly dampen social life on campus as students already have several other things to balance in their day-to-day lives,” Rubeshkumar said. “Orga- nizing events to bring people together is re- warding, but it requires significant effort, especially on a campus with a lot of com- muting students. This would make students much more wary of doing any type of activ- ity on campus. Even the idea of a ‘curfew,’ that alone should show how ridiculous this is. College students have terrible sleep schedules, and now you want the deans to nanny them so that they sleep on time?” Rubeshkumar said it was typically best to avoid giving university administrators the ability to limit free speech on campus. In his two whole years at UTD, Rubeshkumar said that he has seen the Spirit Rocks, a 20-year- old public forum, removed; a peaceful en- campment violently crushed within hours of its formation; and the student newspaper dismantled. “These are unacceptable actions of repres- sion by our college administration,” Rubesh- kumar said. “We have seen time and time again throughout history, college students leading movements to end injustices and progress society, while being met by dispro- Unfair Park from p6 Emma Ruby Student-led protests are going to be trickier to pull off thanks to a new state law that critcs say violates the First Amendment.
