by the AAUP@CSU Executive Committee
The revised free speech policy announced by the CSU administration at the September 2, 2025 Faculty Council meeting threatens the right to free speech and peaceful assembly on campus. It was fast-tracked rather than brought to the floor of the Faculty Council to avoid public deliberation, an action that violates the norms of shared governance. Concerns about the new policy (read the new policy and tracked changes here: ) include the following (please click the arrows below to expand each section):
- The new policy is overly broad and often confusing.
2. The new policy adds unreasonable limitations on employee speech.
a. The policy mandates that “speech made in an employee’s official capacity may be subject to institutional oversight,” but does not specify which types of speech constitute “speaking in an official capacity” or what the institutional oversight would entail.
b. The policy contains a “Public Commentary” section that defines public commentary as employees’ “expressive activities as private citizens on matters of public interest.” This definition is broad enough to potentially encompass public scholarship, extension, or engagement work. This is a clear abrogation of academic freedom.
c. The policy states that “Employees may engage in Expressive Activities as private citizens on matters of public interest, so long as those activities do not pertain to or interrupt their official job duties and responsibilities.” This implies that the university has oversight of the free speech rights of private citizens, including any speech relating to education or education policy.
d. The policy appears to restrict faculty members’ use of their academic rank as a professional title.
3. The new policy infringes on students’ rights to free speech and peaceful demonstrations.
a. The new policy limits chalking on the plaza to publicity for programming by CSU units and student organizations, violating people’s right to free speech.
b. The policy puts limitations on the projection of messages on public buildings and surfaces. Symbolic protests that “block the audience’s view” or prevent participation in a university event are forbidden.
c. Camping and encampments” are broadly defined and tightly regulated in ways that violate the spirit of peaceful assembly.
4. The new policy radically redefines “peaceful” to exclude any “act or activity” that violates “applicable law or policy.”
a. This is an overly broad statement that, for example, would categorize non-promotional messages chalked on the LSC plaza as activity that is not peaceful.
Section E.8.2.f of the Faculty and Administrative Professional Manual states that “The major purpose of the University Administration is to provide an atmosphere conducive to teaching, research, extension, and service. Administrators, therefore, must protect, defend, and promote academic freedom as a necessary prelude to the free search for and exposition of truth and understanding.” AAUP@CSU believes that both the approval process for and the substance of the new policy violates one of the most fundamental administrative responsibilities articulated in the Manual.
