Over the course of the last year, regulations surrounding protests, speech, and freedom of expression have fallen into a constant state of flux. Again and again, public and private universities alike have shifted and respecified their long-established policy, with some even going so far as to introduce new guidelines entirely.
Regulations implemented by public universities are primarily designed to be permissible under the First Amendment. Specifically, speech and expression are regulated under the Supreme Court’s established precedent of “time, place, and manner” restrictions, which student protesters across the country have doubtlessly become intimately familiar with. The basis of these restrictions are primarily outlined by the three-pronged test, which maintains that the rules imposed on citizens must be content-neutral, “narrowly tailored” to serve significant government interest, and provide “ample” alternative methods for individuals and groups to communicate their message.
Naturally, private schools like Princeton — as well as other elite universities across the United States — are not bound to such protections. Rather, the University arbitrarily sets its own time, place, and manner restrictions, without a clear and consistent set of reasoning to define what is permissible or not permissible. The University should adopt this constitutional framework to set the standard for protest regulations moving forward. This would both provide clarity surrounding Princeton’s policy for speech and expression, and simultaneously force the University to hold itself accountable.
In the words of President Christopher Eisgruber ’83, “the University may reasonably regulate the time, place, and manner of expression” under the guiding principle of ensuring that it does not disrupt University operations and events. He further draws several similarities to the three prong test therein, stating that “like the First Amendment to the Constitution – [Princeton’s free speech policy] contains exceptions” and that “these time, place, and manner regulations are viewpoint-neutral and content-neutral.”
Rights, Rules, Responsibilities (RRR) reads somewhat vaguely that “The University reserves the right to determine the time, place, and manner of all such activities.” However, even as Eisgruber insists that the time, place, and manner rules are content-neutral, there is a discrepancy in how neutral the University really is in practice. Currently, there is no explicit or binding language that forces the University to commit to “content neutrality.”
The absence of a clear system for regulating time, place, and manner only enables inconsistent enforcement for forms of speech and expression later down the line. In order to establish clear regulations, Princeton should codify all three aspects of the Constitution’s three prong test for permissible speech directly into RRR.
At present, Princeton does not satisfy any of the three Constitutional tests. Regarding the first test, Princeton has proved time and time again that they are not viewpoint neutral. Regardless of their claims, actions truly speak louder than words. The University’s treatment of occupations in the past reflects this: during last year’s Palestine encampment, Princeton authorized arrests for students within six minutes of the first tents being set up, but in 2015 and 2019 for the Black Justice League’s sit-in and Student’s for Title IX Reform’s sit-ins respectively, protesters were not warned of nor punished with arrest.
Additionally, the University does not have a singular standard for what is considered to be “neutral” content. For example, as the Princeton Progressive Coalition recently pointed out, Princeton’s ban of chalk and tape on University walkways has been historically inconsistently enforced: where USG candidate designs were allowed to stay on walkways, gay pride drawings were banned and removed.
As for the “narrowly tailored” legislation, the Supreme Court’s original ruling dictated that restrictions on speech must be written precisely to place as few restrictions on First Amendment rights as possible, while serving the government’s purpose in creating restrictions in the first place. Regulations which fail this test are considered to broadly restrain First Amendment rights.
Currently, Princeton’s protest policies are far from being narrowly tailored. Chalking is explicitly banned. Posters are prohibited from being affixed to buildings, fences, benches, sidewalks, roadways, and the natural landscape. Bans against high traffic locations, like Cannon Green and Prospect House, are specific in terms of the “place[s]” where protests can occur, but even when these rules are narrow, Princeton arbitrarily applies them. For example, take the ban on Cannon Green, which protesters defied on Community Care Day and yet faced no repercussions at the hands of the University. Accordingly, students often lack clear and narrowly tailored guidelines around the enforcement of time, place, and manner restrictions.
Within the Princeton community, there are many avenues for expression. However, over recent years, Princeton has advanced numerous measures that have sought to limit or restrict free speech on campus. These policies have tended to be inconsistent and vague, and students have expressed that this lack of clarity has limited alternative avenues for expression that they might have otherwise pursued.
As a private institution, Princeton does not have to be clear in the language of their policy, but they should be. The University is not required to have measures to restrain the lengths their policy, but they should, and they must inform students of it. We not only deserve to know our rights, but we also deserve to know the principles behind — and limits on — restrictions on our rights.
By employing the use of something like the three-prong test, the restrictions and rules around protests are less likely to be applied inconsistently. Such a three-prong test could further enhance the student body’s comprehension and even their impression of such policies. It could also enable the ability of students to more constructively challenge these regulations and further establish productive spaces to contest, discuss, and debate the underlying application.
Above all, Princeton has a commitment to free and open inquiry and our freedom of expression. But in order to create such spaces, the University needs to hold itself accountable and give us the information to hold them accountable as well. By codifying a version of the three-prong test, perhaps starting by specifically codifying their professed “content-neutral” guideline in RRR, Princeton could begin taking steps in improving their accountability over the years to come. But as it stands, Princeton’s simultaneously extensive, vague, arbitrary, and inconsistent policy will only continue to limit and restrict our freedoms of expression without explanation.
Lillian Paterson is a first-year from Silver Spring, Md. She can be reached at lp3095[at]princeton.edu.
Read More
For the sake of a democratic process, faculty must reject remote voting on previously decided motions
Guest Contributors"To implement a remote electronic vote that will enable a segment of those voting to opt out of the deliberation stage undermines our institutional traditions. When we meet as faculty, we aim to deliberate and govern together. That role cannot be reduced to casting votes."
"To implement a remote electronic vote that will enable a segment of those voting to opt out of the deliberation stage undermines our institutional traditions. When we meet as faculty, we aim to deliberate and govern together. That role cannot be reduced to casting votes."
Excessive careerism is leading us astray from the humanities
Lily Halbert-Alexander“We should model our educational paths based on our genuine intellectual interests, rather than making our academic decisions solely based on whatever we think we want to do with our lives at 18.”
“We should model our educational paths based on our genuine intellectual interests, rather than making our academic decisions solely based on whatever we think we want to do with our lives at 18.”
Trump supporters don’t bite: Princeton progressives must burst the Orange Bubble
Julianna Lee“We shouldn’t dismiss Trump voters as hateful, uneducated, or misinformed; we should engage with them about where they are coming from and why they made the choice they did.”
“We shouldn’t dismiss Trump voters as hateful, uneducated, or misinformed; we should engage with them about where they are coming from and why they made the choice they did.”
