Higher Education and Employment Advancement Committee
JOINT FAVORABLE REPORT
Bill No.: HB-5108
AN ACT REQUIRING PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION TO
ESTABLISH A POLICY REGARDING FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION ON
Title: CAMPUS.
Vote Date: 3/22/2021
Vote Action: Joint Favorable
PH Date: 2/18/2021
File No.: 329
Disclaimer: The following JOINT FAVORABLE Report is prepared for the benefit of the
members of the General Assembly, solely for purposes of information, summarization and
explanation and does not represent the intent of the General Assembly or either chamber
thereof for any purpose.
SPONSORS OF BILL:
REP. CHEESEMAN, 37th Dist.
REASONS FOR BILL:
During an event at a local university an audience member stood up and took papers off the
podium from the speaker and an altercation ensued. The speaker was arrested.
This bill requires each higher education institution's governing board to establish their own
policy on freedom of expression for any campus of each institution
It requires the policy to include, among other things, (1) the role of the institution in protecting
freedom of expression on campus, including when ideas or opinions expressed are
disagreeable and offensive, (2) allowance for protest or demonstration by any person lawfully
present on campus, and (3) the availability of resources for protecting the safety and freedom
of expression of any speaker invited on campus.
The bill also requires Board of Regents and Board of Trustees to submit their policies to the
Higher Education and Employment Advancement Committee.
RESPONSE FROM ADMINISTRATION/AGENCY:
Carl Lejuez Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs and Eleanor
Daugherty Associate Vice President for Student Affairs and Dean of Students, University of
Connecticut submitted testimony stating Given the University by-laws and the Event Review
Procedures that are strictly enforced, we believe HB 5108 is not necessary. However, if in the
event the bill were to move forward, we would request that this legislation is not intended to
provide rights or restrictions beyond those already afforded by the First Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution.
NATURE AND SOURCES OF SUPPORT:
State Representative Holly Cheeseman, 37th Assembly District testified and submitted written
testimony in support. Representative Cheeseman quoted Frederick Douglas: "Liberty is
meaningless where the right to utter one's thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist. That, of
all rights, is the dread of tyrants. It is the right which they first of all strike down. They know its
power. Equally clear is the right to hear, to suppress free speech is a double wrong. It
violates the rights of the hearer, and as well as those of the speaker."
In her written testimony Representative Cheeseman stated I wholeheartedly support the
effort to ensure that the First Amendment freedoms of all on college campuses are not
abridged. Freedom of speech is a fundamental American freedom, a human right, and a core
value of our society. Universities should foster robust and vigorous debate and the free
exchange of differing views on all topics and should not punish those who exercise their first
amendment rights.
UConn College Republicans submitted written testimony in support of this bill. They believe
that The ability to engage in discussion and challenge ones beliefs enhances the learning
process that students have taken part in. They shared that they support of this bill to
ensure that every student, faculty member, and organization is able to express themselves
without the fear of administrative pushback.
NATURE AND SOURCES OF OPPOSITION:
Jennifer Widness, President Connecticut Conference of Independent Colleges submitted
written testimony in opposition to this bill. Ms. Widness urged the Committee to not move
forward with this bill because:
First, the legislation is unnecessary because CCIC member campuses have policies in place
to protect free speech.
Second, campus policies on freedom of expression are largely about de-regulating speech to
ensure all perspectives are heard. A bill that seeks to regulate the de-regulation of speech
may unintentionally have a chilling effect as institutions would naturally be concerned about
government intervention/monitoring. Any legislation dictating a campus policy on freedom of
expression is implicitly a step in regulating how schools protect freedom of speech on
campus.
Third, the legislation requires that institutions of higher education create policies but given
that this is a proposed bill, it is unclear what institutions are to do with such policies once
created. Previous versions of this bill required institutions to submit their policies to the Higher
Education and Employment Advancement Committee. It is disconcerting to think that the
legislature may be empowered by this legislation to assess whether campus policies meet
the statutory criteria, especially in a contentious area of constitutional law and in a context
private colleges and universities that the First Amendment was not intended to address.
Reported by: Jeanie Phillips, Clerk Date: April 8, 2021
Page 2 of 2