Center for Scholastic Journalism Blog

As reported here on June 20, the University of California system says it won’t follow the proposed bill protecting advisers if it is signed into law. Thanks to the excellent reporting of the online publication Inside Higher Ed, we now have another piece of the puzzle. Apparently, California’s Donahoe Higher Education Act, which the proposed adviser protection bill would amend, includes a provision that explicitly says the the sections of the law only apply to the University of California if the University regents, by resolution, agree to it.

The question that remains: have the regents ever adopted a resolution endorsing the limitations on their ability to censor student expression first enacted into law in 1992 and amended in 2006, commonly known as the Leonard Law or Education Code section 66301? They claim to support it, even if they object to the adviser protection provisions now being proposed. If they haven’t adopted a resolution, that would seem to be a priority for free expression advocates on the university’s 10 campuses (ironically, where the campus Free Speech Movement of the 1960s got its start). Given how weak their arguments, perhaps they could be persuaded to support the adviser protection proposal as well.

The good news if the adviser protections in SB 1370 become law, other California universities and high schools should be, without question, limited by the law in their ability to punish advisers as a means of censoring student expression.

Tags: 66301, Free Speech Movement, Insider Higher Ed, Leland Yee, Leonard Law, SB 1350, university of California