A bill currently making its way through California’s legislature has sparked controversy and concern among civil rights advocates who argue that it would stifle free speech on public university and college campuses, particularly in relation to protests against Israel’s war in Gaza and its occupation of Palestine. The bill, known as Senate Bill 1287, was introduced by Democratic state Sen. Steve Glazer in February and aims to require schools to adopt and enforce rules against harassment and discrimination that create a hostile environment on campus.
Supporters of the bill, including pro-Israel advocacy groups, argue that it is necessary to protect the safety and free speech rights of all students, regardless of their positions. Glazer has defended the bill against criticism that it is an attempt to curb the free speech of student activists who support Palestine. He has amended the bill to remove language that specifically targeted pro-Palestine protests. However, critics argue that the bill still poses a threat to free speech, as it leaves terms like “harassment,” “discrimination,” and “hostile environment” undefined, potentially allowing institutions to apply them in ways that restrict students’ free speech.
The original version of the bill included a proposed ban on a “call for or support of genocide,” which was seen as a direct attempt to prohibit the common protest slogan “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” This language was later removed from the bill due to pushback from free speech advocates and state assembly members who believed it violated First Amendment rights.
Civil rights advocates argue that the bill specifically targets students who support Palestine and have already faced pushback from schools, including police violence, arrests, and suspensions. They believe that the bill would give universities even more tools to punish students who protest in support of Palestine. The American Civil Liberties Union in California has expressed concerns about the bill, stating that it is overly broad and vague, potentially leading to censorship and administrative discipline. They also anticipate costly lawsuits resulting from uneven enforcement of the policy across campuses.
The bill’s passage through the California State Assembly has faced opposition from lawmakers who compare it to Ronald Reagan’s calls for crackdowns on civil rights and anti-Vietnam War protesters in 1967. Some lawmakers argue that the bill is redundant and does little to add to existing laws around harassment and violence on campuses.
The bill’s supporters, including the Anti-Defamation League and the Jewish Public Affairs Committee of California, argue that it is necessary to combat rising antisemitism on college campuses. They point to incidents such as the shutdown of a speaker event at UC Berkeley and a threatening tweet from a UC Davis professor as examples of antisemitism that the bill aims to address.
Critics of the bill, however, argue that it is part of a larger trend to suppress protests in support of Palestine and to conflate criticism of Israeli policy with antisemitism. They believe that bills like S.B. 1287 are being used to dehumanize and suppress those who support the rights of Palestinians.
The bill is currently awaiting a vote in the California State Assembly’s appropriations committee before reaching the assembly floor for a final vote. While it has passed through assembly committees with near-unanimous votes, some lawmakers have expressed concerns and opposition to the bill. The final outcome of the bill remains uncertain, but its passage would have significant implications for free speech rights on California campuses.