We write to ask that you immediately withdraw the “Interim Queens College Guidance Regarding Time, Place, and Manner Regulations for Demonstrations on Campus.” As an initial matter, this guidance is unnecessary, as The City University of New York’s Henderson Rules already govern the campus conduct it addresses. Indeed, it is debatable whether these restrictions are even permissible under the Henderson Rules.

The interim guidance impermissibly and arbitrarily constrains free speech rights on our campus by requiring advance approval, thus stifling spontaneous demonstrations by Queens College community members, limiting the locations of protests, thus isolating protests from their audiences, and excluding community voices from the decision-making process. Regardless of intent, its provisions would likely have a discriminatory impact, limiting the ability of already marginalized individuals and groups to make their voices heard. Our campus should be a haven of peaceful expression and academic freedom, not an unwelcoming, repressive institution that dedicates its resources to silencing dissent.

The following addresses just a few of the “time, place, and manner regulations” to which we object.

• “Organizers of Demonstrations must . . . complete the Campus Events Request Form, and submit it . . . at least three business days before the planned Demonstration date for consideration.”

This requirement for advance approval is antithetical to First Amendment rights and principles of academic freedom. A key component of free speech in general, and as historically exercised at CUNY, is the ability to engage in spontaneous expression, to immediately respond to breaking news and developing events. Requirements for advance permission not only constitute an unacceptable restriction on our First Amendment rights, but also undermine our mission, as they would disempower our students and erode, rather than build, a sense of community. (We also note that the campus events request form link leads to a login page on the City College website.)

• “No Demonstrations are allowed inside College buildings.”

The Henderson rules already establish that “a member of the academic community shall not intentionally obstruct or forcibly prevent others from the exercise of their rights. Nor shall s/he interfere with the institution’s educational processes or facilities.” The added constraint presents a more restrictive limitation and assumes bad faith on the part of the demonstrators.

• “Demonstrators may be requested to remove masks or face coverings, other than those required as accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act”

This provision is highly problematic and has a high likelihood of having a discriminatory and chilling impact. Among other things, many individuals have non-ADA yet equally valid reasons (including health concerns and religious practices) for covering their faces. These individuals may be justifiably hesitant to participate in demonstrations for fear of having their other rights (including their First Amendment right to freely practice their religious beliefs) violated.

• “Demonstrations shall not exceed three hours in duration.”

This provision could similarly deny protestors a reasonable opportunity to reach their intended audience, as when a demonstration concerns a campus event that lasts more than three hours. Additionally, this rule could be used to deny interested individuals the opportunity to participate in the demonstration. On a diverse and vibrant campus such as ours, different members of our community move through the college at different times, and a demonstration should have the right to reach a wide audience and allow all who wish to join an opportunity to do so.

• “No Demonstrations during the Reading Period or Final Exam Period”

Again, the guidelines impermissibly restrict the ability to engage in spontaneous expression and to respond in a timely manner to breaking news and developing events, if these events happen to occur during the proscribed period. This is particularly problematic as, the Reading Period and Final Exam Period are generally the last opportunity many community members have to act collectively on campus before a lengthy break in which many are absent from campus.

• “The College permits approved Demonstrations at the following locations . . . : Student Union Field 1 Parking Lot, Eastern Quad, Central Quad, Western Quad, Dining Hall Plaza. The College may authorize Demonstrations at other locations on Campus only upon written approval of the Vice President of Student Affairs and Enrollment Management.”

This policy contains protests to limited spaces that are isolated from the rest of the campus and would again potentially prevent demonstrators from reaching their intended audience. The Henderson Rules already bar demonstrations from blocking access to college facilities, rendering this further restriction on free speech an excessive overreach.

The interim guidelines are also problematic in that, inter alia, much of the language is excessively vague, which could readily result in unpredictable, inconsistent, inequitable, and discriminatory enforcement of these guidelines.

While the guidelines are drafted to appear “content-neutral” on their face, their application is likely to be anything but neutral, disproportionately impacting the very people most likely to demonstrate on campus--those who express viewpoints that the college administration opposes. Moreover, the very process of creating these guidelines runs counter to ensuring an inclusive environment, as key segments of the community (including students, faculty, staff, and unions) were excluded from the drafting process.

We also note that your administration introduced this overly broad, restrictive, and unnecessary interim policy over winter break, when few community members are on campus and many are not focused on campus developments. This continues a disappointing pattern, similar to the actions last January surrounding the “non-reappointment” of 24 full-time faculty members. However, we remain vigilant.

The interim guidance purports that it is: “intended to ensure a welcoming, safe, and inclusive environment that supports academic and social activities at Queens College.” In fact, it does the opposite. As noted above, these guidelines not only chill free speech, but also discourage a sense of community on our campus and go against Queens College’s long history as a center for activism –- a history symbolized by the Chaney-Goodman-Schwerner Clock Tower and celebrated this month at an event honoring the legacy of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. Across generations, we have created a legacy of peaceful and impactful activism on our campus, and we should all be proud of this history. We recognize that there may be instances where reasonable restrictions on First Amendment rights could be considered necessary to serve an important government purpose. The restrictions set forth in these interim guidelines are neither reasonable nor necessary, and do not serve any legitimate government purpose.

We therefore again demand immediate withdrawal of this interim policy. Any changes to guidance governing expression on campus should be crafted to impose as few limitations as possible, and in consultation with students, faculty, and staff, to ensure that they reflect the college’s values of equity and inclusivity, principles of academic freedom, and proud legacy of activism.