Evangelist Jed Smock, seen here addressing a crowd of students on Library Walk, is among those who may soon find their right to free speech on campus severely limited by a proposed systemwide policy. (Will Parson/Guardian)

Two student members of the campus free-speech revision
committee trekked to UCLA on May 28 to attend a public hearing on the proposed
University Office of the President regulations for nonaffiliate speech and
activity.
The forum was scheduled for the public to comment on a new
set of restrictions governing the speech, assembly and literature distribution
of nonaffiliated community members. Among the new regulations is a clause
prohibiting the public from gathering or demonstrating on university grounds
without prior approval.

Anticipating large crowds and public protest, Tara
Ramanathan and Carol-Irene Southworth were disappointed to find only about 10
people present among rows of vacant chairs.

She blamed UCOP for the poor attendance, saying that it had
clearly not informed the UC community as much as it should have.

Southworth and Ramanathan — the only students at the meeting
— attended to voice concerns and seek answers to uncertainties about the
policy.

While there have been rumors that the proposed regulations
came in response to problems at UC Santa Barbara, UC Santa Cruz and UC
Berkeley, UCOP spokesman Trey Davis said the new policy produced disruptions on
all campuses and is an attempt to create a systemwide standard for the speech
and activity of nonaffiliates.

“I’m sure you could say that the last thing that happened
[on any campus] could be responsible for the [proposed regulations], but they
were not prompted by any single, particular incident,” Davis
said.

While rules are already in place for students and staff, the
university has encountered problems when local cities or district attorneys try
to prosecute incidents involving nonaffiliates who are not governed by campus
policies, Davis said.

While the UCOP proposal does not directly restrict student
activity, it may hamper public-led efforts, Ramanathan said.

“Our ability to increase movements and make them widespread
is entirely dependent upon the opportunity to reach the community,” she said.

One group that would be affected by the proposed regulations
is the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the union
representing UC patient-care and service workers, which has been involved in an
ongoing negotiation about wages and pensions, Southworth said.

“With the shameful way the UC is engaging in
negotiations … we absolutely need nonaffiliates to retain their civil rights to
demonstrate and take political action to protest injustice,” Southworth said.

UC patient-care and service workers oppose the regulations
because of the impact they could have on bargaining and maintaining workers’
rights, AFSCME President Lakesha Harrison said in an e-mail.

“[The regulations] are deeply troubling on First Amendment
grounds and also because they propose to criminalize a wide range of activities
that union staff members and community supporters engage in on a regular basis
in support of UC workers’ rights,” Harrison said.

AFSCME has demanded that the university complete bargaining
with the union before implementing the policy.

Davis said the
university would undergo a careful review of all public comments made at the
meeting along with any written comments submitted to the Office of General
Council. Once the review process is complete, the proposed regulations will be
sent to the UC Board of Regents for approval.

Although the next regents meeting is scheduled for July, Davis
said that UCOP still does not anticipate seeking policy approval before
September.

Considering that UCSD released its free-speech policy for
public input during finals week of last
year, Ramanathan said she is worried the regents will approve the policy over
the summer while classes are not in session.

“We can never be too
sure of [when the policy will be approved],” Ramanathan said. “We need students
to keep on [UCOP officials’] asses and make sure that they do not try to have
that meeting over the summer.”

Ramanathan added that the only way to prevent the regents
from approving the policy is by mobilizing students to attend their meeting.

“In my experience with the UC, when enough students show
interest in an issue, they will feel the pressure to do something,” she said.
“It cannot just be only [the students on the revision committee] defending free
speech. We all have to be part of this, [because] nobody will do it for us.”