Below you will find notes to each meeting of the Presidential Policy Advisory Group. For your convenience, you may jump to a specific meeting date by clicking the links to the left.
November 14, 2017
Notes:
The meeting opened with introductions, including each member’s personal perspective related to free speech and the reason he or she was selected as a representative.
The group discussed the critical importance of transparency and determined it was one of the group’s core values. In addition to transparency, the group adopted values that all voices should be heard and to show respect for others.
With unanimous consensus, the group decided meetings should continue to be held in private in order to accomplish the work at hand in an efficient manner and meet the expected delivery deadline for recommendations; however, they will provide meeting minutes which will be posted online. This message serves as a temporary measure to communicate with you about the group’s progress until that site is live. We will also share that website link via broadcast email once it is created. Finally, the group will hold a pre-scheduled media availability at the conclusion of each scheduled meeting.
Advisory Group members were given copies of Free Speech on Campus by Erwin Chemerinsky and Howard Gillman to read for discussion prior to the next meeting. Additionally, the group was assigned a section of responses to the interim University policies on Freedom of Expression and Use of Outdoor Space collected through the public comment process.
The next scheduled Presidential Policy Advisory Group meeting will occur on Friday, Dec. 15, with media availability directly following that discussion.
Members in attendance at the Nov. 14 Presidential Advisory Group meeting included: Scott Titsworth, Dean representative and advisory group convener; Landen Lama, President, Student Senate; Maria Modayil, President, Graduate Student Senate; Jacqueline Wolf, designee for Chair, Faculty Senate; Jessica Wingett, Chair, Administrative Senate; Sharon Romina, Chair, Classified Senate; Katherine Jellison, Chair/Director representative; Grant Garber, Legal Affairs representative; Andrew Powers, Chief of Police; Dusty Kilgour, Executive Director of Baker University Center; and Carly Leatherwood, University Communications and Marketing, ex-officio.
December 15, 2017
Notes:
The Presidential Policy Advisory Group convened for its second meeting on Friday, December 15, 2017 at 1:30 p.m. The meeting commenced with a continuation of the conversation about whether future meetings should be public or if meetings should remain closed.
Some members expressed concern that the credibility of the committee might be jeopardized if the committee continues to meet behind closed doors—and that some in the University community might distrust a group they perceived was meeting without sufficient transparency. The majority of the group agreed that transparency is a good reason for open meetings, but the group grappled with issues related to the productivity of committee work and the free exchange of complex ideas if meetings were to be held in open session. Some members expressed concern that the interim policy will remain in effect as this group continues to deliberate, so expediency and efficiency is also very important and an open forum might impede that.
Many group members agreed a hybrid approach for future meetings might be the best way to proceed, arguing that later phases of the committee’s work would be more amenable to public meetings rather than its current, methodical review of public comments. Some members thought that open meetings would be most productive for all parties when the group begins to actually formulate its recommendations for policymakers. Group members, overall, also agreed that public forums would provide an opportunity for community members to participate in the deliberative process. Some committee members also observed that the eventual, future draft of the new free expression policy will go to the individual University Senates for comprehensive discussion and feedback.
The group was not able to reach unanimity on this topic, but all members saw value in the conversation, thus discussion about open and closed meetings will remain ongoing, as members see fit.
For the second half of the meeting, group members focused on the process for evaluating all of the comments that were received on the two interim University policies, Freedom of Expression and Use of Outdoor Space through the public comment process. The group intends to create a large list of themes based on the public comments and then collapse those themes into broader concepts that will inform its work. Because the group is still in the very early stages of analyzing public comments, the themes and example statements are still being developed and subject to change as further comments are analyzed.
From review of one section of public comments, common themes tentatively observed and discussed at the December 15 meeting included:
- Free speech is vital to all universities and the current interim policy impinges on the university’s central mission to encourage and facilitate the free exchange of ideas to help people become informed citizens.
- The interim policies limit free speech and restrict the mission of higher education.
- The interim policies are potentially harmful to marginalized communities in particular and their ability to be heard.
- Provisions included in the interim policies are ambiguous for all parties--those seeking the right to express themselves, those who must ensure that constitutional rights are protected, and those who must ensure the safety of all community members.
- Some protests are intentionally designed to disrupt in order to be effective, and the university should permit such disruptive protests without consequence.
The public comments also contained many broad assertions regarding constitutionality of the interim policy that did not identify particular sections or explain the basis for the claim. Many of the public comments were predicated on contemporary concerns–commentary about the events in Charlottesville, but also the February 1 arrests at Ohio University. Many respondents used the comment period as an opportunity to disagree with events on the local and national levels.
In closing, the majority of group members agreed that part of the committee’s role will be to educate the University community about what is constitutionally protected speech and what is not.
Committee members will continue to review the submitted comments to establish common themes. The group discussed adding a 3-hour meeting to the schedule toward the end of winter break to complete its discussion of the themes emerging from all public comments.
The next currently scheduled Presidential Policy Advisory Group meeting will occur on Wednesday, January 3 at 11 a.m.
All meeting dates and minutes can be found online at: https://www.ohio.edu/policy-group/meeting-notes
Members in attendance at the December 15 Presidential Advisory Group meeting included: Scott Titsworth, Dean representative and advisory group convener; Landen Lama, President, Student Senate; Maria Modayil, President, Graduate Student Senate; Jacqueline Wolf, designee for Chair, Faculty Senate; Jessica Wingett, Chair, Administrative Senate; Sharon Romina, Chair, Classified Senate; Katherine Jellison, Chair/Director representative; Grant Garber, Legal Affairs representative; Andrew Powers, Chief of Police; Dusty Kilgour, Executive Director of Baker Center; and Carly Leatherwood, University Communications and Marketing, ex-officio.
January 3, 2018
Notes:
Presidential Policy Advisory Group met on January 3, 2018. goal of this meeting was to continue the educational phase of the group’s work by continuing the work of thematizing public comments related to the interim University policy on Freedom of Expression .
Since the last meeting, teams had been assigned to review the public comments and begin the process of developing draft themes and subthemes. Advisory Group members discussed the critical importance of carefully considering the full spectrum of comments and using them as a context to build recommendations for policy revisions moving forward. Advisory Group members agreed that many factors will weigh into the final recommendations.
The Advisory Group then divided into smaller teams to review pre-assigned segments of the public comments and draft themes and subthemes summarizing those comments, to be presented to the larger group and incorporated into the group’s thematic analysis.
The Advisory Group members will next begin the process of thematizing public comments related to the interim University policy on Use of Outdoor Space .
Lastly, Advisory Group members agreed that the next 2-3 meetings will focus on continuing the education phase of the Group’s charge which will include the continuing review of the public comments, the historical context and historic legacy of Ohio University, Free Speech on Campus by Erwin Chemerinsky and Howard Gillman, Ohio Revised Code and other university policies. The education phase will be followed by the development of draft recommendations.
The next scheduled Presidential Policy Advisory Group meeting will occur on Thursday, January 25, with media availability directly following that discussion.
Members in attendance at the January 3 Presidential Advisory Group meeting included: Scott Titsworth, Dean representative and advisory group convener; Landen Lama, President, Student Senate; Maria Modayil, President, Graduate Student Senate (via Zoom); Jacqueline Wolf, designee for Chair, Faculty Senate; Jessica Wingett, Chair, Administrative Senate; Sharon Romina, Chair, Classified Senate; Katherine Jellison, Chair/Director representative; Grant Garber, Legal Affairs representative; Andrew Powers, Chief of Police; and Dusty Kilgour, Executive Director of Baker Center.
January 25, 2018
Notes:
Presidential Policy Advisory Group met on January 25, 2018. The goal of this meeting was to continue the educational phase of the group’s work related to the interim University policy on Freedom of Expression .
University Archivist and Records Manager Bill Kimok presented an overview of the history of activism and speech at Ohio University. He was clear his presentation was not intended to influence the Advisory Group but merely present evolution of student expression and the administration’s reaction to it.
The presentation spanned from the University’s inception in the early 1800s to prohibition in the 1920s and the civil rights crisis of the 1960s and 70s.
The Presidential Policy Advisory Group would like to publicly think Mr. Kimok for his thorough and informative report. The group will provide a summary of the presentation at a later date.
The Advisory Group also celebrated a large milestone with the conclusion of their work categorizing public comments related to the interim policy. The Group will continue to meet as they continue their charge to develop draft recommendations. They will also formalize plans for an open forum to garner additional community input later this winter.
The next scheduled Presidential Policy Advisory Group meeting will occur on Thursday, February 8, with media availability directly following that discussion.
Members in attendance at the January 25 Presidential Advisory Group meeting included: Scott Titsworth, Dean representative and advisory group convener; Landen Lama, President, Student Senate; Maria Modayil, President, Graduate Student Senate; Jacqueline Wolf, designee for Chair, Faculty Senate; Jessica Wingett, Chair, Administrative Senate; Sharon Romina, Chair, Classified Senate; Katherine Jellison, Chair/Director representative; Grant Garber, Legal Affairs representative; Dusty Kilgour, Executive Director of Baker Center and ex-officio member Carly Leatherwood, University Communications and Marketing.
February 8, 2018
Notes:
The Presidential Policy Advisory Group met on February 8, 2018 to continue the educational phase of the group’s work related to the interim University policy on Freedom of Expression . Group members met to discuss the book Free Speech on Campus by Erwin Chemerinsky and Howard Gillman (Yale University Press, 2017). The topic of the interim policy was briefly discussed related to content within the book.
At the beginning of the meeting Dean Titsworth requested that Jackie Wolf, designee for the Chair of Faculty Senate, provide a brief summary of the questions asked and answered at Monday’s Faculty Senate meeting about the work of the Advisory Group.
The meeting then continued with discussion of Free Speech on Campus , and in some cases, Grant Garber provided additional context to apply at the local level.
Generation Gap:
There were a few emerging themes the group identified throughout the book. The first was a generation gap; the historical perspective of faculty and staff is vastly different than that of our students. There is a particular dichotomy between Vietnam-era protestors, who used free speech to condemn government actions, compared to the current college-aged generation who, on some level, want the government to protect them from speech with which they disagree, such as hate speech. One group member pointed out that this latter view is an outgrowth of identity politics, in which political issues often defined in terms of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc., often speak to individuals in more deeply personal ways.
The distinction between harassment of an individual and hate speech was identified as an issue of particular relevance. Harassment is not protected by the First Amendment and may be punished, but the bar for establishing harassment is relatively high ( e.g. , typically must involve a statement directed at an identifiable individual or defined group). Hate speech, though repugnant, is constitutionally protected speech. The challenge for policy drafters is to differentiate the two for community members.
Time, Place and Manner:
The group also wondered if the interim policy is too sweeping in addressing the critical issues of time, place and manner for the expression of speech. Policymakers need to calibrate between overly restricting the time, place and manner of speech and not being restrictive enough. This will be central to the Policy Group’s ongoing discussion and will likely be one of the group’s most difficult deliberations.
The group identified another difficult question to be addressed in the new policy – is Baker Center, and more specifically the atrium, a quintessential gathering space or is it a thoroughfare?
The group discussed the challenges in balancing protection of speech with protection of community members from harm.
Allowing for spontaneous events is another important and difficult element that the group agreed needs to be included in the new policy.
Educational Component:
With less than one percent of the campus population offering feedback on the interim policy, the group also discussed how to engage more community members in the process, particularly students. When students leave Ohio University, they should know their first amendment rights and how to engage politically; indeed, the policy, at least in part, should be educational in nature.
Members in attendance at the February 8 Presidential Advisory Group meeting included: Scott Titsworth, Dean representative and advisory group convener; Landen Lama, President, Student Senate; Maria Modayil, President, Graduate Student Senate; Jacqueline Wolf, designee for Chair, Faculty Senate; Jessica Wingett, Chair, Administrative Senate; Katherine Jellison, Chair/Director representative; Grant Garber, Legal Affairs representative; Andrew Powers, Chief of Police; Dusty Kilgour, Executive Director of Baker University Center; and Carly Leatherwood, University Communications and Marketing, ex-officio.
February 22, 2018
Notes:
At its February 22 meeting, Policy Group members began to consider potential recommendations for altering the current University policies on Freedom of Expression and Use of Outdoor Space .
The assorted considerations, which the committee will discuss further at its next meeting on Monday, February 26, will be the foundation for the Group’s presentation at the *March 21 open forum for the University community. The Group also discussed the possibility of holding its final meeting in open session. More information about that will be provided at a later date.
The Group discussed 27 potential recommendations, which they will continue to hone before the open forum. The Group debated the merits of a single policy versus keeping the current, two-policy format. Time, place and manner restrictions in particular were discussed at length. Group members also discussed the role of law enforcement and the legal obligations of the police, as well as the definition of civil disobedience.
Members in attendance at the Feb. 22 Presidential Advisory Group meeting included: Scott Titsworth, Dean representative and advisory group convener; Landen Lama, President, Student Senate; Maria Modayil, President, Graduate Student Senate; Jacqueline Wolf, designee for Chair, Faculty Senate; Sharon Romina, Chair, Classified Senate; Katherine Jellison, Chair/Director representative; Grant Garber, Legal Affairs representative; Andrew Powers, Chief of Police; Dusty Kilgour, Executive Director of Baker University Center; and Carly Leatherwood, University Communications and Marketing, ex-officio.
*The University community is invited to an open forum on Wednesday, March 21 from 5:30 p.m. – 7 p.m. in Baker University Center’s Ballroom A. Details and streaming information will be provided in a future email and will be posted online at www.ohio.edu/policy-group .
February 26, 2018
Notes:
At its February 26 meeting, Policy Group members continued discussing potential recommendations for revising the current interim University policies on Freedom of Expression and Use of Outdoor Space .
The Group spent some time reviewing and revising the considerations that members had worked on offline since the February 22 meeting. They agreed that all of the themes from the public comment period have been addressed in the current set of considerations.
The Group then went through each consideration to continue refinement of the language and to reinforce the rationale for each consideration.
The Group discussed competing considerations, including those relating to whether to combine the existing interim policies into a single policy. The Group determined that feedback from the *community forum would assist their decision making process.
Just as it had been in the public comments, Baker Center continued to be central to the discussion. One Policy Group member suggested that a productive solution may involve a compromise to designate indoor space for expressive assemblies other than the Baker Center rotunda. The Group agreed that, overall, members must be thoughtful about what they put forth as recommendations.
The group also discussed whether it is better to enumerate outdoor and indoor spaces that are available for protests and assemblies, or to list outdoor and indoor spaces where that activity is forbidden.
The Group discussed the concept of “Free Speech Zones” and that they are typically disfavored because, historically, they have been designated in out-of-they way spaces. Members also wanted to ensure that the educational mission of the institution remain paramount, and that protests not impede the university’s educational mission.
Also, a new policy should be structured in a way as to minimize the need for reliance on disruption as a criterion for managing assemblies.
There was discussion about the need for a formalized process to respond to demonstrations. A team of faculty and staff who respond to these issues may need to be established.
Finally, the Group discussed the significance of the considerations to its work. Finalizing these considerations is an important milestone in the process, but the considerations themselves do not represent the Group’s final recommendations. Further, it is important to note that the Group is not drafting the final policy, which will be written by the Executive Staff Policy Committee. The group anticipates, however, that their final recommendations will carry great weight with the Executive Staff Policy Committee.
The open forum was the last order of business. The Group discussed logistics and made plans for a successful event. A notice about the open forum will be sent to the University community next week and will include the draft themes and considerations as they currently stand.
Members in attendance at the Feb. 26 Presidential Advisory Group meeting included: Scott Titsworth, Dean representative and advisory group convener; Landen Lama, President, Student Senate; Maria Modayil, President, Graduate Student Senate; Jacqueline Wolf, designee for Chair, Faculty Senate; Sharon Romina, Chair, Classified Senate; Jessica Wingett, Chair, Administrative Senate; Katherine Jellison, Chair/Director representative; Grant Garber, Legal Affairs representative; Andrew Powers, Chief of Police; Dusty Kilgour, Executive Director of Baker University Center; and Carly Leatherwood, University Communications and Marketing, ex-officio.
*The University community was invited to an open forum on Wednesday, March 21 from 5:30 p.m. – 7 p.m. in Baker University Center’s Ballroom A.