Thread by @studentactivism

Hey, civil libertarians: The U of Wisconsin just passed a policy that says students can be expelled for heckling. apnews.com/866eec6efb9841…

The policy bans "disorderly conduct that materially and substantially disrupts the free expression of others." Three strikes and you're out.

What does it mean to "materially and substantially disrupt the free expression of others"? The policy doesn't say.

All but two members of the UW board of regents were appointed by Scott Walker, if you're wondering how this is likely to be implemented.

All but one of the regents voted for the policy. The exception, Tony Evers, superintendent of WI public schools, is running for governor.

Also important to note: This isn't just for UW Madison. It applies to the whole UW system—26 colleges enrolling 180,000 students.

The rule mandates a one-semester suspension for a second offense, expulsion for a third. Mandates. No exceptions.

Which means that if you're found to have engaged in "disorderly conduct" once, you risk mandatory half-year suspension if you protest again.

And of course you can never know for sure what will be deemed "material and substantial disruption of free expression of others."

And because the three-strikes (two-strikes, really, since who can absorb a semester's suspension) clock runs your entire time at UW.

So if you're found to have violated the policy in your first semester, your freedom to protest is chilled until you graduate.

Crucially, the UW system now needs to write implementation policies for this, which Walker and the legislature need to approve.

Very happy to see @uwmaaup retweeting these tweets, by the way.

At the conference I'm attending, I've been thinking a LOT about how infrequently faculty see students' rights as an academic freedom issue.

The phrase "violent or other disorderly conduct" is a deeply, deeply disturbing one. wisconsin.edu/regents/downlo…

Had lunch. Back. Want to talk a bit more about "conduct that materially and substantially disrupts the free expression of others."

The phrase "materially and substantially disrupts" has a long history in school and campus free speech jurisprudence.

Tinker v. Des Moines, for instance, discusses conduct that "materially and substantially disrupt[s] the work and discipline of the school."

But the phrase "materially and substantially disrupt the free expression of others"? Invented for this policy. It never existed before.

You see how huge the difference is, right? "The work and discipline of the school" is a big thing. It's broad. It's ongoing. It's vast.

I haven't always agreed with post-Tinker SCOTUS student speech rulings, but—particularly on a high school level—it's a workable framework.

"Materially and substantially disrupt the free expression of others," in contrast, could mean anything. Nobody knows what it means.

Unmoored from the concept of the functioning of the school as an institution, it's a blank check for suppression of protest speech.

The policy is written to simulate consistency with free speech precedent, but it's in fact a radical and untested departure. Don't get took.