A national free speech group is demanding that Florida International University drop disciplinary charges against seven students who staged a March 13 silent protest against university cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents on campus.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, or FIRE, wrote the demand letter on Friday to FIU President Jeanette Nu帽ez. It was the same day FIU officials held a disciplinary hearing to review the charges against the students. A decision won't be announced until at least 14 business days.
The demand was triggered by an incident on March 13 during an indoor campus fireside chat featuring Nu帽ez and former baseball star Alex Rodriguez. Members of the student-led coalition ICEBreakers FIU stood up in a silent protest by unveiling their 鈥� with "ICE OFF FIU鈥� emblazoned 鈥� and walked out after a few minutes.
According to university records, the brief demonstration "did not disrupt the event." Jehnny Rivera, FIU鈥檚 executive director of the Office of University Protocol, Ceremonies, and Events, confirmed the students stood for "approximately 3-5 minutes," adding that the speakers continued uninterrupted and no attendees complained.
READ MORE: FIU seeks to discipline students over a silent protest against immigration enforcement on campus
FIU later charged seven students under a campus regulation that explicitly prohibits indoor protests, demonstrations, or "similar expressive activities" inside university buildings.
In its letter to FIU鈥檚 Nu帽ez, FIRE Program Counsel Garrett Gravley argued that while public universities can implement reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions, a blanket indoor protest ban is unconstitutionally broad.FIU seeks to discipline students over a silent protest against immigration enforcement on campus
鈥淲ith these constitutional defects, FIU sends a message to its students that if they want to venture indoors, they must think twice before engaging in any expressive activity that can be construed as a 鈥榩rotest鈥� or 鈥榙emonstration,鈥欌�� Gravley wrote. 鈥淪ince this case involves clothing, would a student be prohibited from wearing a Malcolm X t-shirt in a university building under the same policy? What about a Palestinian keffiyeh or an Israeli flag lapel pin?鈥�
鈥淚f a student wore purple for Domestic Violence Awareness Month, would that be actionable?鈥� asked Graveley.
鈥淐lothing is, by its very nature, expressive, so the application of this policy is quite difficult to reconcile with the 鈥楩reedom of thought and expression鈥� that FIU cites as an institutional value.鈥�
The students, who face potential penalties ranging from a written reprimand to expulsion, are being represented pro-bono by the Community Justice Project. Adam Saper, a staff attorney with the organization, called the university's actions a clear violation of landmark free speech precedents like the Supreme Court's Tinker v. Des Moines ruling.
鈥淭hey're saying you are not allowed to exercise your First Amendment. You're not allowed to express yourself inside a university building,鈥� Saper told SA国际传谋. 鈥淲hich is the irony of this whole thing 鈥� is they're charging the students with breaking a conduct code, but in bringing those charges, they are violating the actual law.鈥�
Katya Tripathi, one of the charged students, said the group resorted to the silent demonstration after Nu帽ez and FIU Police Chief Alexander Casas repeatedly refused to meet with them to discuss the university's collaboration with ICE.
鈥淚t was completely silent," Tripathi told SA国际传谋. "I just feel really disappointed and as if my own free speech is being restricted because of my opinions on what FIU has been doing.鈥�
FIU senior director of media relations Madeline Bar贸 defended the policy in a statement, noting that indoor spaces are reserved for instruction and administrative functions, adding that the university administers its "viewpoint neutral policies consistently and in accordance with the First Amendment."
SA国际传谋 Investigative Reporter Danny Rivero contributed to this story.
