ANN ARBOR, Mich. (Michigan News Source) – The University of Michigan Regents voted unanimously yesterday to approve a new statement on free speech guidelines for campus events.

During a special meeting on Tuesday, UM President Santa Ono called the vote “historic” saying before the board vote, “No matter the problems in the day, it is vital that we remain fully committed to freedom of speech and diversity of thought.”

MORE NEWS: Michigan AG Dana Nessel Sues Department of Education Over Mental Health Funding Cuts

The new guidelines on the University’s website are under the heading of “Freedom of Speech and Artistic Expression” under their Standard Practice Guide Policies. They apply to members of the University community (students, faculty, staff, and administrators) and to their invited guests.

What kinds of “speech” are the guidelines referencing?

The guidelines are for “speech or some form of artistic expression such as a play or concert” and to “settings in which an audience has been assembled for a talk or performance, or in which a talk or performance takes place in a public setting at the University.”

The guidelines don’t apply to classrooms nor are they general guidelines concerning “freedom of expression among individuals or in other University settings where protest might occur.”

According to the Detroit News, approval of the new guidelines followed a public feedback and comment period on the University’s updated principles. They were drafted by University faculty and officials. 1988 was the last time the University approved such a statement.

UM has been working on the statement of guidelines since last summer.

Officials at UM say they’ve been working on the guidelines since the summer of 2023 and aren’t a direct response to the protests on campus regarding the Israel-Hamas war.

Both Democrats and Republicans approved the new statement of guidelines.

In Tuesday’s meeting, Democratic UM Regent and attorney Mark Bernstein said the new principles were “the North Star of the University that sits next to our mission statement.” He added, “These principles declare unequivocally that cancel culture is dead at the University of Michigan. We are a public University with a long and proud history of robust engagement on issues of great societal consequence, indeed, actively confronting the most controversial, a hallmark of our culture that we fully embrace.”

Republican Ron Weiser, who is a former Chair of the Michigan Republican Party, had a similar view and said, “It’s really important that we realize that the University is about talking to each other and understanding there’s going to be differences of opinion and viewpoints on many, many subjects. But stopping talking and not having those discussions is what leads to conflict.”

The University commits to supporting the First Amendment.

MORE NEWS: Deadline Comes and Goes as Budget Talks Stall in Split Capitol

The introductory paragraph of the new statement says, “Recent events at the University of Michigan and elsewhere emphasize the pressing need for members of the University community – including administrators, faculty, staff, and students – to reaffirm formally their deep commitment to freedom of speech and artistic expression and to clarify the implications of that commitment.”

The statement continues, “Freedom of speech in this context will be taken to encompass all forms of communication and artistic expression as well as the freedom to listen, watch, protest, or otherwise participate in such communication. It is hoped that this reaffirmation will win the support, in spirit and in letter, of people representing the entire spectrum of opinion of the University community in order to create a truly open forum, one which diverse opinions can be expressed and heard.”

UM welcomes diverse points of view.

The statement explains, “Expression of diverse points of view is of the highest importance, not only for those who espouse a cause or position and then defend it, but also for those who hear and pass judgment on that defense. The belief that an opinion is pernicious, false, or in any other way detestable cannot be grounds for its suppression.”

The guidelines do not cover “acts of physical violence, or verbal harassment or threat directed at individuals in which there is no intent to communicate publicly or with a wider audience.” Nor do they restrict the application of civil or criminal law.

Speech shouldn’t violate the law or subject people to violence and harassment.

The University says their guidelines are not meant to be concerned with rude or offensive behavior or even heckling, embarrassing the speaker, brief interruptions, or sign displays (without sticks and poles), explaining that they have no obligation to insure “audience passivity.”

However, in a press release from UM, it says, “Not all ideas are of equal value. That is precisely why they must be subject to intense scrutiny and thoughtful debate. Our deep commitment to free expression does not extend to speech or conduct that violates the law or university policy, including targeted speech that constitutes bullying, defamation, destruction of property, discrimination, harassment, violence, or threats.”

Undue interference at events won’t be tolerated.

When there is “undue interference” during a campus event then appropriate action will be taken says the University. The guidelines say, “Within its lawful authority to do so, the University will protect the right of any member of the University community, or any invited speaker or artist, to speak or perform, and also will protect the rights of those members of the University community who wish to hear and communicate with an invited speaker or artist.”

The University uses the phrase “protesters must not interfere unduly” as a measuring stick by saying, “Within the confines of a hall or physical facility, or in the vicinity of the place in which a member of the University community, invited speaker, or invited artist is addressing an assembled audience, protesters must not interfere unduly with communication between a speaker or artist and members of the audience.”

The new guidelines say that when events are prevented by disruptive protest, the effect is an attack on freedom of speech. They say their guidelines have been put in place to protect the rights of free expression for speakers and performers as well as protesters.

Consequences for not following the new guidelines.

Going against the University’s “undue interference” standard could involve being physically removed from the event area if it is determined that the free speech rights of the speaker or performer are being violated. The guidelines state, “Protesters and other members of the University community, for their part, have an obligation not to abuse their rights of expression to harass or intimidate speakers in ways that unduly interfere with free expression or communication.”

When the protests DO go too far, guidelines state, “If any of the parties within the confines of the hall or physical facility interfere unduly with freedom of expression or communication, the organizers of the event or University representative must, if possible, put such parties on notice that they are interfering unduly with such rights.

The guidelines explain, “If the notified parties do not stop their undue interference, the organizers or University representative should proceed with those measures deemed necessary to stop it, which may include the physical removal of individuals from the area.”

Legal or other formal action could commence relating to undue interference.

The guidelines continue, “Because freedom of speech and expression play such a critical role in the functioning of a University, undue interference with the exercise of these freedoms by members of the University community may constitute grounds for resort to law or other formal action.”

But action must be fair to all. Any University procedures for formal action “must be even-handed in their application to all parties – whether organizer, protester, or audience member, or administrator, staff, faculty, or student – and must provide full due process and equal standing to bring a complaint,” says the University.

The University says that having to cancel, stop or postpone an event or allow “protracted” interruption of a speech, meeting or performance is “inconsistent with full respect for the rights of free expression and communication of those present.

The show must go on.

The guidelines state, “The overriding goal of the organizers or University representative during a disruption should be to reestablish with deliberate speed an atmosphere conducive to communication between the speaker or artist and the audience, and to full respect for the rights of all parties.”

Also on the board’s agenda this year is moving forward to find the best ways to put the free speech principles into practice throughout the UM campuses. In Ono’s statement from the University, he said, “Open inquiry and spirited debate are critical for promoting discovery and creativity, for creating and advancing knowledge, and for preparing our students to be informed and actively engaged in our democracy,”