Santa Cruz ACLU Addresses Letter of Concern to UCSC Chancellor

To: Chancellor George Blumenthal
Campus Provost/Executive Vice Chancellor Alison Galloway

Re: Suspensions of Highway 6

The Santa Cruz County Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California (ACLUNC SC) wishes to express its concern regarding issues of freedom of speech and due process of law that have arisen in the case of the six UCSC undergraduate students who have been suspended for their protest that blocked Highway 1 (the “Highway 6”). Although we understand that the actions taken by university administrators are governed generally by relevant internal policies, those policies and their application are always subject to the substantive and procedural due process rights guaranteed to every person by the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

Historically, the ACLU has been our nation’s guardian of civil liberties, working to defend and preserve the individual rights that the Constitution guarantees to everyone. The Santa Cruz County Chapter is committed to engaging on issues of local importance that impact each citizen’s ability to freely exercise those rights. This commitment is particularly important where, as here, fear and misunderstanding threaten to crowd out rational thought and reason.

The University’s power to issue emergency suspensions is limited by the California Supreme Court ruling Braxton v. Municipal Court (1973) 10 Cal.3d 138. Under Braxton, a campus official issuing a suspension must provide “notice and a hearing on alleged misconduct before the issuance of any exclusion order unless the campus administrator reasonably finds that the situation is such an exigent one that the continued presence on the campus of the person from whom consent to remain is withdrawn constitutes a substantial and material threat of significant injury to persons or property.”

We understand that the University initially suspended the Highway 6 without notice or opportunity to be heard, which we believe was in violation of Braxton. We are not aware of any showing that was made prior to the interim suspension orders that the “continued presence on the campus” of any of the Highway 6 “constitute[d] a substantial and material threat of significant injury to persons or property.” Indeed, we cannot imagine that such a showing could be made in light of (1) the political nature of the protest and (2) the fact that the actions taken by the Highway 6 did not take place on campus.

We are equally concerned about the chilling effect these suspensions may have on the right of every person on campus to exercise his or her constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of speech. Free speech is, of course, central to the proper functioning of our democracy, but we are sure you will agree that it is especially important in a university setting, where it must be taught, fostered, and encouraged – not chilled.

It is our understanding that each student may appeal the Voluntary Resolution that he or she has received, and that the substantive bases for such an appeal include “whether there was procedural fairness at the Voluntary Meeting” and “whether the punishment was over harsh in consideration of the facts.” Although we cannot comment on the procedural fairness of the Voluntary Meeting, we believe, for the reasons discussed above, that the University did not comply with its due process obligations prior to the issuance of the interim suspensions. Addressing the issue now can clarify the guidelines and procedures for future cases.

Regarding the question of whether the punishment was over harsh in consideration of the facts, we believe that a suspension of four academic quarters is wholly disproportionate to the action taken by the students, in light of both the indisputably important and relevant subject matter and the off-campus location of the protest.

Although many in our community and on campus may have been made uncomfortable and even inconvenienced by the manner in which theses six students expressed themselves, we must always remember that freedom of speech was not enshrined in the Constitution to make us comfortable; it was intended to make us, and particularly the powerful among us, uncomfortable and, indeed, to make us free.

Respectfully submitted,

___________________________________
Peter Gelblum, Chair
Board of Directors
Santa Cruz County Chapter
ACLU of Northern California