FAQs

The text of the First Amendment restricts the government (which includes UCLA, as a public university) from abridging the freedom of speech, religion, peaceful assembly and ability to petition the government for a redress of grievances. It has been interpreted by courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, to protect a wide range of activities including speaking at or attending rallies, participating in organizations, reading books of one’s choice and more. Essentially, the First Amendment means that the government may not penalize or restrict expressive conduct, except in certain defined circumstances.

The government can also restrict speech and public expression activities via content-neutral regulations, such what are sometimes referred to as Time, Place and Manner restrictions. For instance, restricting the size of signs on government property or the hours during which an event may be held.

UCLA has a long history of respecting the First Amendment rights of all members of its campus community, working diligently to respond to events and situations that raise First Amendment issues with respect, thoughtfulness and consideration of their impact on the campus community.

Learn more about the First Amendment from the National Constitution Center. You can also learn about the First Amendment’s role at UC campuses on the UC National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement website and UCLA’s Office of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion.

The First Amendment denies governmental entities (including public universities like UCLA) the power to punish speech they do not like — and it protects the rights of all of us to speak as our consciences dictate. Denying the government the power to censor speech increases the power the rest of us have to advocate for our ideas, question the status quo, criticize the government and challenge those in power. It helps create space for the democratic process and for social change. 

We might think that if speech is clearly destructive and opposed to basic accepted values then we should be able to prohibit or punish it. But think of how many ideas that most of us take for granted today — that racial minorities should have equal rights, that women should be able to vote, that gay people should be able to marry — which were once controversial, unpopular and seen as threatening to the social fabric. If those ideas had been successfully suppressed by the state, grave inequalities would not have been addressed.

Giving government officials or university leaders, including student leaders, the power to determine what speech is allowed versus what speech is censored invites abuse. If the majority can enforce its views through punishing the speech of the minority, it would have the power to keep targeted groups and ideas marginalized and disadvantaged. 

And the pendulum of power can swing in different directions. If the majority shares your view of whose speech should be silenced, then you might be okay with the authorities using that power. But if those in power can punish speech you do not like, when new people come into power, they can punish speech you do like. Would you want to live in such a society? Would you want a UCLA administrator, California governor, or U.S. president to wield such power?

Some ideas are unpopular for good reason. They should stay unpopular because people of good conscience reject those ideas of their own free will, not because the government punishes or silences them. Offensive ideas should be the target of persuasion, not coercion.

Freedom of Speech is not an absolute right and certain speech does not have First Amendment protection. This includes a narrowly defined set of exceptions including fighting words, incitement of illegal activity, true threats and harassment.

Types of speech that are outside of the protection of the First Amendment include, but are not limited to:

• Incitement: Activity or speech that advocates for producing ‘imminent lawless action’ and is likely to produce such action.
• Defamation: An intentional and false statement about an individual that is publicly communicated in written (called “libel”) or spoken (called “slander”) form, causing injury to the individual.
• Harassment: Unwelcome conduct based on a protected category that interferes with a person’s work, educational or living environment such that a reasonable person would find the conduct intimidating, hostile or offensive. Such conduct may include speech.  Conduct must be severe or pervasive (not just offensive) in order to constitute harassment.
• True threats: Serious expressions conveying that the speaker intends to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.

Many people like to make a distinction between “free speech” and “hate speech.” In fact, there is no such easy distinction and, uncomfortable as it may be, much of what people may consider hate speech is protected as free speech.  

The term “hate speech” does not have a legal definition in the United States, but it often refers to speech that insults or demeans a person or group of people on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability or gender.

UCLA sees hate speech as abhorrent, particularly given our country’s legacy of bigotry, genocide, slavery, exclusion and internment and the ongoing ways in which speech is deployed to marginalize groups. We thus understand the instinct some might have to banish or punish “hate speech,” particularly on a college campus dedicated to equity and inclusion. Nevertheless, the First Amendment generally prohibits us from prohibiting speech on the basis of its content.

Moreover, the term “hate speech” can be malleable. For instance, what is valid criticism of the government in some people’s eyes could be seen by others as unpatriotic or hating America (i.e., the burning of an American flag, long-considered provocative but constitutionally protected speech, could be construed by some as expressing hatred of the United States).

Some “hate speech” may violate UC and campus policies prohibiting discrimination and harassment, as discussed further below.

UCLA is dedicated to fostering a campus climate that is diverse and inclusive, and vigorously opposes and deplores all forms of hate-fueled speech.

In some situations, the best antidote to hateful speech is more, not less, speech and reflection. We encourage Bruins to address hate speech on campus through activities that present alternative points of view, such as rallies that comply with Time, Place and Manner restrictions, academic discussions or other counter-programming. UCLA also supports the ability of faculty, staff and students to use their free speech rights to condemn hateful speech if they wish.

If any member of the community has observed or experienced  discrimination based upon any protected category, or has observed or experienced sexual violence or sexual harassment, they can report the incident to the UCLA Civil Rights Office, or to the UCLA Title IX Office if the discrimination or harassment is sex or gender based.

The University of California defines harassment as unwelcome conduct based on an individual’s actual or perceived ‘protected category’ (see Section II.B.5 in the linked policy) that is sufficiently severe, persistent or pervasive that it unreasonably interferes with, denies or adversely limits an individual’s participation in or benefit from the education, employment or other programs or activities of the university, and creates an environment that a reasonable person would find to be intimidating or offensive.

Complaints of discrimination and harassment that may meet the criteria above should be made to the UCLA Civil Rights Office, or to the UCLA Title IX Office if the discrimination or harassment is sex or gender based.

Similar to when speech becomes harassment, the Constitutional protection of the use of nonverbal symbols depends on the situation. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the use of symbols such as swastikas, peace signs and crosses is protected when the symbols are displayed before a general audience at a march or demonstration. Other examples include wearing armbands in solidarity or displaying graphic anti-abortion imagery in public. 

These same symbols, however, may not be protected speech if they are displayed on an individual’s lawn or posted on residence hall doors because they could be a true threat or harassment. In these circumstances, the speaker could face disciplinary action. Graffiti displaying these symbols could violate other content-neutral restrictions, like criminal trespass and vandalism laws. Additionally, any sign, poster, banner, flag or similar displays are not to be placed or affixed on university buildings and structures or inside buildings and structures where such displays are placed, attached or affixed in a manner which makes the display clearly visible to the outside, except as provided for in UCLA Policy 850: General Use of UCLA Property and in UCLA Policy 852: Public Expression Activities.

Yes, the First Amendment right to free speech applies to clothing and signs as well as what someone says verbally.

UCLA’s Principles of Community aim to ensure a welcoming and inclusive environment for all members of the campus community and to serve as a guide for our personal and collective behavior. Our expectation is that honoring our Principles of Community will help people exercise their First Amendment rights in a wise, compassionate and productive manner.

UCLA willingly serves as a prominent public venue for open and free exchange of ideas. But to preserve community safety and the regular functioning of the university, UCLA is legally permitted to restrict when, where and how people express themselves. UCLA’s policies provide a framework for the conduct of demonstrations that protects the rights of all persons (demonstrators and non-demonstrators); that conforms to all applicable campus rules and to applicable state laws; and that addresses necessary health, safety and risk management issues. 

UCLA Policy 852: Public Expression Activities outlines what can and cannot be done and provides areas designated for public expression activities. When it comes to scheduled events — including programs with controversial speakers — UCLA and event organizers will follow UCLA Policy 862: Major Events and UCLA Policy 860: Organized Events to ensure that events are held at a time and in a location and manner that allow the event to be successful and keeps the campus safe, regardless of the viewpoint of the speaker. Registered campus organizations, university units (as defined in UCLA Policy 850: General Use of UCLA Property) and non-affiliates must follow UCLA Policy 862: Major Events and UCLA Policy 860: Organized Events to ensure appropriate application of the time, place and manner procedures.

No, all students who want to register an organization can do so, provided they meet the established content- and viewpoint-neutral criteria. There may still be requirements and deadlines that will be enforced and used to approve and deny organizations’ requests, but none of these mechanisms are based on the viewpoint of the organization. For example, an organization might be denied for failing to complete paperwork or other administrative requirements by a certain date, but it would not be denied because of the focus of the organization. There are also rules governing such organizations that prohibit discrimination based on protected characteristics in membership.

UCLA supports the notion of a “marketplace of ideas,” in which speech that a person disagrees with should be met with more speech, engagement and debate. Even though no marketplace is perfect, and market failures of various kinds can and do occur, the First Amendment and the university are founded on the premise that we are all better off if ideas can be expressed and responded to, rather than be subject to an imposed orthodoxy of belief and punished for deviating from it.

Free speech is particularly important to a university like UCLA whose goal is the discovery and establishment of truth. Many ideas now fundamental to our understanding of the universe and our place in it — such as evolution, equality, diversity, inclusion or climate change — were initially attacked. Freedom of speech is so important to our institution that one of the university’s bedrock principles is academic freedom, which protects faculty in their research and teaching, as well as the free speech and assembly of its students.

The university may restrict or discipline conduct considered to be harassment, as outlined in the UC Anti-Discrimination Policy, which defines harassment as unwelcome conduct based on an individual’s actual or perceived ‘protected category’ (see Section II.B.5 in the linked policy) that is sufficiently severe, persistent or pervasive that it unreasonably interferes with, denies or adversely limits an individual’s participation in or benefit from the education, employment or other programs or activities of the university, and creates an environment that a reasonable person would find to be intimidating or offensive. Offensive or hateful speech that does not meet the definition of harassment may be protected under the Constitution. Also see the UC Policy on Abusive Conduct in the Workplace.

Yes. While the university can place some limits on its official and sponsored websites, it cannot regulate the content of social media posting on unaffiliated sites, including personal or group social media pages, any more than it can regulate speech in other fora.

The Constitution prohibits UCLA, as a public institution, from banning or punishing speech based on its content or viewpoint. Because campus policy permits Registered Campus Organizations to invite speakers to campus and provides access to certain campus venues for that purpose, the university cannot take away that right or withdraw those resources based on the views of the invited speaker or the content of their speech. Doing so would violate the First Amendment. There are specific circumstances, such as outlined in UCLA Policy 862: Major Events, where an event (including events featuring a speaker invited through the proper process) may be canceled, including where the university reasonably believes it cannot protect the safety of the campus.

The U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that a public institution like UCLA cannot prevent speech on the grounds that it is likely to provoke a hostile response. Stopping speech before it occurs is called “prior restraint,” and prior restraints of speech are almost never allowed.

While the campus is constitutionally required and committed to doing what it can to protect speakers and to prevent disruption or violence, if despite all reasonable efforts by the campus there is a serious threat to public safety and reasonable alternatives cannot be employed to protect the safety of the public (typically informed by an event security assessment), a speaker’s event can be canceled or rescheduled. This is a last resort and is not based on the views of the speaker but rather to protect the safety of its students, staff and faculty.

The decision to cancel events is only made after careful consideration and consultation with campus partners, the event organizers and administration. In many cases, this review involves a robust security assessment. UCLA reviews all events from a viewpoint-neutral perspective and assesses each situation independent from any speaker’s opinion or point of view.

UCLA takes great care to assist all event organizers with understanding the safety and approval process at each event location. The safety and security of students, staff and faculty is non-negotiable and failure to fulfill basic security-related obligations, including the withholding of pertinent information or the provision of false information, can, on occasion, lead to an event postponement or cancellation. Cancellation will not occur based solely on a speaker’s opinions or on the potential for said speaker to offend.

Event organizers will know in advance the expectations for their program, the deadlines they must meet in order to be successful and the resources they have at their disposal for assistance throughout the process. However, those expectations are dependent on the provision of correct and up-to-date information by event organizers.

All members of the campus community may exercise their First Amendment rights in a manner that complies with UCLA policies, including Time, Place and Manner restrictions and the UC Anti-Discrimination Policy, which are intended to ensure safety and to prevent protest activity from infringing on the rights of others. See UCLA Policy 852: Public Expression Activities.

UCLA staff and faculty are available to assist students with understanding their rights on campus, consequences for their actions that violate applicable policies and best practices for engagement. Ultimately, you are responsible for your own actions.

The “Heckler’s Veto” is the notion that “hecklers” may restrict or limit free speech by merely drowning out or outnumbering a speaker, or that they would be so unruly that defending the exchange of ideas and protecting the safety of a speaker would be made impracticable (i.e., that a speaker would be denied the opportunity to speak because of the audience reaction).

With pre-planned events scheduled in conformance with UCLA policies, it may be the university’s role to protect the speaker and willing audience members from a heckler’s veto, meaning that overly disruptive audience members may find themselves facing a wide range of consequences in order to allow the speaker their continued ability to speak.

Before large events, UCLA administrators or designated officials will often provide notice prior to the start of programming: “Thank you for attending. At UCLA we respect and hold freedom of speech and expression as intrinsic to the values of our campus environment, as well as those of higher education. Our challenge is to make sure that we make room for all perspectives, which includes the right to present speakers and programs, and the right to protest speech.

Today’s speaker and discussion is brought to us by a student organization at UCLA for the engagement of our campus community. We understand that the talk may elicit disagreement, and we recognize and value the rights of individuals to express their feelings. But the university will not permit a response or a protest that is so disruptive as to effectively silence the invited speaker and prevent the speaker from communicating with a willing audience.

Campus officials are present and prepared to approach any individual or group who create such a disruption during this program. They will be warned, and if the disruption continues, the individuals will be escorted out of the venue and subject to arrest by the University Police Department. Individuals so removed may be held accountable under the Office of Student Conduct as well as any applicable criminal laws.”

An event organizer may appeal a university decision related to the major events or organized events policies if they feel the following occurred:

1. A denial of use of property violates university or campus policies
2. A university-required security measure is abuse of discretion
3. A university restriction imposed is not viewpoint neutral

See UCLA Policy 860: Organized Events  for the appeal process for an organized event and
UCLA Policy 862: Major Events for the appeal process for a major event.

As a place of higher learning committed to inclusive excellence, UCLA has programs, initiatives and centers to foster dialogue and the exchange of ideas, while also strengthening the community’s critical thinking and leadership skills.

The UCLA Student Leadership Academy aims to foster leadership development, critical thinking and self-reflection, and career readiness of undergraduate students to best prepare to contribute to society with the passion, experience and skill sets necessary to thrive once they graduate. Students are given an opportunity to engage in a blend of leadership experiences that combine intellectual stimulation via seminars, space for dialogue facilitated by campus educators, and strong partnerships with community partners. Selected students participate as a cohort in an immersive residential experience occurring over the summer. Over the course of the academy, the students participate in a leadership self-assessment; meet with the campus and community leaders; and network with UCLA educators. In 2024, the leadership academy was offered to incoming first-year and transfer students as part of orientation programming.

The Chancellor’s LINK program offers an immersive curriculum for 20–25 students annually to combine intellectual stimulation in the classroom; space for dialogue facilitated by faculty and administrative leadership; and strong partnerships with government, non-profit, corporate and community entities to offer meaningful experiential learning opportunities alongside complementary internship experiences.

Upon completion of the program, students have:

• A strengthened entrepreneurial mindset to question the status quo and explore diverse avenues for social change;
• The ability to devise creative solutions to existing challenges in various industries and areas of society;
• The skills to engage in civil conversations and work with individuals with opposing viewpoints to deliver quality results;
• The capacity to translate classroom learning, theoretical principles and their own ideas into action;
• A focus on personal reflection to clarify one’s own personal ethical standards; and
• A definition of their personal and professional aspirations in the larger context of being an engaged social actor.

Additionally, a workshop presented by UCLA’s Office of Student Organizations, Leadership & Engagement (SOLE) for newly registered organizations and new signatories of returning organizations emphasizes collaboration between different organizations and support for different ideas being presented within the campus community.

There are also a number of organization-led efforts to foster diversity and different viewpoints within their respective areas, such as the UCLA Administration Equity Council.

In academic year 2024–25, our Four-Point Plan for a Safer, Stronger UCLA includes a provision to foster a culture of engagement, learning and dialogue across difference. We intend to leverage other areas of campus to better support conversations across diverse viewpoints. Here are a few examples:

The UCLA Bedari Kindness Institute is committed not only to engaging in best-in-class research on kindness, but to strategically turn that learning into real-world practices through education and dynamic local, national and global partnerships.

The Dialogue across Difference (DaD) Initiative aims to model and promote the values of intellectual engagement, curiosity, empathy, active listening and critical thinking through a series of campus events, classes, informal learning opportunities and social programming. Through its four prongs of campus collaboration, student leadership, teaching programs, and training and workshops, DaD maximizes campus resources and expertise to help build these critical skills in our community.

The UCLA Initiative to Study Hate is a three-year pilot project intended to foster cutting-edge research and high-level teaching to understand and mitigate group-based hate. As one of the world’s leading public institutions, UCLA has an obligation to understand and mitigate the destructive force of hatred in the world.

UCLA’s First Year Experience program has chosen the book The War for Kindness — focused on how we build up our capacity for empathy — as the common experience for all incoming students to read.

Yes, UCLA provides a variety of opportunities for the campus community.

Through Student Affairs, the Office of Student Organizations, Leadership & Engagement (SOLE) hosts an annual new student organization workshop that emphasizes the importance of supporting the balance between free speech, the university’s mission and student safety. Each student organization has a dedicated advisor who meets with student leaders when planning large activities or events to consider broader implications to the campus community; ensure groups are made aware of time, place and manner policies; and support implementing measures needed to protect student safety. The SOLE Signatory Newsletter also clearly outlines that advisors for an organization assist with supporting the balance between these issues. These issues are also discussed at Undergraduate Students Association Council and Graduate Student Association forums.

In 2023–24, Campus Life and Civic Engagement hosted ‘Democracy Workshops,’ a programmatic series aimed at equipping students with the skills and knowledge necessary for active democratic engagement. A total of five workshops covered topics including critical media literacy, talking across political differences, election administration, understanding your ballot and a special edition watch party for California’s U.S. Senate debate. Campus Life also collaborated with the Center for Community Engagement on a first-ever Civic Learning and Democratic Engagement (CLDE) Network. The Network, comprised of students, staff and faculty who have an interest in promoting civic engagement at UCLA, aims to synergize and strengthen CLDE efforts across campus and create opportunities to meet with local and statewide leaders, including alumna and California Secretary of State Shirley Weber.

Campus Life also supports BruinsVote, the university’s official student-led vote coalition, and its members, by hosting a voter registration training with the L.A. County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk’s office, providing guidance and equipment for weekly voter outreach tabling, supervising the BruinsVote social media fellow, helping kickstart the BruinsVote Ambassador Program and coordinating fireside chats with UCLA Leadership. As part of the Dialogue Across Difference Advisory Committee, Campus Life leaders co-lead the Student Leadership Program. In 2023–24, the inaugural program was made up of 13 students who spent the year learning about the fundamentals of dialogue and, in turn, became campus ambassadors for this work.

The UC National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement has also developed workshops curated specifically for UC staff and faculty members in order to provide space for teams across the system to think through how to support student expression on campus, manage institutional responses to visits by controversial speakers or speaker disruptions, and simultaneously maintain a campus climate of inclusivity and belonging. These workshops cover:

• Campus Safety and Protest Management
• Exploring First Amendment Principles and Campus Expression
• Title VI Today
• Academic Freedom 101

UCPD has a modest police force that may not always be capable of intervening in large-scale events. It reserves the right to make tactical decisions in association with campus administration. UCPD collaborates directly with campus leadership, including UCLA Student Affairs, Employee and Labor Relations, Parking Enforcement and Events.

UCLA affiliates (i.e., staff, faculty and students) who are arrested for unlawful behavior or cited for a violation of UC or UCLA policies must be referred to the applicable office that reviews staff and faculty and student codes of conduct. The applicable office must then review the underlying conduct of the staff member, faculty member or student under the applicable campus review process and may issue sanctions in accordance with applicable campus policies. Complaints against non-affiliates are referred to law enforcement for investigation.

Faculty, staff, union-represented staff and academic appointees are subject to various applicable policies, including those listed below:

• UCLA Policies Governing Workplace Conduct
• UCLA Personnel Policies for Staff
• UCLA Collective Bargaining Agreements
• UCLA Academic Personnel Manual
• UCLA Faculty Conduct Policies
• UC Faculty Code of Conduct

Specifically for students, UCLA’s process is outlined under Section III. Student Conduct Procedures, in the Student Conduct Code. The Student Conduct Code also states: “Students may be subject to discipline on the basis of a conviction under any federal, California state or local criminal law, when the conviction constitutes reasonable cause to believe that the student poses a threat to the health or safety of any person, or to the security of any property, on University premises or at official University functions or to the orderly operation of the campus.”

The UCLA Civil Rights Office receives complaints and conducts investigations of all forms of discrimination, harassment and sexual violence to uphold civil rights protections for the UCLA community. When a member of the community reports an incident, one of the units within the Civil Rights Office will contact the individual who experienced the alleged harm. After engaging with that person or persons, the unit will make an initial assessment, including a limited inquiry when appropriate, to determine how to proceed. Civil rights responses may include: administrative closure, alternative resolution, formal investigation or other inquiry. Read more about Civil Rights Protections at UCLA.

When the conviction also represents a violation involving sexual harassment and sexual violence (including domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking), the Title IX Office will review the matter pursuant to the UC Policy on Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment. Where the Title IX Office determines that it does not have jurisdiction over an allegation, the Office of Student Conduct may review the incident(s) to determine if the code applies.

In order to create inclusive spaces where all voices are heard and our community members can engage in their educational, academic, research and patient care pursuits, the university must also take consistent and fair accountability measures against individuals whose conduct violates the university’s policies. These accountability measures are taken only after disciplinary proceedings are completed with appropriate procedural safeguards. Consistent with Regents Bylaw 40, for faculty, the proposed imposition of any type of disciplinary sanction will proceed in accordance with the established policies and procedures for discipline, including an opportunity for a prior hearing before an appropriate advisory committee of the Division of the Academic Senate.

Accountability measures for the violation of the university’s policies may include but are not limited to:

• Students: Educational sanctions, written warning, disciplinary probation, exclusion from areas of the campus or from official university functions, restitution, suspension and dismissal.
• Staff: Counseling memorandums, written reprimands, suspension without pay, reduction in pay, and termination or dismissal.
• Senate Faculty: Informal counseling memorandums, written censure, reduction in salary, demotion, suspension without pay, non-reappointment, denial or curtailment of emeritus status and dismissal.
• Non-Senate Academic Appointees: Informal counseling memorandums, written warning, written censure, demotion, suspension without pay, reduction in salary, non-reappointment and dismissal.
• Visitors and Non-UC Affiliates: Exclusion from campus, restitution and potential for criminal sanctions for violation of university rules in accordance with the California Education Code.

If violations of local, state and federal law or university’s policies occur, they will be addressed with the following consistent tiered response at all UC locations — with an emphasis on providing community members with multiple opportunities to adjust their conduct:

• Initially, people engaged in committing a policy violation should be informed of the violation and asked to change their conduct. Multiple requests may be made, and compliance with the requests means the response will not be escalated.
• If the people involved do not comply with requests to alter their conduct, they will be warned about potential consequences and directed to comply. If the conduct continues, UC Police Department (UCPD) and/or Campus Fire Marshal will assess the situation and, based on their assessment, may issue an unlawful assembly notice/announcement, orders to disperse, orders to identify oneself, or other relevant orders.
• In the final phase of tiered response, people who refuse to change their conduct as directed may be cited for a violation of the relevant university policy. If they are breaking the law they may be cited, detained and arrested for unlawful behavior, or subject to other police actions. Stay-away orders may be issued for higher severity violations and/or for repeat offenses. The university may utilize University of California Police Departments or other state or local law enforcement agencies to maintain the health and safety of the university community.
• Members of the university community who are arrested for unlawful behavior must have their conduct evaluated for potential violations of university policy. Members of the university community who are cited for a violation of university policy must go through the applicable campus review process.

While the tiered response outlines consistent expectations in many situations, it is not a rigid prescription that will capture all situations, all specific violations of policy or law, or all response actions. It does not dictate a specific timeframe. A tiered response does not mean a slow response but one that fits the situation and the resources to address it. Specifically, if violation of policy or law poses an immediate threat to life safety (imminent threat of harm or endangerment to people and/or systems designed to protect people from immediate harm, i.e., fire detection and suppression systems) or critical university functions, the university will act accordingly and mobilize the appropriate resources, which may include UCPD, Campus Fire Marshal, and/or other resources to respond. This is consistent with the university’s established tiered response approach, where an escalation of threat to life safety or of disruption to operations demands a rapidly escalated response. The tiered response approach outlined above is rooted in the best practices and recommendations of the Robinson-Edley report and the Community Safety Plan to encourage free expression while safeguarding the rights of all members to teach, study, and exchange ideas freely.

For conduct covered by the preliminary injunction that was issued by the District Court for the Central District of California in August 2024 (relating to student access to ordinarily available campus areas, programs or activities), see answer six under the ‘Campus Response’ FAQs below.  

You can find more information about how UCLA is complying with California State Senate Bill 108, SEC. 219, 34 on UCLA’s California State Senate Bill 108, SEC. 219, 34 webpage.

University policy states that no individual or group of individuals may prohibit or obstruct any student from accessing any ordinarily available campus areas, programs or activities on the basis of their religion, race, or any other protected characteristic, or on the basis of their political or other viewpoints, including their beliefs about the state of Israel. Individuals must also comply with all of the University’s time, place, and manner policies and other policies that may impact campus events or expressive activities.

If any individual or group of individuals is prohibiting or obstructing students from accessing ordinarily available campus areas, programs or activities in violation of University policy, University officials will act to promptly restore access to students, while also limiting risks of substantial disruptions to campus operations or risks to health and safety. That includes by:

1. Informing individuals that they are engaging in a policy violation and directing them to change their conduct and/or remove the barrier to access.
2. Warning individuals of the potential consequences of failure to comply and further directing them to comply.
3. If individuals fail to comply and barriers to access remain, the University will involve appropriate resources which may include the Campus Fire Marshal, the UC Police Department, and/or other state or local law enforcement agencies to assist with removal of the barriers to access and take other appropriate action which may include involving law enforcement and may result in discipline and/or arrests.
4. Instituting the applicable campus review process for members of the University community who are cited for a violation of campus rules or law.

You can find more information about the preliminary injunction in these FAQs for students and employees.

The principles of academic freedom protect freedom of inquiry and the kinds of research a person conducts, freedom of teaching, and freedom of expression and publication. These freedoms enable the university to advance knowledge and to transmit it effectively to its students and to the public. The university also seeks to foster in its students a mature independence of mind, and this purpose cannot be achieved unless students and faculty are free within the classroom to express a wide range of viewpoints in accordance with the standards of scholarly inquiry and professional ethics, and including in alignment with the curriculum and pedagogy of a given course.

You can learn more about academic freedom from the University of California and UCLA’s joint Senate-Administration Task Force on Academic Freedom’s Statement on the Principles of Scholarly Research and Public Records Requests.

Harassment and discrimination violate university policy. The University of California defines harassment as unwelcome conduct based on an individual’s actual or perceived ‘protected category’ (see Section II.B.5 in the linked policy) that is sufficiently severe, persistent or pervasive that it unreasonably interferes with, denies or adversely limits an individual’s participation in or benefit from the education, employment or other programs or activities of the university, and creates an environment that a reasonable person would find to be intimidating or offensive. The same policy defines discrimination as an unfavorable action taken because of an individual’s actual or perceived protected category. Complaints of discrimination and harassment should be made to the UCLA Civil Rights Office or the UCLA Title IX Office if the discrimination or harassment is sex or gender based.

While UCLA subscribes to the concept of a “marketplace of ideas” in which the truth will win out through rigorous debate, markets are imperfect and “market failures” can occur. Some people have more opportunities to speak than others, more resources to disseminate their speech than others, more opportunities to be heard than others and greater ability to drown out the voices of others. And in a marketplace in which popularity — rather than what is best, the highest quality or the most truthful — can determine what succeeds in the marketplace, speech that conforms to or implicitly or explicitly reinforces existing stereotypes may have an unfair advantage.   

Nonetheless, UCLA recommends “better” speech to counter “bad” speech; not because it will guarantee truth or produce the best ideas, but because without response, perceived “bad” ideas go unchallenged by perceived “good” ones.

UCLA cares about freedom of speech — a constitutional right and value — but we care about other constitutional values and rights as well, such as our commitment to equality as mandated by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The difficulty is that sometimes freedom of speech promotes equality (by, for example, preventing the government from silencing marginalized voices) and sometimes it does not (by, for example, permitting the use of racial epithets in some contexts). Time, place and manner restrictions are another way in which we recognize that freedom of speech is not absolute or completely unfettered. Competing concerns regarding safety, access and institutional functioning must be considered along with our strong commitment to free speech. Similarly, rights often may need to be balanced with responsibilities. What one can say or do is not always the same as what one should say or do. Insults and epithets may indeed be protected by the First Amendment, but we may refrain from using them out of compassion, respect, the desire to elevate the discourse or other valid reasons.

Views about free speech rarely map neatly onto political ideology. To the contrary, history reveals that all sides across the political spectrum have sought to suppress opposing viewpoints. It is generally easier to recognize others’ intolerance, but not our own. Humility and history counsel us to understand that no part of the political spectrum is without blind spots.

Relatedly, whenever the government comes after speech we like, it is natural to be outraged and to assert our free speech rights. Meanwhile, we might approve if the government goes after speech we do not like. But if the government can easily go after them, a different government could just as easily come after us. There is not always perfect symmetry or equivalencies — history reveals that some groups have borne the brunt of constitutional rights violations more persistently and systemically than others. As a general rule, legal rights often work like a double-edged sword. They cut in both directions. If we have rights, so do they. If the government can penalize their views today it can penalize our views tomorrow.