A Note about the Development of the Policy

The draft found here reflects extensive consultation that has been occurring throughout our community since the spring of 2017. Input came from many groups, including the Student Policy Advisory Group, formed by SGA; the Faculty Policy Working Group at the College and faculty at the Institute; staff, including staff in Student Affairs, Public Safety and members of the Senior Leadership Group; as well as local law enforcement.

The discussions and input around this policy have been occurring in the context of our newly adopted mission and vision statements, declaring that Middlebury seeks to create a robust and inclusive public sphere, as well as the thoughtful work of the Committee on Speech & Inclusion. As you may know, the Committee on Speech and Inclusion was formed in March 2017, and included faculty, staff, and students. These student, faculty, and staff representatives were asked in the call for volunteers to serve “to identify and engage the questions raised by recent events that are most central to our mission. That work might include a consideration of process and/or format regarding speakers on this campus, as well as the possibility of principles that might guide our selection of speakers or topics for campus engagement.” The Committee issued its Report in January 2018.

Consistent with the fundamental vision of the world Middlebury seeks to create, the Committee on Speech and Inclusion reaffirmed in January 2018, that “robust disagreement is useful and necessary in higher education. Focusing specifically on questions about speakers invited to campus, the Committee expressed their belief that “hosts and potential sponsors must think seriously about how issues of power and privilege complicate arguments about free speech” and should give consideration to structuring events to foster “productive conversation” such as using “formats and venues that facilitate the expression of opposing viewpoints”. Moreover, they urged hosts and sponsors to offer “ample time for the campus to prepare.”

The Committee went on to note that “[a]ttempts to curtail speech that is considered offensive or controversial by some can lead to chilling effect, in conflict with the spirit of our vision statement.” The Committee exhorted the Middlebury community to fulfil our vision of a robust and inclusive public sphere by using “respect and careful listening.” This is based on the fundamental premise that “we are each responsible for the way we speak and engage with other members of our community.” As an educational institution educating students to lead engaged, creative and consequential lives, the Committee emphasized the importance of Middlebury creating “for a range of perspectives to prepare our students for national civic life and equip them with tools for engaging in respectful dialogue.”

BELOW IS THE DRAFT OF THE PROPOSED POLICY. Your review and input is welcome and appreciated, and a comment box is provided at the bottom of this page for relevant and respectful discussion. Please note that your comments will not appear until our moderators have approved them.

Introduction

Freedom of expression is central to Middlebury’s vision of a world with a “robust and inclusive public sphere,” part of the Envisioning Middlebury Strategic Framework, adopted by the Board of Trustees in October 2017. Expressive activity such as protests and demonstrations have historically served to prompt important and beneficial change in American society. The right of protest and dissent is a time-honored principle of America’s constitutions democracy and an honored form of expression within higher education. However, our protection of individuals’ expression is not without limits.

In March 2017, a committee of Middlebury College faculty, students and staff was formed “to identify and engage the questions raised by recent events that are most central to our mission. That work might include a consideration of process and/or format regarding speakers on this campus, as well as the possibility of principles that might guide our selection of speakers or topics for campus engagement.” The Committee issued its Report in January 2018. Consistent with the fundamental vision of the world Middlebury seeks to create, the Committee on Speech and Inclusion reaffirmed in January 2018, that “robust disagreement is useful and necessary in higher education. The Committee observed that “[a]ttempts to curtail speech that is considered offensive or controversial by some can lead to chilling effect, in conflict with the spirit of our vision statement.” The Committee exhorted the Middlebury community to fulfil our vision of a robust and inclusive public sphere by using “respect and careful listening.” This is based on the fundamental premise that “we are each responsible for the way we speak and engage with other members of our community.”

During the 2017-2018 academic year, faculty worked on both our Vermont campus and Monterey campus to articulate the central pillars of a Middlebury education. This work became the Preamble to the Middlebury Handbook, titled “Freedom, Integrity, and Respect.” The Preamble states, “In seeking truth and understanding in a complex world, scholars must have the ability to ask any question, test any hypothesis, consider any line of reasoning, and critically assess any assumption.” The Preamble goes on to explain that the free expression protected by Middlebury is inseparably intertwined with the responsibility of personal and professional integrity, and our fundamental value of respect. Members of the Middlebury community are expected to practice integrity by recognizing “the limits of one’s own knowledge and expertise…, and [engaging our] curiosity and creativity in the face of those limits.” Moreover, respect is necessary to our educational mission. As our faculty have expressed, “Engagement with the ideas and experiences of others are also key guards against our own individual limitations and biases. . . . [Therefore, Middlebury’s] defense of academic freedom must be waged in conjunction with the principle of civil discourse.”

Consistent with our mission and vision statements, the recommendations of the Committee on Speech and Inclusion, and the new Preamble statement on “Freedom, Integrity and Respect,” Middlebury expects that members of its community will express their views consistent with the values of integrity and respect within our shared learning and living environments. Therefore, when protest or expression takes the form of violating laws or policies, such violations will have consequences under those laws or policies. This policy states the core expectation for all members of the Middlebury community and visitors to our events that our academic freedom will be used in conjunction with civil discourse.

Scope:

This Policy applies to all students, staff and faculty of Middlebury in all of its programs, as well as all visitors to our campuses or events.

Responsible Senior Administrator:

Senior Leadership Group

Policy Statement:

1. Middlebury is a community of learners and as such recognizes and affirm that free intellectual inquiry, debate and constructive dialogue are vital to Middlebury’s academic mission and must be protected even when the views expressed are unpopular or controversial. Students, student organizations, faculty and staff at Middlebury are free to examine and discuss all questions of interest to them and to engage in expressive activity publicly and privately.
2. Expressive Activity: Expressive activity includes all manner of speech, dissent, demonstration, protest, picketing, leafletting, sit-ins, strikes, etc. Expressive activity occurs along a spectrum ranging non-disruptive to extremely disruptive.
3. Students, student organizations, faculty and staff are free to express their views by orderly means that do not significantly disrupt Middlebury’s curricular, co-curricular, or administrative activities.
4. Middlebury does not permit deliberate and significant disruption of its curricular, co-curricular, or administrative events, activities, programs and/or essential operations.
5. Disruption: Disruption is behavior that significantly impairs or prevents expressive activity of others, or obstructs Middlebury’s activities or essential operations.
6. Such disruptions can deny individuals the opportunity to express or listen to unpopular or controversial views, interfere with essential operations, and can endanger other individuals.
7. Expressive activity that violates Middlebury policies, including this policy, or the law, is also known as Civil Disobedience.
8. Civil Disobedience: Civil Disobedience is the deliberate violation of, or refusal of an individual to comply with, Middlebury policies and/or local, state, or federal law, even when the refusal will result in penalties or sanctions.
9. Civil Disobedience is not authorized on Middlebury’s campuses or at Middlebury events. Individuals or groups who engage in Civil Disobedience in violation of this Policy or other Middlebury policies may also be in violation of Middlebury’s policy requiring respectful behavior and/or the policy requiring respect for officials.
10. Non-disruptive expressive activity is permitted at Middlebury, subject to the Demonstration Regulations regarding time, place and manner of the activity, and the Policy on Scheduling Space for Middlebury Events. The activities are permitted regardless of whether the expression concerns political issues or is directed against Middlebury’s administration.
11. Individuals engaged in expressive activity, as defined in this Policy, should make clear that they speak and act as individuals, and do not act on behalf of Middlebury, consistent with Middlebury’s obligations as a non-profit corporation and IRS-recognized 501(c)(3) organization.
12. Expressive activity that violates Middlebury policies, whether this policy or others such as the Anti-Harassment/Discrimination Policy or the Policy Prohibiting Sexual Misconduct, Dating Violence & Stalking, is subject to sanctions under those policies.
13. Sanctions for Civil Disobedience under this Policy will be assigned consistent with the procedural requirements for the individual who is alleged to have violated the policy, e.g., student, staff member or faculty member.
14. Members of the Senior Leadership Group (SLG) may determine that certain staff positions are incompatible with participation in certain expressive activities on campus or related to Middlebury that would impair the staff member’s ability effectively to fulfill their job responsibilities. For example, if job duties require that a staff member be neutral on a specific issue or work successfully with a broad cross-section of the Middlebury community, they may not engage in behavior that would prevent fulfilment of those obligations.
15. For specific events and during specific times of the year, Middlebury invites the public to join us at events and extends free expression privileges during those events. Any unaffiliated individual or group who engages in Civil Disobedience, as defined below, at such events will be asked to leave Middlebury property, and/or may be subject to arrest for violation of the law.

Definitions:

Expressive Activity: Expressive activity includes all manner of speech, dissent, demonstration, protest, picketing, leafletting, sit-ins, strikes, etc. Expressive activity occurs along a spectrum ranging non-disruptive to extremely disruptive.

Disruption: Disruption is behavior that impairs or prevents expressive activity of others, or obstructs Middlebury’s activities or essential operations. Disruption prohibited by this Policy includes all behavior that significantly disrupts Middlebury events, activities, programs and/or operations. Disruptive expressive activity – such as preventing an essential operation as a form of protest, or preventing a speaker from speaking or being heard – is sometimes referred to as “civil disobedience.”

Civil Disobedience: Civil Disobedience is the refusal of an individual to comply with Middlebury policies and/or local, state, or federal law, even when the refusal will result in punishment. Civil Disobedience typically has moral and persuasive power because individuals face serious consequences for their refusal to comply with policies or laws.