IA CONCERNS REGARDING NEWLY PROPOSED FREE SPEECH DRAFTS:
Questions related to these concerns were voiced during the senate discussion on this topic.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Erin O'Connor (3/14/2012)

The new policies are more restrictive than past BP's and AP's.  They are more explicit (which is good), but more restrictive (which I feel should be carefully reviewed by faculty).  Compare the newly proposed BP 3900 and AP 3900 on "Speech - Time, Place, and Manner", with the previous BP 4030 on Academic Freedom.

Some items I feel should be looked at carefully are:

(1)  In newly proposed BP 3900, second paragraph, states that "SBCC is a "non-public forum,...".  This is in sharp contrast to our IA Lawyer's contention that school grounds are by default "public forums".  He provides considerable case history to support this contention, dating back to the Vietnam War demonstrations in the 60's.  These are public grounds, maintained with public funds, and which have a history of public use with regard to free speech and expression.  Our Academic Senate (and faculty), should consider carefully if we should allow our administration to declare our campus a "non-public forum".

(2)  In newly proposed AP 3900, first bullet after second paragraph, "the district reserves the right to revoke..." the designation of public forum.  Does this mean that during an election, when the need for public free speech is greatest, that our right to use a public forum area can be revoked.  I think this stipulation should be removed.

(3)  In the following bullet item (as referenced above), the District declares "campus offices" as non-public forums.  Does this mean that faculty are not at liberty to speak freely and express themselves in the confines of their own offices?  Are we allowed to have more than three people in our office?  Do faculty have the right to decorate their offices to reflect their personal character and beliefs?  I think this should be looked at very carefully.

(4)  In AP 7370 on "Political Activity", I note that district employees are allowed to support candidates and initiatives that affect their pay and working conditions, ONLY at "nonworking times".  This should be carefully looked at with respect to faculty.  Teaching faculty have a non-traditional schedule, with times in class, office hours, and committee responsibilities.  How are we defining full time faculty "nonworking times".  Faculty also do a lot of work at home.  From the context of what is written, it is not clear to me if I can picket, call a friend, or otherwise support a political issue during my two hour break between classes, during lunch, etc.  If "working time" is defined as the school day, then what about those who teach night classes, etc.   How can a faculty member participate in events that are held during the day.

None of the above addresses "electronic communications" issues, which also are another area of concern that should be carefully looked at.  Last year, our administration began moderation of all-campus emails.  Such moderation impinged on faculty's ability to communicate and caused unnecessary delays in disseminating emails (while the moderator was not at work during afternoons and nights).  Upon the IA's request, this practice has now been abandoned, and all-campus emails are no longer being moderated.