The prominent civil rights group Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) has come out against Florida International University as the school moves forward with disciplining seven students who took part in a silent protest on campus in March.
Affected students have told WLRN they feel that their freedom of speech is being trampled by the school. Longstanding precedent from the U.S. Supreme Court appears to be in the students' favor.
The students in question participated in a silent protest March 13 against the school’s voluntary collaboration with federal immigration enforcement on campus. Students stood for a few minutes unveiling shirts that read “ICE OFF FIU,” and then left the room. The silent protest took place during a “fireside chat” with FIU President Jeanette Nuñez and former Major League Baseball star Alex Rodriguez.
The school has acknowledged the silent protest did not disrupt the program, but last week it moved forward with disciplining the students under a blanket policy that no “expressive conduct” can take place indoors.
FIU has demanded the students make videos about the school’s ban on so-called “expressive conduct” that takes place indoors, the infraction the students are being charged with.
READ MORE: FIU moves to discipline 7 students for 'indoor' silent protest on immigration policies
The videos need to be “original” and “thoughtful,” and the school can make students record the video over and over again.
FIRE says the prospect of students having to re-record videos until the school is satisfied is “a totalitarian twist to an already unjustifiable disciplinary process.”
“A public university cannot punish students for a silent protest that, by its own account, disrupted no one, and then force them to record university-approved statements to stay in good standing,” said FIRE in a statement. “FIU must drop the charges, rescind the compelled ‘reflection’ video requirement, and stop trying to turn protected expression into state-scripted obedience.”
FIRE had already warned FIU president Jeanette Nuñez against pursuing the disciplinary action last month, saying the ban on “expressive conduct" indoors is overly broad and ripe for abuse.
“Since this case involves clothing, would a student be prohibited from wearing a Malcolm X t-shirt in a university building under the same policy? What about a Palestinian keffiyeh or an Israeli flag lapel pin? If a student wore purple for Domestic Violence Awareness Month, would that be actionable?” asked FIRE in the June letter.
The first amendment group has largely gained notoriety by representing conservatives on college campuses.
FIU claims that its ban on indoor expression is consistent with the First Amendment.
