Editorials featured in the Forum section are solely the opinions of their individual authors.
On the blissful morning of Aug. 25, 2024, the Carnegie Mellon provost and vice president of student affairs sent an email to every Tartan’s inbox announcing the updated regulations on student protests and expressive activities. While large organizations and individuals may have differing priorities, I am concerned that the recent policy changes at Carnegie Mellon could gradually erode the rights of community members. These updates risk being misused to stifle freedom of speech and discourage student expression, raising the question: is this the kind of environment we want to foster for the next generation of leaders?
I encourage everyone who is reading this article to go and read the updated rules themselves, but here is a summary of the new regulations. Any event involving expressive activity with more than 25 expected attendees must now be registered by an event sponsor at least three business days in advance by sending an email to Student Leadership, Involvement, and Civic Engagement (SLICE). According to the updated rules, the sponsor will be “responsible for the behavior of those attending.” The sponsor must provide details such as the organizations involved, time and place, event timetable, and an outline of the event. Additionally, the sponsor must reserve the event space online. Once the email is received, SLICE will schedule a meeting with the sponsor, the Carnegie Mellon University Police Department (CMUPD), and other relevant parties to develop a safety and security plan. After the event, the sponsor may be required to participate in a post-event debrief with SLICE representatives. Failure to comply with these regulations may result in a conduct review.
Carnegie Mellon is not alone in implementing stricter regulations following a nationwide surge of pro-Palestinian encampments on college campuses. Numerous universities across the country — including Tufts, Princeton, Columbia, University of Chicago, and Case Western Reserve University — have introduced new rules restricting the size, location, timing, and methods of protests and demonstrations. It’s hard not to assume that these regulations are higher education’s direct response to the pro-Palestinian movements. If that’s the case, it’s deeply disappointing to witness as a student.
My primary concern is how these rules grant the university the ability to be as opaque as they wish when deciding which protest registrations to approve and which to deny. As someone who has spent half of her life in a place that continuously undermines basic human rights, you may call me oversensitive or accuse me of overreacting to a minor policy update. However, I know from firsthand experience that the erosion of rights doesn’t come with a bold announcement — it happens through the gradual tightening of requirements. One day, we may wake up to a reality where nothing can be done without explicit approval, and by then, it might cost us everything to push back. Carnegie Mellon’s newly implemented policy interestingly parallels a term coined by Chinese activists in the 1970s called “Pocket Crime” (口袋罪). Pocket crimes refer to vaguely defined laws, allowing authorities to interpret and apply them as they see fit, creating a “pocket” that can hold any perceived offense. This lack of clarity leads to selective enforcement, making it difficult to determine guilt or innocence. Similarly, Carnegie Mellon’s regulations could allow the university to selectively approve or disapprove events based on values it aligns with while rejecting those it distances itself from.
While we might assume good faith behind leadership’s requirement for protest registration and approval, the actual process remains unclear. What criteria will be used? How transparent will the decision-making be? It’s not unreasonable to fear that Carnegie Mellon may prioritize events that align with its own perspectives, potentially disallowing topics it disagrees with. This uncertainty fractures trust between community members and leadership, creating a crisis of transparency and communication. How much involvement did students, faculty, and staff have in shaping these regulations? What was the decision-making process behind them?
Requiring approval from the administration for expressive activities creates a chilling effect, discouraging community members from exercising their civil rights. Freedom of speech has long been a core value at Carnegie Mellon, as emphasized in the university’s Policy on Freedom of Expression, which states: “The university must be a place where all ideas may be expressed freely and where no alternative is withheld from consideration.” Do these new regulations truly reflect that commitment?
The new protest regulations raise significant concerns about transparency and freedom of expression at Carnegie Mellon. These rules, if not implemented with care, could create an environment where the university selectively approves protests, aligning only with values it agrees with while silencing dissent. This undermines the trust between students, faculty, and leadership, and risks compromising the very principles of free speech that the university claims to uphold. As community members, we must ask ourselves: are we comfortable with these gradual encroachments on our rights, or should we demand a more transparent, inclusive, and fair process that truly reflects the values of open discourse and intellectual freedom that Carnegie Mellon stands for?
Leave a Reply