Universities warn committee free‑speech bill is vague; measure fails in committee

Senate Bill 125, sponsored by Sen. Dan Sullivan, would require state institutions of higher education to adopt policies allowing expressive activity in indoor spaces that are generally accessible and to limit certain restrictions on expression. Sullivan said the bill responds to student complaints about campus speech and that the attorney general’s review found no constitutional infirmities.

Representatives of the University of Arkansas system and other campuses opposed the measure in committee, saying the bill’s language is vague, may go beyond First Amendment protections and could create indoor free‑speech zones that are operationally difficult to police. Melissa Rust of the University of Arkansas system told the committee the bill’s language appears to guarantee rights “beyond the First Amendment” and contains undefined terms such as “controversial,” “fleeting” and “sonorous,” which would leave administrators exposed to litigation.

Jeremy Gillum of the University of Central Arkansas and Bentley Wallace of South Arkansas Community College said campuses worry about disruption to instruction and training, and they cautioned that indoor events can be harder to manage than outdoor gatherings. Gillum and others argued the bill’s time‑place‑and‑manner language may not cure the implementation problems raised by the broader drafting.

Sen. Sullivan and supporters argued the bill simply requires reasonable policies and that campuses should craft them collaboratively with students to avoid conflicts. After debate and public testimony, the committee held a roll call; membership did not produce a majority in favor and the bill did not pass out of committee.