Location: Reno, Nevada
Federal Circuit: 9th Circuit
University of Nevada, Reno has been given the speech code rating Red. A red light university has at least one policy that both clearly and substantially restricts freedom of speech. Read more here.
March 21, 2006
At the University of Nevada at Reno, the university’s policy designated only four small or remote areas on UNR’s campus as “‘public forum’ areas,” and explicitly deemed the rest of the campus a non-public forum. Student activists, working with FIRE and the ACLU of Nevada, protested this unconstitutional policy and proposed a new policy that would open the public university campus to free speech. The students worked closely with UNR administrators, and were able to introduce a policy that designates the entire campus-save the interior of university buildings-as an “open public forum area.”» Read More
Red Light Policies
Speech Code Category: Harassment Policies
The following conduct is prohibited: …
5. Physical abuse, verbal abuse, threats, intimidation, coercion, and/or conduct that threatens or endangers the health or safety of any person.
26. Acts of unwelcome verbal or physical conduct that is sexual in nature.
Speech Code Category: Harassment Policies
Under this policy, unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other visual, verbal or physical conduct of a sexual or gender bias nature, constitute sexual harassment when: … The conduct has the purpose or effect of substantially interfering with an individual’s academic or work performance, or of creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment in which to work or learn.
Examples of unwelcome conduct of a sexual or gender related nature that may constitute sexual harassment may, but do not necessarily, include, and are not limited to: …
- Sexually explicit or gender related statements, comments, questions, jokes, innuendos, anecdotes, or gestures; …
- Remarks of a sexual nature about a person’s clothing or body;
- Use of electronic mail or computer dissemination of sexually oriented, sex-based communications; ….
Speech Code Category: Internet Usage Policies
The disruption or destruction of computer facilities is prohibited. Examples of this type of behavior includes, but is not limited to: …
- Sending or printing patently offensive mail, documents, or images.
Speech Code Category: Policies on Tolerance, Respect, and Civility
Violating these provisions can lead to immediate removal from the residence halls:
A. Any behavior or action, physical or verbal, in which the mode of expression is lewd, vulgar, indecent and plainly offensive irrespective of its content or viewpoint. Verbal abuse, offensive language, which, when viewed objectively, creates a hostile environment substantially disrupting or interfering with the work of the school or the rights of other students, including, but not limited to, that which constitutes discrimination or harassment relating to race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, disability, or any other protected class.
Speech Code Category: Policies on Tolerance, Respect, and Civility
While prohibition of certain forms of speech can have a chilling effect on the free and open exchange of ideas, a policy of civility and tolerance can protect an environment which is free of intimidation to promote open debate.
Personal verbal harassment of one individual by another is uncivil behavior, which can taint or pollute the learning climate and discourage open expression of ideas on legitimate academic subjects.
Speech Code Category: Protest and Demonstration Policies
This University has always created an environment for raising challenging questions and the discussion of significant issues. There is perhaps none more significant that the challenge and issue of free speech. A function of free speech is to invite dispute which can result in unrest, anger, and dissatisfaction. It is in this light that the university has traditionally understood the First Amendment’s application to our campus. Of all social institutions, the university should be the most friendly toward and protective of the right of free expression.
Public expression in the form of freedom of speech and advocacy is a fundamental right and an essential
element in the marketplace of ideas of higher education. In the spirit of open discussion and freedom of
expression, any individual or group may use campus grounds to exercise this constitutionally protected right. This policy applies to outside public areas such as sidewalks, lawns, and plazas.
Speech Code Category: Advertised Commitments to Free Expression
The modern land grant university fosters the acquisition of knowledge and the distribution of newly discovered information. It enlivens curiosity, cultivates critical judgement and encourages the contribution of its informed students to the development of American society. The University of Nevada, Reno is committed to these land grant goals and to the maintenance of an academic environment which advances the free exchange of ideas.
July 5, 2006
by Jim Brown Agape Press The University of Nevada at Reno (UNR) has eliminated so-called “speech zones” that limited student expression on campus. The university’s previous policy had designated only four small or remote areas on its grounds as “public forum” spaces while explicitly deeming the rest of the campus a non-public forum. The new policy adopted by the university, however, allows students to use the entire campus — except for the interior of buildings — to demonstrate, protest, or pass out flyers and newspapers. Student activists working with the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada and the Foundation for […]» Read More
April 30, 2006
Chicago Sun-Times The case for zero tolerance of modern school administrators (cont’d): The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education at www.thefire.org notes that the University of Nevada at Reno Public Forum Policy allows students to offer “public expression in the form of freedom of speech and advocacy” as a “fundamental right” as long as they do it in one of four specified areas at times designated in Section 5303 Operation, Use and Maintenance of University Facilities and are in physical possession of a signed approval. The students are not to speak toward anyone who might not want to hear their […]» Read More
January 27, 2014
If the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) and the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) don’t get it, at least the Las Vegas Review-Journal does: UNLV and UNR, as public institutions, cannot maintain their broad and vague prohibitions on “offensive” or “disrespect[ful]” speech. The Review-Journal spoke with FIRE’s Samantha Harris for an editorial published yesterday explaining how the Nevada schools earned their “red light” ratings in our Spotlight database and why this should concern Nevada students. “Students across the country have been disciplined and expelled for exercising their constitutional rights,” the editorial says. “Make no mistake, cracking down on ideas is tyrannical.” After all, colleges and universities especially are supposed […]» Read More
June 19, 2012
Last week, United States District Judge Timothy S. Black held that the University of Cincinnati’s (UC’s) “free speech zone” policy “violates the First Amendment and cannot stand.” This victory came after FIRE helped coordinate a federal lawsuit in cooperation with Ohio’s 1851 Center for Constitutional Law on behalf of UC’s chapter of Young Americans for Liberty (YAL), a campus group that had its First Amendment rights suppressed while attempting to gather signatures for a statewide petition. This was not FIRE’s first such victory, however. Almost nine years ago to the day, FIRE announced the first victory of our Speech Code […]» Read More
July 10, 2007
In yesterday’s Campus Alert, FIRE’s weekly column in the New York Post, we discussed the disturbing prevalence of free speech zones at America’s public universities. Providing readers with a representative sample of schools that either currently maintain free speech zones or have done so in the past, we wrote: Onerous speech zones have been reported at Clemson University in South Carolina, Western Illinois University, Florida State University, University of Nebraska at Omaha, University of North Carolina-Greensboro, University of Oregon, California State University at Chico, West Virginia University, University of Nevada at Reno, Citrus College in California and the University of […]» Read More
May 25, 2007
As Torch readers know, each month, FIRE features a college or university with a particularly egregious speech code as its Speech Code of the Month. We use Speech Code of the Month to educate the public about the ever-present problem of speech codes on campus, but the feature also helps put public pressure on these schools to encourage revisions of these repressive policies. An article in our new issue of The FIRE Quarterly discusses the changes in policies FIRE has witnessed in four institutions that have been named Speech Code of the Month in the past. Since June 2005, Albertson […]» Read More
April 13, 2007
FIRE’s Speech Code of the Month program has been an important vehicle for change. Since June 2005, five universities—Albertson College of Idaho, the University of Nevada at Reno, Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts, Jacksonville State University, and the University of Mississippi—have changed their policies after being named Speech Code of the Month. In addition, the president of Western Michigan University has stated that his institution will revise a policy that was named FIRE’s Speech Code of the Month for March 2007. Thanks to a new feature, visitors to FIRE’s website can now see our Speech Codes of the Month together […]» Read More
June 29, 2006
If FIRE’s Individual Rights Education Program (IREP) had a motto, I think it would be “helping students help themselves.” The mission of IREP is to educate members of the university community about their rights, so that they can successfully stand up for those rights on campus. In recent months, several students have successfully overturned speech codes on their campuses with help from IREP. Earlier this year, student activists at Appalachian State University successfully challenged their university’s unconstitutional speech code after reading a report by FIRE and the John William Pope Center for Higher Education Policy about the state of […]» Read More
June 28, 2006
RENO, Nev., June 28, 2006—Students at the University of Nevada at Reno (UNR) are freer today, thanks to a new policy that designates the entire campus—save the interior of university buildings—as an “open public forum area.” “We are thrilled that UNR has taken such decisive action to protect its students’ free speech rights,” stated Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). “This is truly a victory for liberty, and we commend the students and administrators who made this happen.” As FIRE reported in April, the university’s previous policy designated only four small or remote areas […]» Read More
May 25, 2006
Remember Sally Jacobsen? As previously flagged by FIRE, Jacobsen is the recently retired Northern Kentucky University professor facing theft and criminal mischief charges for allegedly dismantling a campus anti-abortion display. Yesterday, as reported in the Cincinnati Post, a judge offered Jacobsen the opportunity to have her charges dismissed if she completes mediation with representatives from NKU, its student government, and the school’s Right to Life chapter. Jacobsen’s comments to the Post speak volumes to how she got herself into so much trouble. But her comments also demonstrate a faulty and dangerous mindset pervading all too many students, faculty, and administrators on university campuses. […]» Read More
April 26, 2006
RENO, Nev., April 26, 2006—The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is calling for the repeal of an unlawful and immoral “free speech zone” policy at the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR). This policy quarantines free speech at UNR to four zones covering only a small percentage of the campus and places onerous bureaucratic restrictions on speech even within these zones. “It is simply unacceptable for a public university to transform the vast majority of its campus into a censorship area,” declared FIRE President Greg Lukianoff. “UNR’s current policy is unconstitutional and must be repealed.” UNR’s policy restricts the […]» Read More
February 24, 2006
The University of Nevada at Reno (UNR) can claim the shameful distinction of having the Speech Code of the Month for August of last year. Accordingly, it is also a “red light” school on FIRE’s Spotlight, which points out the numerous restrictions the university places upon its students, many of them having to do with “offensive” conduct and speech clearly protected under the First Amendment—unless you are a student at UNR. Yet some of UNR’s other policies are also extraordinarily prohibitive, if not downright odd. If a student wants to post a flyer, it must be on a designated “Public View Bulletin […]» Read More
December 29, 2005
An outrageous number of colleges and universities severely restrict their students’ expressive rights—so many that researching and analyzing these restrictions is my full-time job. As 2005 draws to a close, I would like to highlight just a few of the particularly outrageous (but, sadly, quite common) restrictions that I found in the course of my research this year. These institutions should be ashamed of themselves. Stevens Institute of Technology provides students with a laundry list of behaviors that constitute sexual harassment, including “sexist jokes,” “comments regarding a person’s attire,” “displaying or discussing materials pertaining to males or females in a […]» Read More
August 24, 2005
FIRE announces the Speech Code of the Month for September 2005: the University of Nevada at Reno. The University of Nevada at Reno is a public institution, legally bound to uphold the constitutional rights of its students. Yet the university maintains a blatantly unconstitutional speech code for its residence halls, prohibiting, among other things, “offensive language.” The Residence Hall Handbook at the University of Nevada at Reno prohibits the following behaviors: “Lack of civility, any behavior or action, physical or verbal, that is meant to devalue, demean, or incite an individual or group, directly or implied, is prohibited.” “Verbal abuse, […]» Read More