University of Miami

Location: Miami, Florida
Website: http://www.miami.edu
Type: Private
Federal Circuit: 11th Circuit

Tell University of Miami to revise its speech policies by filling out this form.

Speech Code Rating

University of Miami 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.

  • University of Miami: Refusal to Approve Conservative Student Group

    April 7, 2003

    The University of Miami (UM) refused to approve, on four separate occasions, a student organization created for "the exposition and promotion of conservative principles and ideas." The proposed student group, Advocates for Conservative Thought (ACT), tried consistently to gain official recognition through the Committee on Student Organizations (COSO), UM’s authorized agent for handling such matters. However, COSO denied the group recognition—which, under UM policy, it needed in order to use vital university facilities and resources, to be listed on the website for approved student groups and in the student handbook, and to promote itself on campus—on the grounds that the […]

    » Read More

Red Light Policies

Yellow Light Policies
  • Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook: Freedom of Expression: Demonstration, Outside Speakers, and Political Campaign Policies

    Speech Code Category: Protest and Demonstration Policies
    Last updated: December 10, 2018

    Recognized University organizations and full or part‐time students who wish to schedule a demonstration, rally, protest or equivalent activity, may request the space through the Dean of Students Office on their respective campus and the appropriate venue manager. Any such request must be made no less than four business days in advance of the activity. The required Demonstration Registration Form can be accessed and completed in OrgSync.

    Demonstrations may be held at locations on Campus with the approval of the Dean of Students Office on their respective campus on a first‐come, first‐served basis, based on availability after an assessment that such demonstrations will not otherwise interfere with scheduled University use, or fail to comply with the guidelines applicable to all demonstrations. Once the required form is completed and submitted in a timely manner, it will be reviewed by the Dean of Students Office and appropriate representatives of the proposed venue, UMPD and the Vice President for Student Affairs office. No demonstration can take place without final approval from the Dean of Students Office.

    » Read More

  • Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook: Code of Conduct- Disorderly Conduct

    Speech Code Category: Policies on Tolerance, Respect, and Civility
    Last updated: December 10, 2018

    Lewd, indecent or obscene conduct or expression made by any means;

    » Read More

  • Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook: Code of Conduct- Sexual Harassment

    Speech Code Category: Harassment Policies
    Last updated: December 10, 2018

    Sexual Harassment means any unwelcome sexual advance, unwelcome request for sexual favors, or unwelcome verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, generally characterized by non-consensual, unwelcome sexual behavior whether between people of the same gender or different genders or sexual orientation when:

    3. Such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work or academic performance, i.e., it is sufficiently severe or pervasive to create an intimidating, hostile, humiliating, demeaning or sexually offensive working, academic, residential or social environment, (a) of a specific individual or those around them; (b) even if someone else is the target of the behavior; or (c) even if the individual is initially unaware of the behavior.

    4. Sexual Harassment, including sexual violence, can include any or all of the following behaviors, as well as others which are not listed:
    a. Harassment through public or private insult, sexually suggestive comments concerning a person’s body or behavior, and sexual demands;
    b. Subtle or overt pressure to comply with demands of sexual activity;
    c. Remarks about another person’s clothing, body, sexual activities, sexual preferences, gender identity or sexual orientation, as well as teasing, jokes, remarks, or gestures which are sexual in nature;
    d. Unnecessary touching, pinching, patting, or exposure of another person’s body;
    e. Unwarranted staring at another person’s body;
    f. Unwanted communications of a sexual nature in any form, over any medium, and in any media;
    g. Requests or demands for sexual favors accompanied by implied or overt threats or promised rewards, e.g., grades, class or clinical assignments, recommendations, student employment (for students) or assignments, promotions, discipline, references (for employees);
    h. Repetition of unwanted invitations for dates; or
    i. Physical assault of a sexual nature, up to an including attempted or actual rape.

    » Read More

  • Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook: Freedom of Expression: Demonstration, Outside Speakers, and Political Campaign Policies

    Speech Code Category: Security Fee Policies
    Last updated: December 10, 2018

    The Department of Student Activities & Student Organizations – in consultation with the University of Miami Police Department – may require that additional security be present to ensure the safety of the speaker and program participants. Such factors including, but not limited to, expected attendance, location and nature of the presentation will be considered. The costs of security measures are the responsibility of the sponsoring organization.

    » Read More


Green Light Policies
  • Schools, Media Ignore Civil Protections When it Comes to Campus Sexual Assault

    August 30, 2016

    By Ashe Schow at Washington Examiner The Washington Post has an article up about the “toxic environment” for men accused of campus sexual assault at colleges across the country. It’s an informative read, and I urge you to take a look. However, the author leaves out something important… Read more here.

    » Read More
  • Congress Hears from Miami Professor, FIRE over Freedom of Speech on College Campuses

    May 11, 2016

    By Sean Fowler at Florida Record WASHINGTON – University of Miami law professor Frances Hill recently testified before the U.S. House Ways and Means Subcommittee hearing on colleges stifling free speech over fears of losing tax-exempt status, an issue that’s become a serious concern on and off campuses nationwide… Read more here.

    » Read More
  • Congressional Dems Dismiss Concerns About Censorship on Campus

    March 7, 2016

    By Peter Fricke at Campus Reform At a congressional hearing last week, Rep. Peter Roskam condemned the “out of control” politically correct culture used to justify censorship at tax-exempt colleges and universities. Read more here.

    » Read More
  • House Republican Concerned About Colleges Stifling Students’ Speech

    March 2, 2016

    By Naomi Jagoda at The Hill The chairman of the House Ways and Means oversight subcommittee expressed concern Wednesday that colleges are stifling students’ political speech because they are incorrectly worried that such speech could jeopardize the schools’ tax-exempt statuses. Read more here.

    » Read More
  • U. Miami Law Prof: Affirmative Consent Shifts Burden of Proof to Accused

    September 13, 2015

    By Aleister at College Insurrection Prove that you’re not guilty is hardly a fair starting point. Samantha Harris reports at the FIRE blog. University of Miami Law Prof: Affirmative Consent Effectively Shifts Burden of Proof to Accused University of Miami (Florida) law professor Tamara Rice Lave has joined the growing number of people—including FIRE—arguing that “affirmative consent” policies unfairly shift the burden of proof to students accused of sexual misconduct to prove themselves innocent. In a pair of posts on the legal blog PrawfsBlawg, Professor Lave discusses her concerns with affirmative consent policies and argues that even the best-written affirmative […]

    » Read More
  • Report: Clinton Foundation Leader Blocked Conservative Group at U. of Miami

    March 30, 2015

    By Bethany Bowra at Campus Reform Donna Shalala, former Department of Health and Human Services secretary and outgoing President of the University of Miami, tried more than once to deny young female students a chance to organize a conservative club on campus. Shalala’s past attempts to silence conservative activists is resurfacing amidst her new appointment to head-up the Clinton Foundation, According to reports, the incident occurred during the 2002-03 academic year, during which Colleen Donovan, Andrea Kiser, Nathalia Gillot, and Sarah Canale founded a group called Advocates for Conservative Thought. In order to use university resources and facilities, the club […]

    » Read More
  • Speech on Campus After 9/11: Less Free than It Used to Be?

    May 25, 2006

    Universities have traditionally been places where debate and the free exchange of ideas have been welcomed. But after 9/11, that may be changing — as some recent, troubling incidents suggest. In this column, I’ll survey some recent incidents suggesting free speech on campus is in peril, and discuss the extent to which the First Amendment protects student and faculty speech Cracking Down on Student Demonstrators and Controversial Student Speech Recently, students at the University of Miami (a private school, but one with a stated policy of fostering free speech) demonstrated alongside striking maintenance workers to show solidarity. Now, they face […]

    » Read More
  • Philly group takes national lead in fighting campus censorship

    August 21, 2005

    An organization inspired by a campus fight over whether “water buffalo” was a racist slur has become the go-to group for college students and professors of all stripes who believe their rights to free speech have been violated.Since its founding in 1999, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has battled pro bono for evangelicals and atheists, animal rights activists and campus conservatives, and others who say they have been silenced by school administrators because of their points of view. With 11 employees in Philadelphia and a network of dozens of volunteer attorneys nationwide, the organization has grown from an […]

    » Read More
  • No Myth: Conservatives in Academia Suffer Discrimination

    October 15, 2004

    In a recent Sun column, (“Reclaim Your Victimhood,” Sept. 24), Danny Pearlstein, skeptical of the notion that conservatives in academia suffer discrimination, challenged conservatives “to send me concrete instances” of such. As the French would say, “chiche!” — dare accepted. Pearlstein’s challenge was, at least from his perspective, ill-timed. For within 48 hours came a glaring example of anti-conservative discrimination at Cornell, courtesy of the Student Assembly(SA): The SA’s blatantly political attempt to defund The Cornell American, one of the very few conservative student groups on campus. The attempted defunding was done in reliance on a newly-adopted, ex post facto […]

    » Read More

Policies are rated on their inclusion of 10 due process safeguards. Each policy may receive 2 points for fully including that safeguard, 1 point for partial inclusion, and 0 points for no meaningful inclusion. Most, but not all, institutions have separate policies for sexual misconduct and all other misconduct. See FIRE’s Spotlight on Due Process report for more information.

Grades

Regular Procedures

D
7/20
  • Presumption of innocence
  • Adequate and timely notice
  • Adequate time to prepare
  • Conflicts of interest prohibited
  • Right to challenge fact-finders
  • Access to all evidence
  • Right to face accuser and witness
  • Active participation of counsel
  • Meaningful right to appeal
  • Expulsion must be unanimous

Sexual Misconduct

D
7/20
  • Presumption of innocence
  • Adequate and timely notice
  • Adequate time to prepare
  • Conflicts of interest prohibited
  • Right to challenge fact-finders
  • Access to all evidence
  • Right to face accuser and witness
  • Active participation of counsel
  • Meaningful right to appeal
  • Expulsion must be unanimous