The devastating conflict in Israel and Palestine has roiled campuses here at home. College students across the country are exercising their constitutional right to free speech by organizing, protesting, posting, and debating, sometimes resulting in speech that is intemperate, hateful, and abhorrent. We’re also seeing a rise in antisemitic and anti-Arab and Muslim discrimination, with documented threats against Jewish, Palestinian, Muslim, and Middle Eastern and South Asian origin students and faculty alike. These colliding dynamics have left colleges and universities contending with how to manage increased threats, genuine fears, and anguished tensions on their campuses while trying to keep students and faculty safe. We take the weight and complexity of these challenges seriously, and understand that balancing public safety and public debate can feel insurmountable.

But it is precisely in times of heightened crisis and fear that university leaders must remain steadfast in their commitment to free speech, open debate, and peaceful dissent on campus. These principles are the bedrock of academic freedom at all universities. Moreover, the First Amendment requires public universities to protect the right of students and student groups to debate and demonstrate on campus.

In recent weeks, we’ve seen a surge in efforts to punish and silence students for their speech. The Anti-Defamation League and The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law issued an open letter last week calling on university leaders to investigate pro-Palestinian student groups, alleging their speech constitutes “material support for terrorism,” punishable under federal and state law, despite no evidence to support such claims. That is why the ACLU sent its own open letter to the administrative leaders of each state’s public college system, reaching over 650 colleges and universities, expressing our strong opposition to any efforts to stifle free speech and association on college campuses. The letter unequivocally urges universities to reject calls to investigate, disband, or penalize pro-Palestinian student groups for exercising their free speech rights.

The consequences for students are not hypothetical. In late October, Florida State University System Chancellor Ray Rodrigues and Gov. Ron DeSantis took action to deactivate the Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) chapters at public universities in Florida, based on nothing more than the speech of the national SJP organization.

Blanket calls to investigate every chapter of a pro-Palestinian student group for “material support to terrorists” — without even an attempt to cite evidence — are unwarranted and dangerous. They harken back to America’s mistakes during the McCarthy era, and in the months and years after 9/11. The ACLU has decades of experience fighting abusive and discriminatory “material support” investigations and prosecutions that infringe on or violate constitutional rights. We know from history just how damaging these types of sweeping unsubstantiated allegations can be.

In the letter, we make clear that “material support” does not include independent political advocacy, regardless of its content. The ADL cites no evidence that SJP published statements at the direction of or in coordination with Hamas. Without that connection, their advocacy is fully protected by the First Amendment, and is not “material support” for terrorism. Essential principles of academic freedom stand firmly against any attempts to punish these students for their protected speech and associations.

And, local chapters of student groups cannot be punished for their association with national organizations. As the letter states, such “investigations chill speech, foster an atmosphere of mutual suspicion, and betray the spirit of free inquiry.”

In Healy v. James, the Supreme Court affirmed that the First Amendment protects the right of student groups to associate and speak out on matters of public concern, free from censorship by public university officials. And in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, the court held that the federal statute prohibiting material support to terrorist groups does not criminalize independent advocacy, but only “advocacy performed in coordination with, or at the direction of, a foreign terrorist organization.”

These are difficult times, and we urge colleges across the country to hold fast to our nation’s best traditions and reject ill-advised proposals to restrict constitutionally protected speech. While one group is at the center of such affronts today, other students, groups and speech could face similar attacks tomorrow. Restricting speech may seem like an attractive option for college administrators to quell campus tensions. But efforts to censor speech often prove counterproductive, and undermine the very mission of the university. We strongly caution universities against conflating the suppression of speech with the façade of safety.

Last month, Texas lawmakers convened for a special legislative session to debate some of the most extreme anti-immigrant bills any state legislature has ever considered. Already, one such bill — SB 4, which threatens humanitarian workers and family members of undocumented immigrants with severe criminal penalties — was passed by both chambers and is now headed to Gov. Greg Abbott to be signed into law. With just days left in the current legislative session, the legislature is attempting to short-circuit debate and rush through an even more fanatical bill that manufactures a new state crime so that Texas police may arrest, jail, and deport people.

If enacted, HB 4 would easily rank among the most radically anti-immigrant bills ever passed by a legislature. The anti-immigrant agenda advancing in the current special legislative session has been fueled by groups with links to white supremacy. Just last month, it was revealed that Texans for Strong Borders — an anti-immigrant advocacy group connected to neo-Nazi Nick Fuentes — urged Gov. Abbott to call a special legislative session to take up anti-immigrant legislation such as HB 4.

Tell Your Legislators: Say No to Any Version of Texas HB 4, an Anti-Immigrant Bill Written by White Supremacists

Right now, the Texas Senate is preparing to vote on an extreme and hateful bill that will harm U.S. citizens and migrants, despite the fact that...

One of the versions of this legislation being considered would make it a state crime to attempt to enter the State of Texas from Mexico between ports of entry, and authorize state police and sheriffs to arrest, prosecute, and imprison anyone suspected of violating this new and unprecedented state law. Another version would go a step further and purports to authorize these officers — who are not trained in immigration law — to also deport people they suspect of violating this law.

In federal immigration proceedings, people have a right to due process and an opportunity to demonstrate that they should not be deported because, for example, they have lawful immigration status, are U.S. citizens, or are eligible for humanitarian protection. No such safeguards are in place under this version of HB 4. In fact, people suspected of illegal entry will be deprived of the basic rights afforded by federal immigration law and Texas criminal law: The bill suggests they can be summarily ordered removed to Mexico without even an opportunity to speak to a lawyer.

HB 4 is preempted by federal law and unconstitutional for good reasons. No state has ever empowered its police to deport people, but we’ve seen before that laws authorizing local law enforcement agents to investigate immigration offenses lead to racial profiling. Citizens and immigrants with permission to be in the U.S. would be at risk of wrongful arrest, detention, and deportation. This unprecedented move will distract police officers from investigating actual crimes, deter victims of human trafficking from coming forward, and in turn, make our communities less safe.

Ultimately, lawmakers are pretending they can stop people from coming to the U.S. by turning local law enforcement into border patrol. Evidence already shows that deterrence policies from fleeing persecution and instead create more disorder and harm. Laws like HB 4 would unnecessarily waste taxpayer dollars under the guise of national security and public safety, all while harming our communities and the integrity of federal immigration laws.

HB 4, in all of its forms, is founded on the idea that there is an “invasion” at our Southern border. This is the same logic, rooted in white supremacy, that motivated the man who killed 23 people and wounded 22 others during a shooting at an El Paso Wal-Mart in 2019. This rhetoric has repeatedly been backed by Texans for Strong Borders. And it’s no surprise that last month, reports revealed that that Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick — who also serves as President of the Texas Senate — received $3 million from a conservative PAC also connected to white supremacist leader Nick Fuentes.

The hateful narrative these voices are pushing has real consequences. We’ve already seen vitriolic state policies like Operation Lone Star lead to the tragic drownings and other deaths of people and children seeking safety. We cannot allow other harmful anti-immigrant policies take root — not in Texas, not in any state.

Texans have a critical opportunity to act now and demand that their representatives vote no to policies that criminalize migrants and divide our communities. We can’t allow our elected officials to misuse our legal systems to do the work of white supremacists.

Like many teens, it took some time to find the thing I really loved to do. A few years ago, I discovered my love for cross-country running. I loved running so much that I got out of bed to train before the sun rose — a feat my parents described as miraculous. During my freshman year, I set a personal record of a 5:51-minute mile. At the time, it seemed like things could only get better.

Unfortunately, when I returned for my sophomore year at Spring Woods High School, everything changed. We had a new head coach, which came with some concerning changes. I noticed differences in how the girls’ cross-country team was coached and trained as compared to the boys’ team.

For example, I noticed that the boys’ cross-country runners were prioritized in practices and at meets, even though our head coach was hired to train all of us. The boys’ team was assigned longer runs than the girls’ team, and the coaches would often end our practices as soon as the boys’ team finished their run, even if that meant the girls could not finish theirs. Also, a coach would often bike alongside the boys as they ran, giving encouragement and shouting out split times so they knew their pacing. Without encouragement from our coaches, the girls did neighborhood runs alone.

It would have been bad enough if the girls were only being coached unequally as compared to the boys. But the coaches also subjected us to a double standard regarding the dress code.

As cross-country runners, we run during the summer when the sun is constantly shining, and the Texas heat averages above 90 degrees, often reaching 100 degrees. Given these conditions, boys and girls commonly take off their shirts to run to prevent heat exhaustion. This had never been a problem until my sophomore year, when girls were forbidden from running in their sports bras.

To justify this change, our parents were told that the head coach did not want to see any “butts, boobs, or bellies.” To me, this signaled that girls’ bodies were seen as inappropriate merely for existing. Although female athletes at every level of competition commonly wear sports bras to practices and meets, and sports bras are the official uniform of the U.S. Women’s Track and Field Team, a group of girl athletes practicing in sports bras to get some relief from the Texas summer heat was unacceptable.

After this rule was put into place, I saw a boy running shirtless during practice. Seeing that he was not reprimanded, I took my shirt off because I was hot and we were doing a hill run workout. Immediately, the coaches yelled at me to put my shirt back on. When I pointed out that they had no issue with the boy running shirtless, the coaches asked the boy to put his shirt back on.

I learned from my parents to never be afraid to speak up about unfair treatment. As these events unfolded, I asked many questions about the sexist sports bra rule and how the girls’ cross-country team was being treated unequally. Instead of treating us fairly and taking my questions seriously, as I thought they would, I was kicked out of practice.

During future practices, I was mistreated and isolated by my coaches. For example, if I asked for an instruction to be repeated, I was ignored. I was even passed over for an athletic award when I was the top runner on the girls’ cross-country team and had the best attendance record of all students. Missing out on that award showed me that not only did my coaches not value my hard work and accomplishments, but they also did not believe in me.

Being unfairly cast aside by my coaches hurt — a lot. I often wondered if I would have been treated this way if I wasn’t a girl of color who spoke up on behalf of herself and her teammates. My love for running dimmed, and I lost that motivation to get up in the morning and run to reach my personal best.

This spring, the ACLU and the ACLU of Texas sent an advocacy letter on my behalf to the Spring Branch Independent School District to call out these unfair policies and practices. I am excited to share that this summer, the District hired a new cross-country head coach who has prioritized coaching all runners equally. Running on the cross-country team this season has been an awesome way to wrap up my high school athletic career.

Spring Branch ISD OCR Complaint

Despite this progress, the District’s sexist dress code policies, including the sports bra rule, remain in effect. The District has yet to acknowledge the harm its policies have caused or to meet with the ACLU and the ACLU of Texas about concrete changes it can make to treat all students fairly, regardless of their gender.

Although the District may be willing to stay silent when it is called to action, I am not. That is why today we filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights. Change only happens when we demand it.