The freedom to speak out and debate matters of public concern is a fundamental right that allows our democracy to flourish. As the world bears witness to the catastrophic war in Palestine and Israel, U.S. college students on both sides of this conflict have come out to protest and speak their minds. However, across the country, at public and private universities, students supporting Palestinian human rights are being silenced and censored. In Florida, for example, state university officials, in coordination with Gov. Ron DeSantis, ordered public universities to deactivate their Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) chapters — a clear violation of the student group’s constitutional right to free speech and association.

The Unconstitutional Silencing of Pro-Palestinian Student Groups

In November, the ACLU sent out an open letter expressing our strong opposition to any efforts that stifle free speech on college campuses.

In response to this unconstitutional crackdown on pro-Palestinian student groups, the ACLU, ACLU of Florida, and Palestine Legal filed a lawsuit on behalf of the University of Florida chapter of SJP. ACLU legal fellows Shaiba Rather and Tyler Takemoto, members of the UF SJP legal team, joined our podcast to discuss the lawsuit and why protecting free speech on campus is so important.

Kendall Ciesemier: Can you tell us what Students for Justice in Palestine or SJP is as a student organization?

Shaiba Rather: Students for Justice in Palestine is a student organization that is committed to advocacy, organizing, and educating other people on their campus, the greater community, on the struggle for Palestinian freedom. These are diverse groups of students who take time out of their schedules to take on additional labor of putting on events, flyering, staging peaceful protests, etc.

KC: What was your reaction to the order to deactivate SJP chapters on campuses? What does it mean in terms of students, civil rights, and civil liberties?

Tyler Takemoto: The Supreme Court soundly holds that the First Amendment protects these types of student groups from a university’s efforts to deactivate them. When we saw this deactivation memo from Chancellor Ray Rodrigues, we knew it violated these students’ First Amendment rights.

SR: This memo calling for deactivation targets SJP chapters across University of Florida’s school districts without accusing University of Florida SJP itself of wrongdoing. Instead the memo cites two statements from an entirely independent and separate group’s toolkit — the National SJP. The attempt to punish University of Florida SJP for another group’s speech violates the First Amendment, and goes against basic principles in our legal system: guilt by association and independent advocacy that is not made at the direction of or in coordination with a terrorist organization is not material support for terrorism.

KC: What do you think is the real goal of deactivating these chapters?

SR: Silencing dissent, especially for causes like Palestinian freedom, isn’t new. The efforts by Gov. DeSantis and Chancellor Rodrigues echoes a concerning national trend that is very aggressive. The focus on material support accusations are crucial. Using this term implies that a student group is offering support to a recognized terrorist organization. It’s a loaded term that historically has been used against marginalized groups, from post 9/11 targeting of Muslim communities to weaponizing it against activists in an attempt to stifle dissent. Governments know that there is this trump card and will use it. And in this case, they’re using it to totally cut out the legs of pro-Palestinian movements.

Why We Must Reject Efforts to Restrict Constitutionally Protected Speech on College Campuses

Calls to punish and silence student activists betray the Constitution and the spirit of free inquiry that is critical to life at public universities.

KC: Can you tell us about what the lawsuit the ACLU and partners filed seeks to do, and what is the main argument from SJP?

TT: Our lawsuit seeks to challenge this unconstitutional memo to deactivate SJP chapters and prevent it from going into effect. Alongside our lawsuit, we filed a preliminary injunction aiming to block the state of Florida from enforcing the memo, a move to protect University of Florida SJP from the already chilling effects on free speech this memo has caused.

SR: This case can feel unique because of how urgent and sensitive it might be — however, this is well in line with decades-old Supreme Court precedent. Our complaint says that you can’t discriminate based off a viewpoint, you can’t interfere with a student group’s right to associate or speak on college campuses, and there is no exception for pro-Palestinian speech — full stop.

KC: The ongoing crisis in Palestine and Israel has sparked concerns about campus safety as students take action and voice their opinion. However, pro-Palestinian efforts have gained particular criticism from schools and local governments. What role does protecting students’ right to free speech play in ensuring campus safety?

SR: In moments of dissent and heated political tension, universities might be tempted to silence protests as a shortcut to creating a peaceful environment. The thinking might be, “If I cut out the protests, disorder is not going to affect my campus.” But silencing student voices isn’t a real solution. Universities must be steadfast in keeping all students’ free speech rights protected while guaranteeing everyone feels safe to learn and live on campus — and recognizing freedom of speech is not a threat to that goal.

TT: We’re seeing a concerning trend, predominantly one-sided, to punish students for speaking in this moment. Job offers have been rescinded for speaking in favor of the Palestinian cause, a disturbing effort to paint pro-Palestinian speech with a broad brush as dangerous, harmful, or even pro-terrorist. In these moments, I believe it’s crucial to make sure that our First Amendment rights are being enforced across the board to enable a nuanced and truthful conversation in this really painful and difficult time.

KC: There have been calls for university presidents to investigate their campus SJP chapters. Could you walk us through how this prompted our call to action?

SR: Once again, we are in heightened political tension, political moments, and ultimately there is no viewpoint exception to the First Amendment, and that also means there is no Palestine exception to the First Amendment. The ACLU stands firm in defending free expression, regardless of the perspective.

TT: College campuses have historically been at the forefront of free expression and diverse viewpoints around complex ideas. Anecdotally, as a recent law grad, I’ve witnessed calls to investigate my peers simply for aligning with student groups or signing sympathy letters expressing sympathy with the Palestinian cause. This has definitely created a McCarthyite atmosphere on these campuses where expressing opinions can lead to public shaming and accusations of extremism.

KC: As young people, why is it so important as young people to be helping other young people express their points of view?

TT: The First Amendment protects your right to organize and demonstrate on behalf of causes that you believe in. Regardless of whether you’re in K through 12, you don’t have fewer rights just because you’re a student — and the ACLU is here to ensure you know your free speech rights and have the freedom to make your voice heard.

As 2023 draws to a close, we’re reflecting on crucial wins and our ongoing advocacy for civil liberties and civil rights. We’re also looking to the work ahead that will determine whether rights around the country are diminished or expanded. With the 2024 election on the horizon, we will see new challenges to reproductive freedom, trans rights, voting rights, and the many other constitutional freedoms we work so hard to protect. Our work has never felt more critical. Here are a few places we’ll be focusing our energy and expertise in the new year.

Credit: Sharon Vanorny

While a case heads to the Supreme Court that could have devastating nationwide impacts on mifepristone, a safe and effective medication to manage abortion and miscarriage care, we will continue to challenge bans on abortion in states including Arizona and Georgia.

Arizona’s High Court Must Protect Abortion Access

This 150-year-old ban would drag present-day Arizonans into a dangerous past.

We will also continue our work to secure more critical wins for abortion rights at the ballot box building on victories in Ohio, Virginia, and Pennsylvania this year.

Credit: Sam Braslow

We are closely watching state-level legislative attacks on trans rights, and will continue to take legal action to protect access to gender-affirming care. In November, we asked the Supreme Court to review Tennessee and Kentucky’s unconstitutional ban on health care for transgender youth, and expect to hear from the court early next year. Our nationwide affiliate network is standing ready to defend LGBTQ people and our families from yet another legislative session where their freedom, safety, and dignity will once again be debated and attacked. Already, lawmakers have pre-filed bills attacking gender-affirming care, targeting teachers that support trans youth, and denying transgender students a safe and inclusive education.

Credit: Rachel E. Thomas

Our efforts against racially discriminatory gerrymandering and to expand voting rights will become more crucial than ever during the upcoming election year. Among our many voting and redistricting-related cases are Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP and AR NAACP v. Arkansas Board of Apportionment, in which we are suing against unlawful mapping that undermines the political power of Black voters.

As public opinion on the death penalty continues to sour, in 2024 we’re putting the death penalty on trial in North Carolina. In a landmark Racial Justice Act hearing, we’ll be arguing that racial discrimination tainted the death sentence of Hasson Bacote, who was sentenced to death by a jury of 10 white and two Black jurors in a case where the prosecution struck three times more Black jurors than white jurors.

North Carolina v. Hasson Bacote

Hasson Bacote is challenging his death sentence under the first-of-its kind law, the North Carolina Racial Justice Act (RJA).

This is all happening in Johnston County, the site of at least four lynchings between Reconstruction and World War I, and where KKK billboards were proudly displayed through the 1970s. The case could pave the way for others on North Carolina’s death row to challenge their sentences.

Everyone should have access to economic opportunity and get the chance to build their financial future, not just the few who have been born into generational wealth. That’s why we believe baby bonds are a crucial tool to address economic inequality. These investment accounts are created by federal, state, or local governments to help ensure that children have a secure economic future. As adults, they can use these funds to pay for higher education, homeownership, or entrepreneurship — three of the most proven ways to build wealth in the U.S. Several states have already passed or are proposing baby bond legislation, and Sen. Cory Booker and Rep. Ayanna Pressley have proposed a national baby bond program.

Credit: Will Martinez

A new law in Texas would allow state law enforcement to arrest and detain people over suspicions about immigration status, and authorize judges to order people deported. The ACLU and partners filed a lawsuit against this extremist and unconstitutional policy and will continue other defense efforts across the country against unlawful anti-immigrant policies.

Credit: Erich Martin

The ACLU will continue to advocate for people and communities harmed in the name of national security, particularly people of color and those who dissent against the government. In Florida, for example, we’re fighting to overturn a discriminatory and unconstitutional law that bans many Chinese immigrants — as well as immigrants from six other “countries of concern” — from buying a home in the state.

At the end of the 2022-2023 school year, when she was 14 years old, a verbal altercation occurred between Amerie and a classmate who was berating her and other classmates. This wasn’t the first time that Amerie, a student in North Carolina, faced harassment and bullying from some of her classmates. Her mother, Regina, had repeatedly contacted the school to bring the bullying to their attention, but no interventions took place.

This time, however, the dispute required a teacher to step in, who was later bumped by a student during the intervention. Amerie was taken to the principal’s office by a school resource office (SRO), where she was questioned by the school administration with the SRO present. They determined Amerie was responsible for the physical altercation, despite the teacher saying she hadn’t been hurt and was unable to confirm who made contact with her. Amerie was told she was being sent home and would be suspended. The officer placed her in handcuffs, which were too tight and hurt her wrists.

In North Carolina, school districts continue to devote millions of dollars to the placement of armed law enforcement officers in schools, despite clear evidence of its negative impact on students and learning environments. Prioritizing funds for law enforcement in schools over counselors, nurses, social workers, psychologists, and community-based support is a policy choice that continues to have severe consequences for children in the state, particularly Black students and students with disabilities.

It is well-established that Black students are not generally more likely to misbehave than other students, even after accounting for different socioeconomic backgrounds. Yet school officials punish Black students more frequently than their white peers. Our new report, “The Consequences of Cops in North Carolina Schools,” found that between 2021 and 2023, law enforcement and school staff filed complaints of disorderly conduct against Black students at over five times the rate of their white counterparts. This results in Black students and students with disabilities being over-criminalized, physically and mentally harmed, and funneled into the school-to-prison pipeline every year.

We recently sat down with Amerie and Regina, along with Legal Aid of North Carolina, who is handling her case, to hear about their experience with law enforcement in school and its detrimental impact on Amerie’s academic and personal life. Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

ACLU: What happened when you were in the principal’s office with staff and law enforcement?

Amerie: I asked to call my mom multiple times, but they refused. They aggressively told me I was disrespectful and how my mom should have taught me better. It made me very emotional. Once I left the room, I accidentally knocked over a trash can. The officer ran out and told me I was destroying the school’s property and would now be charged. They told me because I had allegedly touched a teacher and was now destroying property, that I would be sent away and get what I deserved. An officer then put me in handcuffs.

ACLU: What happened when you were put in handcuffs? How did it make you feel?

Amerie: I kept asking the officer why I was being put in handcuffs. He did not respond and slammed me down into a seat. He took my phone from me and set it on the counter. He saw my mom calling and watched it ring. The third time it rang, he picked up my cell phone and told my mother that I was in his custody. My mom kept asking why I was under his custody, but he refused to answer. It felt like a “why is this happening to me?” situation. I asked him what I did to deserve this treatment because I had never disrespected them. I have always been respectful and used my manners when it came to staff. I asked him several times, like four or five times, if he would loosen my cuffs. I was telling him that they were cutting off my circulation. And he refused to do that. I was still shedding tears and I was telling him that he didn’t have to take the cuffs off, but to please loosen them because they were hurting me. He laughed in my face and made a comment about how I was in his custody now.

ACLU: Regina, how did you feel when you discovered what your daughter had gone through?

Regina: I was upset. I was overwhelmed. This is not the first time I have brought a situation to them to help me with my daughter. Throughout the year, we have been dealing with bullying, thoughts of suicide, stress, therapy, and medication. This is nothing new to the school; that she is going through something. She has never been aggressive. There is no documentation saying this is what she does. I thought the phone call would be our usual pep talk: “we will get through this.” The teacher explained the situation to me and said she did not feel Amerie was aggressive in any way. She did say that it was a disruption in class.

ACLU: What happened after you left the school?

Amerie: When I first got in the car, I was complaining that my wrists hurt. We left and went to urgent care. They said my cuffs were obviously too tight and cut off my circulation. There were marks and bruises that I never had before.

ACLU: How do you and your classmates feel about having police in schools?

Amerie: I feel like they overplay their part and do more than they are supposed to do. It shocks me how they do their job, because growing up I thought that they were supposed to be by your side and protect you. They normally don’t take the time out of their day to actually visit a kid’s classroom and have conversations. Now I don’t feel safe in this environment. I’m a good kid, but they never took a chance to get to know me. It’s like they’re out to get me.

ACLU: How do you think your education has been impacted since this took place?

Amerie: I feel like it ruined me in general. I don’t feel how I used to feel; being happy to go to school, or just showing up in general. I don’t want to conversate with people anymore, or be around people in general because I’m scared I might run into one of those experiences again.

ACLU: Why do you think it’s important to share this story?

Regina: I never thought that I would have a child be suicidal. As a parent you do everything you can, like keeping them in activities and sports. There are so many kids that Amerie knows that are fighting the same issues she is. I’m willing to do anything to help these kids.

ACLU: Amerie, what do you want to do in the future?

Amerie: I want to teach kids who need extra help. I have had that dream since I was in kindergarten. I feel like I can really relate to them, and sitting one on one with them could bring a lot of joy. In my school, it’s common for these kids to get bullied for how they are. I have always made sure to tell them that anything they want to do, I support them and am proud of them, even if I felt like I was not proud of myself.