The California State University (CSU) system, encompassing 23 campuses across California, has developed a “Time, Place, and Manner” interim policy to balance free speech rights with campus safety and operational needs. Intended to regulate when and where expressive activities can occur, the interim policy has encountered significant criticism. While its goals stem from a desire to support free expression and order, execution challenges have frustrated students, faculty and advocates. Here’s a look at why the CSU system felt compelled to adopt this interim policy and where its application has faced difficulties.
According to administration’s communications with the public, the primary intent behind the interim policy is to balance freedom of expression with the day-to-day functions of academic life. As public institutions, CSU campuses are bound by the First Amendment, which protects students’, faculties’ and staffs’ rights to express their views. However, without some regulations, these expressions can disrupt classes, strain campus resources and potentially lead to conflicts that jeopardize safety. The “Time, Place, and Manner” interim policy provides a structure allowing expressive activities—such as protests and rallies—while aiming to keep the campus environment safe and operational.
With 23 campuses across California, each with its unique population and setting, the CSU system sought a uniform interim policy to handle free speech issues consistently. Before this system-wide approach, individual campuses managed expression and assembly in distinct ways, often leading to confusion among students, especially those moving between campuses. CSU intended to establish clear, consistent guidelines for all campuses by implementing a single interim policy.
In recent years, U.S. colleges and universities have experienced a significant rise in politically charged protests. According to politically-involved faculty members such as Aaron Lanser and Dr. Dave Colnic, the CSU administration felt the need to proactively address the safety risks that often accompany such gatherings, especially given the size of many CSU campuses. Ensuring crowd control, adequate security and emergency preparedness is a priority, particularly as some events have the potential to escalate. The interim policy was intended as a preemptive measure to mitigate risks while allowing students and staff to exercise their free speech rights safely.
There are students like Ravi Nathaniel (Business Administration, Junior) who believe that the CSU’s new interim policy has positive effects on maintaining campus order.
“I think there is a lot of positivity towards it because they are trying to maintain order on campus to make sure things don’t get out of hand. I think we’ve seen it with this society now, people tend to react very physically with their emotions and it leads to tons of damage,” he said.
Despite these intentions, the interim policy’s implementation has faced considerable backlash. Core challenges have emerged that highlight issues in its execution and have led to criticism from the campus community.
The interim policy generally requires that events be scheduled in advance and approved by the university administration. Many students feel this limits their right to spontaneous protest. Additionally, CSU campuses often restrict these activities to designated “free speech zones” in low-traffic areas away from major buildings, making it difficult for protests to attract the visibility they seek. Some see these restrictions as undermining the purpose of the protest, effectively limiting the reach of students’ messages.
Although the interim policy was designed for uniformity, its application has varied significantly across CSU campuses. This inconsistency has led to confusion and, in some cases, complaints of selective enforcement, with students claiming that administrators use the interim policy to approve or deny events based on their content. Such perceptions have undermined the interim policy’s aim for fairness and have fueled suspicions that it may be used to silence certain perspectives rather than to maintain order.
Many CSU students and faculty are also unaware of the specific guidelines and restrictions within the interim policy, largely due to insufficient communication from administrators. This lack of transparency often results in students inadvertently violating the interim policy, which can lead to disciplinary actions. Insufficient communication around designated protest areas and approval processes has created further challenges, with students and staff sometimes feeling that they are set up for failure when trying to express their views.
There is a risk that underprivileged students and undocumented students will not put themselves at risk to protest, even if it is something they believe in.
Aaron Lanser (Lecturer, English) shared sentiments regarding the impact that this interim policy has on marginalized groups of students.
“We have first generation students, lots of vulnerable students, these are not always the privileged students who can afford to put themselves out there and protest, especially when the whole institution is trying to lean against it,” he said.
Although the interim policy was designed to ensure uniformity, its application varies widely across the CSU system. This inconsistency has led to confusion and complaints of selective enforcement, with some students alleging that administrators use the interim policy to approve or deny events based on their content. Such perceptions of bias have eroded trust in the interim policy and fueled suspicions that it is used to suppress dissenting perspectives rather than maintain order.
Another significant issue is the lack of awareness and understanding of the interim policy among students and faculty. Insufficient communication from campus administrators has left many unaware of key provisions, such as how to secure approval for events or the locations of designated protest areas. As a result, students and faculty sometimes inadvertently violate the interim policy, leading to frustration and disciplinary actions. This lack of transparency has further alienated campus communities and undermined confidence in the interim policy’s fairness.
The restrictive nature of the interim policy has generated distrust between the CSU administration and the student body. Some students see the interim policy as an attempt to limit dissent, particularly when protests target university policies or leadership decisions. This perception has led to feelings of alienation, with some students believing that their voices are marginalized rather than protected by the interim policy.
There are faculty members who are against this interim policy. Dr. David Colnic, the Department Chair of Politics and Public Administration and Stan State’s CFA Chapter President, has strong feelings towards this new policy that affects students in any of the CSUs.
“My initial reaction was that the Chancellor’s Office overstepped their bounds. That they are overreacting to a few high profile cases. That they are trying to eliminate effective means of disagreement and dissent by those who do not currently hold power,” Colnic said.
Addressing the challenges associated with the “Time, Place, and Manner” interim policy requires a focused effort to rebuild trust and ensure it genuinely supports free expression. Clear and accessible communication about the interim policy’s guidelines and approval processes is essential. Administrators should prioritize creating user-friendly online resources and hosting informational workshops to bridge awareness gaps, ensuring all campus members understand the procedures.
The Signal reached out to a Statewide Senator and the Interim Vice President for University Advancement for comments regarding the Time, Place and Manner policy and received no reply.
The CSU system’s “Time, Place, and Manner” interim policy highlights the complex balancing act of protecting free speech while ensuring campus safety and functionality. While the interim policy was introduced with noble intentions, its implementation has exposed significant flaws that need to be addressed. By prioritizing transparency, inclusivity, and fairness, the CSU system can create an interim policy that better aligns with its original goals and the diverse needs of its campus communities. Only then can the interim policy truly support the free exchange of ideas—a cornerstone of higher education.
