BY JOHN K. WILSON

Today, the University of Wisconsin Board of Regents passed new rules imposing harsh mandatory penalties on campus protesters who disrupt events. However, Gov. Tony Evers has declared that he plans to reject the new rules.

That’s fortunate, because the new rules are quite terrible. In addition to the deplorable practice of harsh mandatory punishments for disrupting events, according to these rules, “A formal investigation and disciplinary hearing is required the second time a formal complaint alleges a student has engaged in violent or other disorderly misconduct that materially and substantially disrupted the free expression of others.” This would be an awful threat to free speech. Anyone (even Russian trolls) can make a formal complaint, and someone could decide to harass all the members of a group on campus by filing false complaints and compelling them to undergo disciplinary hearings. Mandatory hearings are even worse than mandatory penalties, because completely innocent people can be caught up in the process. That’s why any judicial system needs a process for dismissing unfounded allegations, but the new Wisconsin rules explicitly prohibit this.

Evers’ announcement makes this measure dead on arrival, but few people realize that Wisconsin campuses, most notably Madison, have already taken alarming steps to suppress the right of students to protest.

In 2018, UW-Madison adopted a set of “Protest Guidelines” in response to the earlier passage by the Regents of rules aimed at suppressing protests.But UW-Madison’s Protest Guidelines go much further in violating the First Amendment rights of students.

One general guideline is particularly alarming: “If person [sic] is considered to be disrupting an event, the event organizer should ask the person to cease. Issuing a warning before action is taken can be a useful, but not required, step to prevent escalation.” If warnings are not required, this means students can be suspended or expelled even if they were never warned to stop doing something deemed disruptive.

In a list of questions to be asked about an event is this: “Is the event closed or open to the public? (the latter requires academic department sponsorship)” Wait, what? Events at Madison can only be open to the public with sponsorship from an academic department? Does Madison actually ban student groups from letting the public into their events?

It also appears that Madison imposes a “controversy tax” on groups who invite speakers who might be protested: “After the pre-event planning, the University can clarify what resources beyond the University’s normal provision are needed and the associated costs and payment for such costs may be required.”

But the most troubling part of the Protest Guidelines is a list of items called “likely disruptive” and “likely non-disruptive” that’s meant to explain what is now banned at UW-Madison.

Included in the “likely disruptive” list is “Blocking the vision of others in any manner (signs, props, a person’s body, etc.)” As literally written, this policy means that tall people can be punished for being tall. If the head of a tall person (which is “a person’s body”) blocks the vision of anyone behind them “in any manner,” they have violated the protest guidelines. Of course, the real target of this language seems to be someone who might stand up and turn their back on a speaker in protest, which seems like a perfectly reasonable non-disruptive form of silent protest that is now forbidden. In fact, even if the people behind the protester don’t object to having some minimal obstruction of their vision of the event, it is still prohibited and punishable by these rules.

UW-Madison also prohibits “Producing noise that interferes with events and activities.” People create noise that interferes with events all the time, such as the rousing round of applause that I frequently inspire whenever I speak. This standard for punishment is far too vague. “Interferes with” is much lower standard than the original policy’s language of “misconduct that materially and substantially disrupted” free expression.

Also troubling is UW-Madison’s listing of “likely non-disruptive behavior.” The Madison guidelines never say that anyone has a right to do anything. It only defines behavior as “likely non-disruptive,” which is not exactly encouraging when the punishment for two violations is automatic suspension. Sure, feel free to express yourself and we probably won’t expel you for it.

And the implications of the items described as “likely non-disruptive behavior” are sometimes very troubling, such as “If signs are allowed in the event, holding an 8.5”x11” poster in front of one’s person.” That means an event organizer can, in fact, ban signs, and thereby literally make holding a piece of paper a punishable act, even if it doesn’t block anyone’s vision. Here, UW-Madison is outsourcing repression to anyone who organizes an event, which it’s not allowed to do. UW-Madison cannot decide to ban pieces of paper from events, and it’s not permitted to let event organizers do the same.

Another example of likely non-disruptive behavior: “Engaging with a speaker if the speaker welcomes the interaction.” So if a speaker does not “welcome” an interaction (how would you know this in advance?), any kind of “engaging” with the speaker is prohibited? That’s an incredibly restrictive standard. Not only could it ban any kind of heckling, no matter how minimal, but even booing a speaker might be regarded as an unwelcome engagement.

UW-Madison’s rules also allow event organizers to ban “costumes” at an event. Let’s imagine that Bret Stephens speaks at UW-Madison, and someone decides to dress up as a bedbug or holds an 8×11 sheet of paper in front of them that says “Free Speech for Bedbugs.” What possible justification is there for banning these seemingly innocuous forms of protest? How is any of this actually disrupting a talk on campus?

And the Protest Guidelines even allow almost anything to be banned: “Behaviors inconsistent with the parameters set up by event organizers. Any limitations imposed on an event are acceptable as long as they are reasonably applied to all participants.” Any limitations are acceptable? What about an event where the organizers announce, “No criticism of President Trump will be permitted”? Apparently that limitation would be allowed as long as all the speakers and the audience are required to follow it.

As bad as the Protest Guidelines themselves are, it gets even worse. Back in August, the University of Wisconsin at Madison’s news department issued a statement about the campus policy on protests to help guide students. This news release somehow managed to include restrictions that aren’t actually in the Protest Guidelines at all, such as this one: “Examples of likely disruptive behavior” include “entering a room or meeting space without approval.” You need prior approval to enter any room at UW-Madison, including a meeting space?

The news release also declared, “Bottom line: Protesting is fine, disrupting others’ free speech and interfering with campus operations is not.” Yet the announcement fails to use the Regents’ language requiring a “material and substantial disruption” for any punishment. Instead, it indicates that any disruption or interference with any campus operation, no matter how trivial, can receive a punishment that, if repeated, can lead to suspension and expulsion.

When students at UW-Madison are being misled by the campus news office about the terrible Protest Guidelines enacted in response to right-wing policies that threaten expulsion for engaging in ill-defined behaviors, it’s not difficult to see a chilling effect on campus free speech coming from these efforts to stifle student protests.

The Protest Guidelines were not written by some right-wing foundation or mandated by conservative politicians. They are entirely the creation of the UW-Madison campus itself.  The Protest Guidelines document says that it was produced by the Division of Student Affairs and the Police Department. This is the danger when shared governance is abandoned and faculty and students are not consulted, that administrators may ignore important issues of protecting student rights. These are absolutely critical policies being sloppily produced by administrative fiat outside of shared governance norms.

The Wisconsin AAUP issued a statement against the proposed revisions, and on October 12 I’ll be speaking at the Wisconsin AAUP’s annual conference in Milwaukee (along with Hank Reichman and others).

Even if the harsh misguided punishments enacted by the Regents today are never put into practice, unconstitutional repressive measures aimed at stifling student expression have already been implemented at UW-Madison and need to be overturned.