Jaco Baveteln Bens ies Ean Se Stowe C Global Jewish New York, NY 10022 Advocacy +r 2127514000 wicors Mare . Stern steram@aicarg + (212) 691-1480 + f (212) 881-1495 - c; (646) 287-2606, peace November 19, 2015 By email & FedEx Sesteaes’” Daniel H. Sharphomn, General Counsel rector Patricia C. Ohlendorf, VP Legal Affairs dinate tear University of Texas System Bier teriman Office of the General Counsel Crate $050 9 Govern 201 West 7th Street, 6th Floor EAT ees Austin, Texas 78701 soy Retro Re: November 13,2015 Lecture Hosted by Professor Ami Pedahaur eee Dear Mr. Sharphorn: S78 ae I write on behalf of the American Jewish Committee to express our ens piey | concern regarding an incident that occurred on the UT-Austin campus last week ‘he eacarho involving disruptive, anti-Israel protests at your University. From the reports, it cescene seems that a planned lecture by invited guest speaker Dr. Gil-Li Vardi from Ge Macretng Stanford University, hosted by UT-Austin Israeli Studies Professor Ami Pedahzur. was delayed and disrupted by anti-Israel protestors who unfurled a Palestinian flag and read a prepared statement accusing the invited speaker of sine ite being 2 “war criminal.” When Professor Pedahzur attempted to dispel the sea Tae? tension and invited the protestors to instead engage in a constructive diy conversation and dialogue, the protestors called Professor Pedahzur a war commie criminal and began chanting the offensive phrase, “Long Live the Intifada.” — ‘The University police were then called. While we appreciate that University police responded, we worry that the tame otters University’s response was not strong enough to protect the First Amendment fanaa Jane rights of students and faculty who sought to hear Dr. Vardi’s lecture, as well as. Fehon ronan the rights of members of the University community who seek to hear future eae cue lectures relating to Israel. foe’ As I am sure you are aware, the First Amendment protects listeners’ souie nosy rights to hear and receive information in addition to speakers’ rights to speak. ee Va, State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Va. Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 US. are 748, 156-57 (1976); Arce y. Douglas, 793 F.3d 968, 988 (9th Cir. 2015). Said i nance ‘Students’ rights to listen are especially poignant, as “[tJhe college classroom Ome Zatti with its surrounding environs is peculiarly the ‘marketplace of ideas” such that Honorary eset “the vigilant protection of constitutional freedoms is nowhere more vital than in Robert H. Eman the community of American schools.” Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169, 180-81 enn (1972). Universities therefore cannot allow students’ First Amendment rights to ‘ec one ‘be made contingent on other students” views, as that would guarantee certainDaniel Sharphorn Patricia C. Ohlendorf November 19, 2015 Page 2 “views will be effectively silenced.” See Santa Fe Independent School District vy. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 291 (2000). The University also has a duty to protect speech from hecklers, as is apparent from court decisions discussing a “duty to maintain order by taking such steps as may be reasonably necessary and feasible to protect peaceable, orderly speakers” from disruptive audience members. Cottonreader v. Johnson, 252 F. Supp. 492 (M.D. Ala. 1966). The federal courts have approved of crowd control policies as important to protecting organized speakers’ speech. Grider v. Abramson, 994 F. Supp. 840, 848 (W.D. Ky. 1998), aff'd, 180 F.3d 739 (6th Cir, 1999) (“Plaintiffs had no constitutional right to talk over or shout down the rally speakers, Allowing individuals to drown out the message of lawful speakers would diminish, rather than affirm, the right of free speech.”); see also Bible Believers v. Wayne Cty, Mich,, 2015 WL 6500508, at *19 (6th Cir. Oct. 28, 2015) (“Nor can an officer sit idly on the sidelines—watching as the crowd imposes, through violence, a tyrannical majoritarian rule .”). It is well- established that there is no “constitutional right to talk over or shout down™ organized speakers. Grider, 994 F. Supp, at 848; see also Red Lion Broad. Co. v. FCC, 393 US. 367, 387 (1969) (“The right of free speech ... does not embrace a right to snuff out the free speech of others.”). Accordingly, under the law, the University clearly has an obligation to ensure its policies and actions do not permit portions of the student body to override other students’ and the faculty’s First Amendment rights. It is not clear to us that the University has sufficient safeguards in place to prevent disruptions, such as the ones reported from last week, from interfering with speech. Unless the University adopts a more hands-on policy to ensure speech is not disrupted by hecklers, it effectively allows hecklers to “vote on” which speech may occur on campus. That clearly violates the First Amendment rights of students wishing to hear the protested content. We appreciate that the University took some steps to address the disruptions to Professor Pedahzur’s class, but hope it will adopt and announce stronger policies to ensure students’ First Amendment rights are truly protected in the future. ‘We also sincerely hope that the University conducts a full investigation of the facts surrounding this incident before reacting to demands of those aligned with the disruptors urging disciplinary action against Professor Pedahzur. It is clear that the disruption was designed to provoke a response through intimidation. And, from initial reports, it also appears that Professor Pedahzur reacted admirably and consistently with free speech and fostering academic debate and dialogue.Daniel Sharphorn Patricia C. Ohlendorf November 19, 2015 Page 3 We have great respect for your institution and were honored to draft two amicus briefs in support of the University in the Fisher Supreme Court cases, including one just last month. We are confident that you share our commitment to free speech on campus as well and would welcome the opportunity to discuss cour concerns if you would be amenable to meeting with us, Marc D. Stern General Counsel fdrs