Open Expression

Yes, the First Amendment (like most parts of the Constitution) only binds state and federal governmental entities (so-called “state actors”). For instance, the University of Georgia or Georgia State University are state universities, so they’re required to comply with the First Amendment in everything they do. Private universities, like business corporations or non-profits, usually aren’t state actors, so they don’t need to comply with the First Amendment.

Yes, but as the Supreme Court has said repeatedly, getting government funding doesn’t make you into a state actor—even if most of your funding comes from the government. Some laws may depend on government funding—as we’ll see later, Congress has passed some laws, like Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, that impose certain non-discrimination requirements on entities that accept federal funding. But those are the exception, not the rule, and there is no such law that would impose free-speech rules on Emory. Emory is generally allowed to be as free or as restrictive as it likes when it comes to speech; some private universities are quite free, others (especially some religious universities) are quite restrictive; and it’s good that students, staff, and professors have the freedom to choose what sort of university they want to study or work at.

The standards for free speech and public and private universities shouldn’t differ radically, since the vast majority of universities think of themselves as engaged in wide-open debate as part of the search for truth. This is why Emory “respects the protections and principles of free speech and assembly as set forth in the First Amendment (and the corresponding sections of the Georgia Constitution)” (8.14.1.1).

No. The First Amendment has never meant that everyone has absolute free speech. The Supreme Court has long recognized standard exceptions to free speech: governments are allowed to restrict defamatory speech, true threats, obscenity, incitement to violence, and the like. Part A.4 of the Policy lists various areas where the University has greater ability to restrict expression, for instance offices, classrooms, and clinics. All of this can, in principle, be consistent with the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has developed an elaborate caselaw about the First Amendment rights of students and employees at schools and universities, much of which stems from late-1960s cases called Tinker and Pickering. The Open Expression Policy recognizes that this First Amendment standard, “with appropriate limitations developed by the courts, generally embodies a reasonable balance between the free-speech interests of faculty, staff, and students, and the significant interests of the university (which include, among other activities central to the university mission, teaching, research, healthcare, housing, dining services, and providing safety on the Emory campuses)” (8.14.1.1).

No. Even though the Open Expression Policy’s First Amendment standard isn’t absolute, it nonetheless provides meaningful constraints on the university’s ability to restrict speech. First, the Policy says that “[a]ll members of the Emory Community have broad latitude to speak, write, listen, challenge, and learn, whether they are on or off campus.” And these freedoms are limited only “to the extent necessary to protect [those] significant university interests.” Thus, while the university is allowed to enact certain “time, place, and manner restrictions,” the Policy provides that “any regulations should not discriminate with respect to viewpoint or content.”

“Viewpoint discrimination” is one of the most serious no-nos in First Amendment law; in other words, “viewpoint neutrality” is one of the most important requirements. If you can argue in favor of affirmative action or abortion rights or gay marriage or transgender bathroom access, you should be able to argue against those positions. If you can argue one side of the Israeli-Palestinian or Russian-Ukrainian conflicts, you should be able to argue the other side. No viewpoint on any social or political question is off-limits at Emory. Emory “shall not arbitrarily suppress opinions on public questions” (8.14.2.7).

“Listeners’ feelings of offense or the unpopularity of the view expressed are not sufficient bases for regulating speech on campus.” There is a temptation to argue that certain speech is inherently offensive, degrading, or dehumanizing, or even that it makes listeners unsafe and itself constitutes violence. This is especially true when the speech concerns rights that some people believe to be fundamental, or when the speech concerns questions of identity. Thus, pro-Palestinian community members may believe that speech in favor of Israel or Israeli policies should be controlled because it amounts to advocacy of genocide, while pro-Israeli community members may believe that speech in favor of Palestine or Hamas should be controlled because it is anti-Semitic. Pro-choice community members may believe that pro-life speech should be controlled because it calls for the subjugation of women, while pro-life community members may believe that pro-choice speech should be controlled because it advocates murder. (One could say the same of speech regarding affirmative action, the rights of LGBTQ people, the policies of the current presidential administration, or whatever current controversies happen to be.) However, none of these are valid reasons, under the Policy, to regulate or ban the speech in question.

You could imagine that a university could decide that certain political debates are too contentious, and that therefore nobody should be able to post any political fliers or signs on campus, or no political clubs should be recognized. That sort of rule—“no postings of political flyers” or “no political clubs”—wouldn’t discriminate with respect to viewpoint: Democratic and Republican flyers or clubs would be equally affected. But such a rule would still discriminate with respect to content: political content would be disfavored and other forms of content (for instance, artistic or religious content) would be favored. The Open Expression Policy prevents the university from disfavoring certain forms of content in this way. Any regulations of speech should be not only viewpoint-neutral but also content-neutral (see 8.14.2.7 in the specific context of invited speakers).

Yes: some parts of the Policy (like 8.14.1.3 and 8.14.3.3) are the result of a January 2025 resolution agreement between Emory and the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights. Emory’s commitments pursuant that agreement are included in the Open Expression Policy and various other policies. As relevant here, Emory agrees not to apply any of its expressive activity regulations in a way that discriminates “any legally protected characteristics of the protest participants and/or those on whose behalf the protest activities are undertaken (such as race, national origin or sex).” Of course, this is all perfectly consistent with being committed to content- and viewpoint-neutrality.

The Policy isn’t only about speech; generally, it refers to “expression” and “expressive activity.” This includes speech—not only political speech or speech that might be thought to be controversial, but any sort of speech on any topic. But it also includes other activities that have been recognized to be expressive. (The Policy defines “expression,” “expressive activity,” and “expressive event” to include “speech, assemblies, protests, demonstrations, chalkings, postings, lectures, and any other conduct generally protected by the free speech and assembly protections of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (and the corresponding sections of the Georgia Constitution).”)

The speaker’s motivation isn’t enough to make an activity expressive. Thus, the following are examples of activities that are not expressive (regardless of one’s motivation), so that regulating on such activities pose no issues under the Open Expression Policy:

• Smoking isn’t expressive activity, even if one does it in order to protest the University’s no-smoking policy.
• Emory’s policies prohibit Emory Community members (excluding public safety officers), guests, or patrons from bringing any dangerous materials (firearms, weapons, explosives, fireworks, etc.) on campus.
• “[T]ents or similar structures are not permitted, but open sided canopies or similar temporary structures which allow for full view of activities occurring within the canopy, for purpose of providing shade or protection from rain, may be permitted” (8.14.A.6).
• “Building occupations and takeovers are expressly prohibited” (8.14.A.6).

But Supreme Court caselaw recognizes that certain activities are inherently expressive—for instance, producing written as well as oral materials, carrying signs or flags, marching, wearing pins or clothing with particular symbols, doing interpretive dance, or “liking” something on social media. Moreover, the Policy also protects freedom of assembly, which means that Emory community members also have the right to establish clubs and organizations, associate with other Emory community members, and speak through their clubs and organizations.

While the Policy applies generally to any expressive activity, some sections of the Policy apply specifically to the subset of “protests” and “demonstrations” (8.14.1.3, 8.14.2.6, 8.14.3.2, 8.14.3.3, 8.14.3.4, 8.14.A.3.1, 8.14.A.5). For instance, “[p]rotests and demonstrations are not permitted after midnight” (8.14.A.5). These terms are hard to define precisely, which is why the Policy defines them by including examples: they are “gathering[s] of Community Members to bring attention to a cause, which may include picketing, rallies, sit-ins, vigils, or similar forms of expression.” Whether an event counts as a protest or demonstration depends in part on how many people are participating and in part on the extent to which it is aimed at the general public.

The Policy doesn’t apply to everyone; it’s not designed for random people from the outside community who happen to come onto the Emory campus.

The following three groups of people have rights under the Policy: (1) the Emory Community, (2) guests, and (3) patrons. While guests and patrons are not Emory Community members, they do have rights under the Policy within the time and space constraints of the particular events they are attending or services they are using.

(1) The Emory Community is limited to “limited to those individuals with a current enrollment or employment status at Emory,” like current students (and recognized student groups), faculty, and staff. People in this category have both rights and responsibilities under this and other Emory policies, and can be disciplined under the relevant student, faculty, or staff codes of conduct if necessary.

(2) Guests are “individuals who have been individually invited by a member of the Emory Community (not via mass communication) to the Emory campus to engage in expressive activity, such as guest speakers, panelists, artists, performers, and participants, within the time and space constraints of the specific events.” Thus, if a student group invites a speaker for an event, that speaker is protected by the Policy “within the time and space constraints of the event” for which they are invited, e.g., for the time of the lecture plus a reasonable amount of time to arrive and leave. This doesn’t allow a group to broadcast an invitation to the world at large to come join a protest. “Guests are entitled to be on the Emory campus for a specific purpose and must be able to identify the Emory Community Member who invited them to campus.”

(3) Patrons are “individuals who are on campus to use services offered by Emory, such as the bookstore, performance spaces, retail dining and the like, or to attend lectures or similar events that are open to the public.” Thus, a customer at a campus bookstore or coffee shop or artistic performance or sports event is protected by the Policy—again, “within the time and space constraints” of the service that they are using, e.g., for the time of buying a book or attending the performance plus a reasonable amount of time to arrive and leave.

“If asked by Emory Administration or law enforcement to leave campus, [guests or patrons] must do so immediately or face legal consequences.”

There are many benefits that are afforded to registered/officially recognized student groups (RSO). Student groups who have not become officially recognized student organizations do not have access to these benefits. Benefits include:

• Use of the Emory University name to identify institutional affiliation (following Emory brand guidelines) which can include a logo, access to letterhead, and other such benefits.
• Ability to reserve certain spaces on campus, such as the use of rooms in the Student Center.
• Organizational advising, consulting and training by Student Involvement, Leadership and Transitions (SILT) staff.
• Participation in student activity fairs as hosted by Campus Life or SILT.
• Ability to be financially supported by other university departments with co-sponsorship funding opportunities.
• Access to the student organization management database (“The Hub”).
• Ability to apply for grant opportunities in Campus Life such as Dooley After Dark, the Student Organization Food Grant managed by SGA and/or GSGA and Emory Dining, etc.
• Other benefits as deemed appropriate by various offices, departments and divisions of Emory University.
• Ability to apply for Student Activity Fee funds.
• Access to apply for student organization locker storage.

Groups can apply to be a recognized student organization through the application and onboarding process in Student Involvement, Leadership, and Transitions.

Yes. Your EmoryCard is the official university ID card, and it enables you to have secure, convenient and efficient access to events, goods and services, as well as an identity tool for the safety and security of our campus. As you travel around campus, your EmoryCard should be in your possession at all times.

Per university policy, you must present your EmoryCard upon request to any university official. The card is non-transferable and is property of Emory University. The hosts of invited guests may be asked to provide their university identification, and some buildings may only be accessible by EmoryCard access.

Georgia state law governs recording restrictions (O.C.G.A. § 16-11-62). In general, there are fewer restrictions on recording individuals in a public space than there are in a private space. In many cases, recording in public spaces is permissible.

Because such recordings can have repercussions for individuals participating in expression-related activity including protest and dissent, Emory provides Online Safety and Privacy Resources for members of our community.

No, and we can understand if you’re confused. Emory University and Emory Healthcare are actually two separate organizations, and each is governed by its own set of policies. This Open Expression Policy is an Emory University policy and therefore doesn’t apply to Emory Healthcare. But it’s important to understand that not all health care at Emory happens through the organization called “Emory Healthcare.” For instance, the School of Medicine and School of Nursing are part of Emory University, so faculty, staff, or students in those schools do get the protections of the Open Expression Policy.

As mentioned above, that doesn’t mean that they can say whatever they want, whenever and wherever they want—patient care is an important university function, so even the free-speech rights of the Emory University community can be limited in contexts of direct patient care. Still, the Emory University community does get the protections of the policy—especially when they’re speaking on their own time, or in contexts that don’t involve direct patient care.

If you’re a patient at an Emory hospital, you may interact with some Emory Healthcare employees and some Emory University employees; for instance, your nurses might work for Emory Healthcare, and some of your doctors (and the medical students who follow them around) might work for Emory University. It might seem confusing that different people on the same team are subject to different rules, but that’s just what happens when different organizations work together. The Policy protects people, not places: thus, for instance, Emory University employees are protected by the Policy, even if they are fulfilling their duties at Emory Midtown Hospital or some other off-campus location (even at a conference in another country). And it protects people against action by Emory University, not against action by any other entity.

The Policy gives the following “non-exhaustive set of examples of types of expression that are not protected: (1) threats; (2) harassing speech or behavior that is subjectively and objectively offensive and is so severe or pervasive, that it unreasonably limits or effectively denies a person’s ability to participate in or benefit from the educational program or activity; (3) speech directed at inciting or producing (and that is likely to produce) lawless action; (4) obscenity” (8.14.2.1). These examples essentially mirror the categories of unprotected expression recognized by the Supreme Court’s First Amendment caselaw. And these are just examples—Supreme Court caselaw is full of cases where courts have decided that particular expression may be prohibited on campuses.

This doesn’t automatically mean that such activities are forbidden—you have to find the prohibition somewhere in University policy, like in the Undergraduate Code of Conduct or some other policy. But once something within these categories is prohibited, the Open Expression Policy won’t protect it.

Also, expressive activity can be restricted where it:

• Interferes unreasonably with the activities or rights of other persons.
• Harasses people, within the meaning of applicable state or federal law.
• Uses or threaten violence or force or encourages others to use or threaten violence or force.
• Causes injury to persons or property or threaten to cause such injury.
• Endangers people’s health or safety.
• Interferes unreasonably with the general operations of the university.
• Knowingly interferes with unimpeded movement in a university location (this includes preventing access to a building or blocking any entrances or exits in a way that causes safety concerns).
• Violates reasonable noise levels, such as but not limited to county noise ordinances.
• Violates any federal, state, local or other applicable law (e.g., gaining unauthorized access to restricted areas, refusing to leave restricted areas if instructed, defacing public and/or private property, etc.).

“Harassment” means a lot of different things. An obvious type of harassment is repeated and unwanted communications aimed at intimidating someone; this is illegal under state law and isn’t protected by the Open Expression Policy. There’s also sexual harassment, which is a form of sex discrimination under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, its equivalent racial version under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (These forms of harassment can also violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 if they occur in an employment relationship.) This sort of discriminatory harassment is covered by Emory’s Equal Opportunity and Discriminatory Harassment Policy (Policy 1.3).

Can someone’s speech be punished as harassment under Policy 1.3 without regard to the Open Expression Policy? Properly interpreted, there is no conflict between the prohibition of discriminatory harassment and the Open Expression guarantee. In a case called Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, the Supreme Court analyzed whether a university could be liable under Title IX to the victim of sexual harassment at a school. It concluded that it could—but only after interpreting the definition of harassment narrowly to avoid free-speech concerns. The Court wrote that the school could be liable “only where [it] acts with deliberate indifference to known acts of harassment in its programs or activities” and “only for harassment that is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively bars the victim’s access to an educational opportunity or benefit.” Policy 1.3 similarly incorporates references to severity and pervasiveness in its definition of harassment. Moreover, it is obvious that a harassment claim cannot be predicated on Emory community members’ advocacy of particular social or political positions—the government cannot penalize speakers or the university indirectly (by imposing harassment liability) any more than it can do so directly (by banning or regulating the speech) (see also 8.14.2.7). In short, as federal courts have held, the harassment laws must be applied consistent with First Amendment principles.

Thus, harassment is unprotected by the Open Expression Policy as long as the concept of harassment is understood in the narrow sense described above.

This is easier to say than to define, but we can give some obvious examples. Don’t disrupt people’s events (whether scheduled or impromptu). Don’t shout down or interrupt speakers, or make noise such that it is difficult to hear them. If you object to a particular speaker or event, feel free to attend the event and ask difficult questions, or hand out leaflets or stand at the event nondisruptively with signs. Or organize your own counter-event—possibly at the same time as the event you object to. Under the Open Expression Policy, the remedy for speech is more speech and counter-speech, even if you believe the speech you object to can be characterized as hateful or offensive (see 8.14.2.7).

The Open Expression Observers Program helps to actualize the policy by recruiting and training staff and faculty volunteers as Open Expression Observers (OEOs). These volunteers attend demonstrations, debates, and high-profile events to help support the rights of all community members to express their views in the ways outlined in the Open Expression Policy.

Open Expression Observers serve to support expression, not to authorize, terminate, or discipline expressive activity.

When a counter-protest occurs, Emory’s Open Expression Observers work to designate a separate location where opposing individuals/groups can express themselves while maintaining the safety of all participants. Open Expression Observers can use their discretion not only to observe such events but also to ensure that the events comply with University policy. For example, Open Expression Observers may require opposing groups to be in separate spaces, to the extent this is necessary to avoid substantial disruption from each groups’ expression. (See also elsewhere in this FAQ for guidelines on when law enforcement may be involved.)

While Emory cannot restrict expression based on its content or its viewpoint, it can still regulate speech in content-neutral and viewpoint-neutral ways. Emory is free to do so, provided three factors (which are borrowed from First Amendment caselaw) are met: “(1) the restrictions must be neutral with respect to the content of the expression; (2) the restrictions must be narrowly tailored to serve significant University interests (including the University’s missions as a teaching and research university and as a provider of healthcare, as well as the safety and privacy of the Emory Community); and (3) the restrictions must leave open ample alternative channels for speakers to communicate messages that are otherwise protected by this Policy and other University policies” (8.14.2.4).

Appendix A to the Policy is a list of time, place, and manner regulations, ranging from specification of restricted areas to incorporation of local noise ordinances and prohibition of building occupation.

Yes. Use of amplified sound is regulated because it can create a significant disruption to the normal operations of the university (classes, studying, meetings, residential living, etc.), and the amplified sound cannot violate reasonable noise levels. This disruption is typically determined in real time by Emory’s Open Expression Observers, who work directly with individuals to limit or minimize the impact of such noise, but general guidelines depend on location and time of day, as described above.

Such activity is governed by Emory University’s Posting Guidelines and Practices and Environmental Branding Guidelines.

Emory limits flyer postings on building interiors to bulletin boards. Specific posting policies on institutional bulletin boards vary across university buildings. Flyer and/or banner posting is prohibited on sidewalks, streets, building exteriors, benches, light poles, bike racks, windows, doors, landscaping or other unapproved surfaces and spaces.

Chalking is permitted on most sidewalks and streets on university property that are exposed to the elements. Chalking is only permitted in areas where the chalk would be washed away by normal rainfall. Chalking is prohibited on building exteriors or other vertical surfaces and on horizontal surfaces covered by permanent structures such as covered walkways, tented entryways and covered terraces. The use of spray chalk or other spray products (whether toxic or non-toxic) is strictly prohibited.

Flyers, posters, banners or chalking that violate University policies or posting guidelines will be removed, typically by a member of Emory’s Facilities Management team. Emory will only remove chalking from unpermitted locations or for special circumstances such as construction or special events, or where the chalking may violate other university policies. Otherwise, chalk messages will remain until dissipated by normal rainfall.

Expressive events are not permitted in the following areas:

• Spaces where academic classes and meetings are currently taking place.
• Offices, museums, research laboratories and computer centers.
• Hospitals, clinics and other facilities or infrastructure that are essential to the university’s operations.
• Locations that present safety risks, including those related to free flow of vehicular or pedestrian traffic.
• Individual and shared offices and research laboratories.

Certain facilities and departments may also have their own restrictions.

However, if the focus of an expressive event includes one of these areas, Open Expression Observers will work with event organizers to identify nearby places, like the outdoor spaces in front of the buildings involved, or common gathering places close to these locations where the event can proceed without impeding entry or exit.

Under the Policy, “[r]esidential spaces, dining facilities, and libraries may not be used for expression that interferes with or disrupts the normal use of the respective spaces. The definition of interference or disruption is broader in these spaces than in other spaces on campus, because of students’ fundamental need to eat, sleep and study without disruption” (8.14.A.4).

Whether something “interferes with or disrupts the normal use” of those spaces is hard to define exactly, but we can give some examples. Students talking about politics while eating in the dining hall is permitted. Those students can also be conspicuously wearing shirts devoted to their cause, or have flyers out on the table while eating in the dining hall. It is also customary for people to stay talking with their friends for some time after they finish eating. However, if students are too loud, or block access to food serving areas, that is inconsistent with the normal use of the space.

There are many locations on campus especially conducive to expression, dissent, and demonstration. A list of suggested spaces can be obtained from University Event Services or Student Involvement Leadership and Transitions, which can assist with reservations of most spaces on the Atlanta campus or assist in connecting event organizers to those individuals who help manage spaces.

Emory’s space reservation system requires that all space reservations begin no earlier than 7 a.m. and conclude at 11:59 p.m. Some spaces, including buildings that house operational and administrative functions of the university, are unavailable for general reservations after their closing time (typically 5:30 p.m.). Emory does not allow activities to occur in any building after that facility’s business hours. Protests and demonstrations are also not allowed after midnight (8.14.A.5).

However, “[o]ther expression is permitted after midnight in spaces that are open after midnight so long as the expression is consistent with and does not disrupt the proper use of the space” (8.14.A.5).

Impromptu events are events that occur without a reservation. Suppose country X has just bombed country Y, or the Supreme Court has just released a controversial opinion, or the president has just made a major announcement. You may want to protest now, without having to go through the usual reservation policies. The intent of the Open Expression Policy is “to provide opportunities for impromptu activities that occur without a reservation, especially in areas that are well suited to such activities and that have traditionally been used for such activities, for example, outdoor spaces on campus,” like the Quad or Asbury Circle. “The University will not unreasonably withhold permission for impromptu events.”

Students engaged in impromptu expressive activity will not be disciplined solely on the basis that they did not seek prior approval.

Not all places are suitable for impromptu expression—the University maintains a reservation system because some areas (like meeting rooms in the Student Center) are in high demand, while other areas (as discussed elsewhere) are restricted altogether (for instance, museum spaces or patient care spaces). But even then, “the University administration shall make reasonable efforts to accommodate such activities in an alternate location nearby.”

Sometimes, a protest may have to be terminated. Generally, this will be because of violence or property damage (for instance, acts of vandalism like breaking windows or spray-painting buildings), or because of violations of valid University policies, or because the University reasonably believes that such violations are imminent.

The Open Expression Policy constrains the University in its ability to terminate protests, with or without internal or external law enforcement.

Most obviously, a protest cannot be terminated solely for reasons having to do with the viewpoint or content expressed.

Next, “[t]o the extent reasonably possible and to the extent safety or other emergency considerations do not indicate otherwise, the Senior Vice President and Dean of Campus Life must strive to consult with the event organizer and the President of the University Senate before ending a protest that is in violation of this Policy” (8.14.3.2).

Next, “[i]n the absence of safety concerns, the University will attempt to de-escalate situations that arise during protests” (8.14.3.2). Open Expression Observers play a role here in alerting protest organizers and participants when their actions violate University policy and in giving them a chance to come into compliance with policy. The University may also pursue “internal disciplinary sanctions,” which the Policy states are “preferable” to involving law enforcement (8.14.3.2).

Next, before involving external law enforcement, the University must consider various nondiscriminatory factors, including: “(1) the likelihood of violence, property damage, or a safety issue; (2) the likelihood of a violation of any law or University policy (including a disruption to University operations); (3) when it appears there are or may be weapons or illegal substances present or being created; and/or (4) other such nondiscriminatory factors specific to the relevant circumstances” (8.14.3.3). This language is included in the Open Expression Policy because of the resolution agreement between Emory and the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights (discussed above).

However, in emergency cases or if other methods have failed, the University reserves the right to involve law enforcement.

Merely violating University policy is normally not a reason for the University to terminate a protest using external law enforcement. Instead, external law enforcement should only be used if there are severe and immediate safety threats.

Yes. The Open Expression Policy applies to all manner of policies, including individual units’ disciplinary proceedings. Disciplinary proceedings are not an open-expression-free zone. Of course, many disciplinary proceedings will not raise any Open Expression issues—plagiarizing or using AI in a prohibited way is not protected by Open Expression just because it happens to consist of speech. On the other hand, if community members’ expression is protected under the Policy (for instance, if a community member expresses their opinion on a social or political issue), the content of that expression cannot be the basis of disciplinary proceedings.

In fact, whenever disciplinary proceedings are involved, the Policy provides that “Open Expression rights should be given substantial consideration before such disciplinary action is taken” (8.14.3.6). At a minimum, any disciplinary proceeding involving expressive activity should include a written explanation of what specific restrictions the conduct violated, and how those restrictions were applied in a viewpoint-neutral way. Community members’ expression should not be restricted by excessively vague clauses in disciplinary policies, such as requirements that expression not be “inappropriate” or “contrary to the standards” of the institution.

The Committee for Open Expression is a committee composed of faculty, staff, and students. It is a standing committee of the University Senate, and its function is to interpret the Policy, opine on issues that arise under the Policy (e.g., whether the Policy was violated in any particular case), and advise the Emory Administration (8.14.3.5). Any faculty or staff member or student may apply to be on the Committee for Open Expression; calls for applications for University Senate committees go out every year. Any Emory Community member who believes their rights under the Policy were violated may write to the Committee at openexpression@emory.edu The Committee might write a report on the matter (opinions and reports issued by the Committee in past years can be found at https://senate.emory.edu/committees/open-expression.html), or it may advocate on behalf of individuals who believe their rights were violated (which may include serving as an advisor at a disciplinary hearing) (8.14.3.7).

Yes, the polling location is considered on campus, but open expression activities do not supersede state and county law. During the voting period, state and county laws govern voting sites, and 1599 is no exception.

Per state law, no political campaign paraphernalia is permitted within 150 feet of DeKalb’s polling location, measured from the outer edges of that building. This includes items brought in by voters, volunteers, staff in the building, and visitors; it includes signs and clothing. Additionally, there are restrictions on demonstrations within 150 feet of the end of any voter line. Please note that, with the ebb and flow of the voter line, the 150 feet boundary will adjust accordingly.