In a statement made during his 2014 address to faculty and staff, Grand Valley State University President Thomas Haas said that the university will be reviewing the current Bias Incident Protocol.

“All of us must work in creating an inclusive learning environment,” Haas said.

The Bias Incident Protocol was last revised in November of 2013.

“The focus is not to rewrite the protocol but to make it clearer as to what it addresses,” said Dwight Hamilton, associate vice president for affirmative action and Title IX officer. “The protocol is not intended to suppress any speech – offensive, unpopular or otherwise.

“No student or employee is subject to discipline under the protocol, unless there is accompanying conduct that violates federal, state or local law or the student code of conduct.”

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education created a report in August of 2013 citing GVSU’s 2011 Bias Incident Protocol as being dangerous to the right of free speech, giving the Bias Incident Protocol a red light – the lowest possible rating.

According to FIRE’s website, “the threat to free speech at a red light institution is obvious on the face of the policy and does not depend on how the policy is applied.”

Hamilton said that this rating is not based on current policy.

“FIRE bases its rating of GVSU on an older version of the Bias Incident Protocol, not the current policy,” Hamilton said. “Further, FIRE also cites our anti-harassment policy in its rating. This policy addresses conduct, not expression, and reflects our obligations under federal and Michigan civil rights laws and long-standing legal precedent.”

On Dec. 5, 2013, the Lanthorn editorial “No More Billboards” was released, causing university authorities to contact the editor-in-chief, Lizzy Balboa. This incident led to a discussion about freedom of speech on campus.

FIRE’s Program Officer for the individual rights defense program, Susan Kruth, wrote an article published in February of 2014 about GVSU’s rating, citing the incident with Balboa.

The controversy surrounding the editorial brought into question the university’s policies on free speech and whether or not it was truly protected on campus.

Kruth’s article said that GVSU protested its overall ratings, claiming that the school values and protects freedom of expression.

“This action, like GVSU’s broad written policies, is likely to dissuade students from fully exercising their free speech rights,” Kruth said.

Bias Incident Protocol and free speech on campus all tie into the First Amendment of the Constitution, which as a public university, GVSU is required to uphold.

Bart Merkle, vice provost for student affairs and dean of students, has stated that while the university will address every Bias Incident report, there is little that the university can do unless it steps beyond hate speech. He added that most reports end up being hate speech.

In the case of hate speech, Merkle said he can speak to perpetrators and ask them why they chose to communicate in such a way and if that is how they wish to represent themselves.

“You don’t have to like people, but as a university community we have committed ourselves to being civil and respectful in the way we act. Do we have the right to be hateful? Yes, but that doesn’t make it right,” Merkle said.

FIRE has questioned whether or not the university is compliant with the First Amendment.

The current 2013 Bias Incident Protocol states that, “it’s important to report and to respond to bias incidents – even those intended as jokes.”

Bias Incidents can include “expressions of hate or hostility.”

Kruth said that this wording is inconsistent. Hate speech is protected by the Constitution.

Kruth also said that if the university is concerned, GVSU can work with FIRE to improve free speech on campus.

“Subjecting a student to an investigation based on speech just because it is ‘hateful’ is therefore inconsistent with GVSU’s legal and moral obligations as a public institution,” she said.