
More than 1,000 US students punished over speech since 2020, report finds
Parker Hovis was four courses away from getting his computer science degree from the University of Florida when he was arrested along with several other students at a pro-Palestine protest on campus last spring. While the charges against him were dismissed and a school conduct committee recommended only minor punishment – a form of probation – the university president suspended him for three years. He'll be required to reapply if he wants to come back after that.
Hovis, who has since left Florida and is working to pay off his student loans despite never graduating, is one of more than 1,000 students or student groups that were targeted by their universities for punishment between 2020 and 2024 over their speech, according to a report published today by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (Fire). Some 63% of them were ultimately punished.
'Open minds and free debate, not self-censorship and punishment, should be the standard on campuses, and we see far too frequently that isn't the case,' said Logan Dougherty, the report's author. 'No matter where the pressure is coming from, administrations should resist efforts to punish students for protected speech.'
The free speech group tallied university efforts to investigate, censor, or otherwise punish students over constitutionally protected 'expressive activity', compiling a database of incidents at both public universities, which are bound by first amendment protections, and private ones, which are under no such obligation although many purport to value free speech. Among the most severe punishments, it found that more than 300 students or student groups were formally censored, 72 were suspended, and 55 were 'separated from their institution or its funding'. According to Fire, data for the first four months of this year suggests the database of punished students 'is on pace to double last year's total'.
The report paints a picture of institutions of higher learning that are increasingly willing to punish students over the expression of their views – particularly during politically charged events like the 'racial reckoning' that followed the 2020 police killing of George Floyd, a Black man, and the 7 October Hamas attacks and Israel's subsequent war in Gaza.
Both periods saw an increase in school discipline – with some differences. Before the war in Gaza, most of the students facing calls for or actual punishment were targeted for 'expression about race', the report finds, with most demands for discipline coming from other students on the left in response to racist speech. Since 2023, students have been punished over pro-Palestine speech from the right, with politicians and university administrators themselves leading the charge more than in any other period.
The Fire data, based on publicly available reports, is not comprehensive. It notably excludes punishment meted out in connection to a wave of pro-Palestine student encampments last spring, which could be subject to 'time, place, and manner' restrictions on the first amendment – meaning, schools may have had grounds for punishment if the students were violating the law. More than 3,200 people were arrested as police moved to clear many of those encampments, with some of the disciplinary processes that followed still under way.
The discipline of students over pro-Palestinian speech, and the flurry of new restrictions universities introduced following last year's protests, set a dangerous precedent, advocates warn.
Such policies 'are now on the books and available to be used against speech critical of environmental policy, racial justice, or really anything college administrators or the politicians exerting pressure upon them don't like,' said Tori Porell, a staff attorney at Palestine Legal. In a report published in April, the group, which supports pro-Palestinian speech in the US, saw a 55% increase in requests for help in 2024 over 2023, and a 600% increase over 2022. Two thirds of the requests came from university campuses.
The disciplinary measures often went beyond the schools' own rules. As students at the University of Florida began to protest, part of the nationwide surge of pro-Palestine encampments last year, administrators distributed fliers listing prohibited items and activities and warning them that violators would face a '3 year trespass and suspension' from campus – even though neither the prohibitions nor the threatened punishment reflected official university policy.
While there were no tents at the protest, Hovis said the university accused him of violating the ban on 'camping' because he was sitting in a camping chair, an item that had not been prohibited before. He said the university wanted to make 'examples' of him and four others suspended over the protest.
'I was sitting there thinking, if they're really going to arrest me and suspend me over sitting in a folding chair on the grass of the college campus that I pay tuition to go to – for protesting against a genocide – then let them do it,' said Hovis. 'And they did it, and it has kind of uprooted my life. But I don't regret it.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Reuters
33 minutes ago
- Reuters
US stock futures fall after Israel attacks Iran
June 13 (Reuters) - U.S. stock index futures dropped on Friday after Israel's military strike on Iran escalated tensions in the oil-rich Middle East and battered risk sentiment across global markets. Israel's widescale strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities were aimed at preventing Tehran from building an atomic weapon. Iran has promised a harsh response and retaliated by launching 100 drones. The escalation of tensions in the Middle East - a major oil-producing region - sent oil prices surging more than 6% and U.S. energy stocks rose in tandem, with Chevron (CVX.N), opens new tab and Exxon (XOM.N), opens new tab advancing nearly 3% in premarket trading. The strikes come just days ahead of a planned sixth round of nuclear talks between Iran and the United States. Tensions had been building as U.S. President Donald Trump's efforts to reach a nuclear deal with Iran appeared to be deadlocked. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio called the Israeli offensive a "unilateral action" and said Washington was not involved. At 04:32 a.m. ET, Dow E-minis were down 505 points, or 1.17%, S&P 500 E-minis were down 70.5 points, or 1.17%, and Nasdaq 100 E-minis were down 309.25 points, or 1.41%. A 1.6% slump in Russell futures pointed to sharp declines for domestically focused stocks. Airline stocks dipped as the surge in crude prices raised concerns about higher fuel costs. Delta Air Lines (DAL.N), opens new tab was down 3.9%, United Airlines (UAL.O), opens new tab dropped 4.8%, Southwest Airlines (LUV.N), opens new tab lost 2.5% and American Airlines (AAL.O), opens new tab declined 3.9%. Defense stocks rose, with Lockheed Martin (LMT.N), opens new tab up 4.7%, RTX Corporation (RTX.N), opens new tab up 5.5%, Northrop Grumman (NOC.N), opens new tab up 4.2% and L3harris Technologies (LHX.N), opens new tab up 4.3%. The S&P 500 (.SPX), opens new tab still remains just 1.8% below its record high reached earlier this year, following stellar monthly gains in May driven by upbeat corporate earnings and a softening in Trump's trade stance. The tech-heavy Nasdaq (.IXIC), opens new tab is about 2.8% off its record closing high reached in December last year. Investors are now focused on the Federal Reserve's meeting scheduled next week where policymakers are expected to keep interest rates unchanged.


Reuters
39 minutes ago
- Reuters
HHS Enforcement Letter on DEI and ACA Section 1557 Compliance Practical Law The Journal
On May 6, 2025, HHS issued a 'Dear Colleague' letter addressing nondiscrimination requirements under: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI). Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) (for more information, see ACA Section 1557 Compliance for Health Coverage Toolkit on Practical Law). The Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution. Directed at medical schools that receive federal funding from HHS, the letter focuses on the schools' use of race-based criteria in admissions and hiring (including under some DEI programs). (HHS, Dear Colleague Letter (May 6, 2025); HHS, Press Release (May 6, 2025).) ACA Section 1557 ACA Section 1557 prohibits individuals from being excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or subject to discrimination under a health program or activity that receives federal financial assistance on specified grounds. Section 1557 incorporates the grounds for prohibited discrimination under four civil rights laws. One of these laws, as HHS notes in the May 2025 letter, is Title VI, which bars discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin (42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d to 2000d-7; for more information, see June 2020 Final Regulations Under ACA Section 1557: Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities on Practical Law). The second Trump administration has expressly referenced ACA Section 1557 in recent investigatory announcements of race-based criteria and DEI programs, suggesting that these issues may eventually be addressed in additional proposed regulations under Section 1557 (for more information, see Trump Administration Investigates Hospitals' DEI Programs Using ACA Section 1557 on Practical Law). If so, the substantive scope of the next set of Section 1557 regulations will likely differ significantly from the version of these regulations finalized under the Biden administration one year ago (for more information, see ACA Section 1557 Compliance for Health Coverage Toolkit on Practical Law). Counsel should monitor Section 1557 guidance from the Trump administration and settlement agreements involving the administration's investigatory efforts in this space.


Reuters
39 minutes ago
- Reuters
Google takes a gamble in class action jury trial over cell phone data use
June 4 (Reuters) - Class actions rarely go to trial, which is why a case against Google is proving to be an outlier. The tech giant is defending itself before a jury in Santa Clara County, California, superior court in an $800 million lawsuit, opens new tab by Android smartphone users who say Google misappropriates their cellphone data. A jury of eight women and four men was seated on Tuesday in what lawyers say is expected to be a three-to-four-week trial, with opening statements kicking off on Wednesday. The stakes are high, but the class, which includes an estimated 14 million Californians whose mobile devices use Google's Android operating system, is in some ways just an appetizer. The same plaintiffs lawyers from Korein Tillery; Bartlit Beck and McManis Faulkner are litigating a parallel case in San Jose federal court covering Android users in the other 49 states, with billions of dollars in alleged damages. The plaintiffs in court papers say that even when their phones are turned off, Google causes Android devices to surreptitiously send information over cellular networks 'for Google's own purposes,' including targeted digital advertising. These transfers improperly eat up data that users purchase from their mobile carriers, the plaintiffs allege. Google spokesperson José Castañeda said the claims 'mischaracterize standard industry practices that help protect users and make phones more reliable,' he told me. 'We look forward to making our case in court." A unit of Mountain View, California-based Alphabet, Google has a well-used playbook for settling class actions. Earlier this week, for example, the company agreed to pay $500 million to resolve shareholder litigation — a move that comes on the heels of a $50 million deal in May to resolve class-wide allegations of racial bias against Black employees and a $100 million payout in March to a proposed class of advertisers who claimed they were overcharged for clicks on ads. So why is Google taking this case to trial? In court papers, Google's outside counsel from Cooley argue that Android users incurred no actual losses, and that consumers consented to Google's so-called 'passive' data transfers via terms of service agreements and device settings. The lawyers also dispute the fundamental premise of the case: that cellular data allowances can be considered 'property' under California law and subject to conversion, a civil cause of action that involves taking a person's property without permission. When the 'rhetoric and hyperbole are set aside, Plaintiffs' theory is revealed as little more than a (misguided) product design claim — not wrongful conversion,' defense counsel wrote. The Cooley team, which includes Whitty Somvichian, Michael Attanasio, Max Bernstein and Carrie Lebel, declined comment. The plaintiffs sued Google in Santa Clara County Superior Court in 2019, asserting that they have a property interest in their cellular plans' data allowances, and that each quantum they pay for has a market value. They don't object to data transmissions when they're actively engaged with Google's apps and properties, like checking email or playing a game. But they say Google never told them it would avail itself of their cellular data when they weren't using their phones to send and receive a range of information on their usage. 'The upshot is that these phone users unknowingly subsidize the same Google advertising business that earns over $200 billion a year,' plaintiffs lawyer George Zelcs of Korein Tillery said via email. In addition to injunctive relief, the plaintiffs want Google to reimburse them for the value of the cellular data the company consumed. Per person, the amount is modest – 1 to 1.5 megabytes of data each day, the plaintiffs estimate. To put that in context, Americans used just over 100 trillion megabytes of wireless data in 2023, my Reuters colleagues reported. But with a class period dating back to 2016, the totals add up quickly. In court papers, Google lawyers sound almost incredulous at the amount of the claimed nationwide damages, which they say runs in the tens of billions — more than the $7.4 billion Perdue Pharma settlement for the opioid crisis, they note. "Plaintiffs cannot show remotely commensurate harm to the class," they wrote. In denying Google's motion for summary judgment in May, Judge Charles Adams allowed the plaintiffs' claim for conversion to go forward, ruling there are triable issues of material fact for jurors to decide. While Adams said no direct state law precedent exists as to whether cell phone data is property, he pointed to a decision, opens new tab by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year in the parallel federal class action, Taylor v Google. In that case, U.S. Magistrate Judge Virginia DeMarchi in San Jose sided with Google and dismissed the complaint, opens new tab with prejudice in 2022, only to be reversed and remanded on appeal. The appellate panel in an unpublished decision ruled that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged they incurred damages when Google used their cellular data. Adams in a pre-trial order set some limits on what the lawyers will be allowed to argue to the jury. Plaintiffs may not suggest Google engages in "surveillance" of Android users, he wrote, or that the data transfers are a privacy violation. As for Google, Adams said, it 'must not present evidence or argument suggesting that this case is 'lawyer driven' or was 'invented' by Plaintiffs' counsel.'