In the 1960s and ’70s, college campuses were loci of
political protests that often grew to be riots. Images of police in
riot gear, quelling student demonstrators with stinging clouds of
tear gas have seared the Civil Rights Movement and Vietnam protests
into history’s collective memory as a volatile, and often
dangerous, era of student protest.
But the current atmosphere on college campuses is not nearly
fiery enough to justify the adoption of an anti-riot bill recently
introduced to the state Legislature by Sen. Abel Maldonado, R-San
Luis Obispo. Even if the present situation were as dramatic as
during the ’60s and ’70s, such a bill would still be
anti-free speech and effectively, anti-American.
The authors of California Senate Bill 337 say the proposed law
would punish and prevent “riotous behavior.” But in
truth, all SB 337 would do is limit free speech, unfairly punish
college students and create another unnecessary zero-tolerance
rule.
The exact text of SB 337 calls for the mandatory expulsion of
any student at a California State University or community college
convicted of engaging in riotous behavior, including
“remaining present at the scene of a riot after a warning to
disperse, and assembly for the purpose of disturbing the public
peace.”
The University of California operates independently of the state
Legislature so UC students would be expelled only if the UC Board
of Regents agrees with the Legislature and votes to adopt such a
policy.
Maldanado’s spokesman said the bill was partially the
result of a riot following a Mardi Gras party in San Luis Obispo.
Taken in historical perspective, it is hard to believe the state
needs a law with ultra-harsh punishments for illegal
“assembly” if the state was able to survive the
protests of the 1960s.
The bill also would make convicted students ineligible for Cal
Grants for an additional two years after they resume university
instruction ““ a clause that is unfairly prejudiced against
low-income students.
Violent protests and reckless partying aren’t justifiable,
but reasonable people (and legislators) must also recognize college
is a learning experience for students. Institutions of higher
education should allow for the opportunity to assemble without
fearing participation in a party or demonstration will escalate
into or, worse, be unfairly classified as a riot, and therefore
place students’ access to education in jeopardy.
Just as drug laws do little to prevent casual substance use, it
is hard to believe SB 337 will have a significant effect on college
partying or political demonstrations. Most parties that devolve
into “riots” are not carefully choreographed events and
a plethora of laws already exist to punish genuinely illegal
behavior.
California does not need SB 337. While maintaining the peace on
college campuses is necessary to ensure student safety, there are
already plenty of criminal and civil laws in place to punish unruly
and dangerous behavior. Moreover, educators and regents, not
legislators, should decide on academic punishments for
students.