Minutes and information from the Dec. 15 Presidential Policy Advisory Group meeting
The following message was sent to Ohio University students, faculty and staff on Wednesday, Dec. 20, 2017.
Dear Ohio University Community,
I am reaching out to provide the University community with an update on the recently-named Presidential Policy Advisory Group.
The Presidential Policy Advisory Group convened for its second meeting on Friday, December 15, 2017 at 1:30 p.m. The meeting commenced with a continuation of the conversation about whether future meetings should be public or if meetings should remain closed.
Some members expressed concern that the credibility of the committee might be jeopardized if the committee continues to meet behind closed doors—and that some in the University community might distrust a group they perceived was meeting without sufficient transparency. The majority of the group agreed that transparency is a good reason for open meetings, but the group grappled with issues related to the productivity of committee work and the free exchange of complex ideas if meetings were to be held in open session. Some members expressed concern that the interim policy will remain in effect as this group continues to deliberate, so expediency and efficiency is also very important and an open forum might impede that.
Many group members agreed a hybrid approach for future meetings might be the best way to proceed, arguing that later phases of the committee’s work would be more amenable to public meetings rather than its current, methodical review of public comments. Some members thought that open meetings would be most productive for all parties when the group begins to actually formulate its recommendations for policymakers. Group members, overall, also agreed that public forums would provide an opportunity for community members to participate in the deliberative process. Some committee members also observed that the eventual, future draft of the new free expression policy will go to the individual University Senates for comprehensive discussion and feedback.
The group was not able to reach unanimity on this topic, but all members saw value in the conversation, thus discussion about open and closed meetings will remain ongoing, as members see fit.
For the second half of the meeting, group members focused on the process for evaluating all of the comments that were received on the two interim University policies, Freedom of Expression and Use of Outdoor Space through the public comment process. The group intends to create a large list of themes based on the public comments and then collapse those themes into broader concepts that will inform its work. Because the group is still in the very early stages of analyzing public comments, the themes and example statements are still being developed and subject to change as further comments are analyzed.
From review of one section of public comments, common themes tentatively observed and discussed at the December 15 meeting included:
- Free speech is vital to all universities and the current interim policy impinges on the university’s central mission to encourage and facilitate the free exchange of ideas to help people become informed citizens.
- The interim policies limit free speech and restrict the mission of higher education.
- The interim policies are potentially harmful to marginalized communities in particular and their ability to be heard.
- Provisions included in the interim policies are ambiguous for all parties--those seeking the right to express themselves, those who must ensure that constitutional rights are protected, and those who must ensure the safety of all community members.
- Some protests are intentionally designed to disrupt in order to be effective, and the university should permit such disruptive protests without consequence.
The public comments also contained many broad assertions regarding constitutionality of the interim policy that did not identify particular sections or explain the basis for the claim. Many of the public comments were predicated on contemporary concerns–commentary about the events in Charlottesville, but also the February 1 arrests at Ohio University. Many respondents used the comment period as an opportunity to disagree with events on the local and national levels.
In closing, the majority of group members agreed that part of the committee’s role will be to educate the University community about what is constitutionally protected speech and what is not.
Committee members will continue to review the submitted comments to establish common themes. The group discussed adding a 3-hour meeting to the schedule toward the end of winter break to complete its discussion of the themes emerging from all public comments.
The next currently scheduled Presidential Policy Advisory Group meeting will occur on Wednesday, January 3 at 11 a.m., with a media availability immediately following the meeting.
All meeting dates and minutes can be found online at: https://www.ohio.edu/policy-group/meeting-notes
Members in attendance at the December 15 Presidential Advisory Group meeting included: Scott Titsworth, Dean representative and advisory group convener; Landen Lama, President, Student Senate; Maria Modayil, President, Graduate Student Senate; Jacqueline Wolf, designee for Chair, Faculty Senate; Jessica Wingett, Chair, Administrative Senate; Sharon Romina, Chair, Classified Senate; Katherine Jellison, Chair/Director representative; Grant Garber, Legal Affairs representative; Andrew Powers, Chief of Police; Dusty Kilgour, Executive Director of Baker Center; and Carly Leatherwood, University Communications and Marketing, ex-officio.
We will continue to keep you informed throughout this review process.
Thank you,
Scott Titsworth, Ph.D.
Dean, Scripps College of Communication
Convener, Presidential Policy Advisory Group