Category Archives: statements by departments, students and professional organizations

Gun-Free UT Statement on President Fenves’ Campus Carry Policies

GunFreeUT Statement on President Fenves’ Campus Carry Policies – February 17, 2016

Download GunFreeUT Statement on President Fenves

GunFreeUT is a large group of faculty, students, staff, parents, and alumni that support common-sense policies that ban the civilian carry of handguns on the University of Texas at Austin campus.

We acknowledge that President Fenves’s policy adopts some provisions supported by the campus community, including banning concealed handguns in university-run student dormitory rooms, facilities hosting children, and areas with dangerous substances.  It also permits occupants of individual offices to disallow guns in those spaces.  But the policy does not go far enough.  We strongly oppose President Fenves’ decision to permit guns other areas of campus, including classrooms, shared offices, student dining areas, and lounges.  We call upon the Regents of the University of Texas to use their power to amend Campus Carry policy by banning guns in all campus buildings.

Stakeholders do not want guns on campus.  More than 1,700 UT-Austin professors, nearly 1,800 graduate and professional students, a majority of polled undergraduates, and almost 9,000 members of the community oppose guns in classrooms.  The UT-Austin Faculty Council opposes guns in classrooms as do 43 campus departments and 11 academic professional societies.

In our view, the first responsibility of the university president is to protect the safety and welfare of its students and employees.  President Fenves’s policy fails this simple test.  The policy prohibits concealed carry where animals and certain chemicals are present due to concern over accidental discharge, but does not prohibit guns where students, faculty, and staff teach, learn, and work.  The Campus Carry Working Group whose recommendations President Fenves adopted concluded that accidental discharge represents a major risk if guns are handled. 

Campus Carry Policy will make concealed handguns easily accessible for many members of the campus community.  Nearly all faculty, staff, graduate students, and other employees can obtain a concealed carry permit by attending a four-hour course and with no prior or subsequent training of any kind.  If that is too much red tape, Texas has reciprocity agreements with 31 states, including some that issue licenses to nonresidents and have no training requirement.

Campus carry advocates argue that armed citizens will better protect themselves and others, but actual research shows that claim is false.  States with laxer gun laws have more violent crime, no armed civilian (who was not affiliated with law enforcement or the military) has ever neutralized a school shooter, and one of the most substantial studies on the subject shows that even trained police officers achieve just an 18% hit-rate during gunfights.

Failing to ban guns in classrooms and other areas not only makes our places or work and study more dangerous, but it also threatens academic freedom and free speech, compromises our educational mission, and diminishes the university’s reputation.  The university should be known for its distinguished faculty, the quality of its education, and the excellence of its athletes.  Campus Carry damages our reputation at home and abroad.  Governor Abbott and Texas lawmakers recently adopted SB 632 to fund the recruitment of world-class faculty to the university, including its new medical center, yet guns on campus have already repulsed potential recruits and talented faculty have resigned.  We are certain to suffer more losses to our reputation and our donor-base.

Education and research is what we do best and we are struck by the absence of fact-based and data-driven debate on gun safety on college campuses.  We call upon President Fenves to respond to Faculty Council and GunFreeUT requests to establish an institute for the study of gun safety at UT-Austin.  Such a center would make a positive contribution to the study of guns on college campuses and attract some of the best researchers on gun safety to our campus rather than repelling some of its best minds.

The longer President Fenves and the Regents wait to implement the common sense and campus community-supported ban of concealed guns on campus, the more disruptive it will be for our educational mission.  GunFreeUT will oppose the intrusion of guns into our educational spaces by legal actions guided by the best advice we can obtain.  Students and faculty are also planning numerous direct actions.  As faculty, we would prefer to invest all of our energy and talents into what we do best: teach Texas’s young adults, produce world-class research, and fulfill the university’s core mission.  As students, we would prefer to focus on our studies and future careers.  As staff, we would prefer to propel the university to new heights.  Let us keep guns off campus and keep building the university of the 21st century for the State of Texas.

Graduate Student Assembly Resolution

Link to document

G.R. 16 (S) 1
The Graduate Student Assembly
The University of Texas at Austin

Resolution: G.R. 16 (S) 1 Sponsors: Legislative Affairs Committee
Keeping UT Classrooms Gun-Free

Summary: A resolution expressing the position of the Graduate Student Assembly on Senate Bill 11 (S.B. 11), the “campus carry” law.

WHEREAS

“Senate Bill 11, the “campus carry” law, was passed by the Texas Legislature and signed into law by Governor Abbott last spring and provides that, beginning August 1, 2016, a person who holds a license to carry may carry a handgun – concealed – both on the grounds and in the buildings of an institution of higher education”; and
(from the Final Report, Campus Carry Working Group)

WHEREAS

Graduate students increasingly live, work, study, and learn in spaces that will be open to CHL holders under S.B. 11, if implemented as per the Campus Carry Working Group recommendations; and

WHEREAS

1,787 UT graduate students to date have signed a public statement affirming their opposition to firearms in UT classrooms, who belong to 132 programs in 18 Colleges and Schools at UT and represent 15.8% of the university’s 11,331 graduate student population; and
(from press release, UT Grad Students Oppose Campus Carry)

WHEREAS

The Campus Carry Working group found, “A very substantial majority of the comments [they] received from the University community expressed opposition to or serious misgivings about S.B. 11 and the implementation of campus carry,” which is consistent with conversations shared with this body during assembly meetings and with comments received by our members; and

WHEREAS

We believe new university policies, whether produced internally or required by the state legislature, ought to have a demonstrated positive effect on educational outcomes, and a review of the evidence cited by the Campus Carry Working Group in their report finds no positive effect, in fact their report recognizes that “allowing concealed handguns in classrooms may chill some class discussion and hinder the recruitment and retention of faculty and students”; and

WHEREAS

We are eager to engage in a detailed conversation around the implementation of S.B.11 at UT in the future, we believe it is important to acknowledge a significant group of graduate students who are opposed to guns in academic classrooms in any and all circumstances; and

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT

The Graduate Student Assembly strongly opposes concealed handgun license (CHL) holders bringing concealed weapons into UT classrooms; and

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT

The Graduate Student Assembly considers S.B.11 an ideological bill that is an unnecessary intrusion into an educational environment that risks, in the words of Chancellor McRaven, stifling “the academic freedom and robust debate that is central to our mission of educating the young men and women of our state and conducting the research that changes lives and the world around us”; and

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT

The Graduate Student Assembly strongly encourages that President Gregory Fenves do everything in his power to prevent CHL holders from bringing concealed weapons into UT classrooms; and

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT

This legislation be filed with the Office of the President, made available on the Graduate Student Assembly website, and be broadly distributed to graduate students and the UT community.

The Archaeological Institute of America Statement on Campus Carry

aiaseal

At its Janary 8, 2016 Council Meeting, the AIA Council voted to approve the following statement:

The Archaeological Institute of America is deeply concerned about the impact of Texas’s new campus carry law on freedom of expression in Texas universities. The law, which was passed earlier this year and takes effect in August 2016, allows licensed handgun carriers to bring concealed handguns into buildings on Texas campuses. Our societies are concerned that the campus carry law and similar laws in other states introduce serious safety threats on college campuses.

The AIA joins with more than twenty-eight other scholarly societies who have also expressed concern about campus carry legislation. For a complete list, please visit the Modern Language Association’s Statements on Campus Carry Legislation page.

UT Faculty Council Passes New Resolutions on Campus Carry

On November 16, 2015, the UT Austin Faculty Council passed a resolution concluding that it “strongly opposes allowing guns in The University of Texas at Austin classrooms, laboratories, residence halls, university offices, and other spaces of education.”

In December 2015, the Campus Carry Policy Working Group (CC working group) released its report recommending the gun-exclusion zones that should be allowed when Senate Bill 11 (SB 11) is implemented on August 1, 2016.

Consistent with the Faculty Council’s resolution, the CC working group recommended excluding guns from:

      • Laboratories
      • Animal Facilities
      • Dormitories (but not public spaces)
      • Assigned offices (with responsibility for notifications and off-site meetings).

Although the working group expressed its strong opposition to guns in classrooms, it did not recommend excluding guns from them, and it reached no consensus on mixed use buildings.

Responding to the CC working group’s recommendations, the Faculty Council recognizes that the CC working group had a difficult job and that they “made every effort to remain true to the charge President Fenves gave us: to recommend steps he can take that will promote safety and security for all members of the campus in a way that complies with the law” (Report p. 7).  The Faculty Council also wishes to express its support for maintaining campus safety, but it also affirms its broader responsibility, one that includes protecting free inquiry and academic freedom from intimidating influences that impede learning and creative activities.  With that responsibility in mind, the Faculty Council endorses the following resolutions:

Resolution 1.  Classrooms should be gun-exclusion zones.

Commentary:  All members of the working group felt that guns should not be allowed in classrooms.  They were, nevertheless, concerned that excluding guns from classrooms would be considered a general prohibition and therefore illegal.  They considered but rejected the alternative, which is to exclude guns from classrooms while providing secure storage for guns for students and instructors in class.  Such storage could be provided as secure gun lockers in enclosed spaces at various locations on campus.

The working group reasoned that storing and retrieving guns introduces risks that are greater than just carrying guns.  While it is true that there is a risk to storing guns, the risk is borne mainly by the gun owners, not the whole campus.  If the risk is unacceptable, the gun owners have the option of leaving their guns at home.  Students and faculty who feel intimidated, or at risk because of guns in the classroom, do not have the option of missing or cancelling classes.

Resolution 2:  When any part of a building is a gun-exclusion zone, the whole building should be a gun-exclusion zone.

Commentary: Having parts of buildings as exclusion zones will be very difficult to enforce, while treating buildings as units will reduce requirements for signage, which is a goal of the Chancellor’s.  This policy will solve the problem of how to treat mixed-use buildings.  In addition, it means that common areas in dormitories would be gun-exclusion zones.

Resolution 3.  University personnel who have declared their office a gun-exclusion zone should be able to post appropriate signage if the “whole building” policy proposed in Resolution 2 is not adopted.  They should also not be required to meet an armed person at another location.

Commentary:  Recommendation #18 in the CC working group report proposes that an office holder who has prohibited concealed weapons should give oral notice to visitors and arrange somewhere else to meet with gun owners.  The expectation of oral notice and having to arrange external meeting space is complicated, time-consuming, fraught, and intimidating, and it is an unjustifiable burden on University personnel.  Gun owners who wish to meet with staff in a gun-exclusion zone  should store their weapons and not create unnecessary work for already overburdened staff and faculty.

Resolution 4.  The University Police should receive extensive training to deal with the implementation of SB 11.

Commentary:  A recent demonstration adjacent to campus and in a campus parking garage evoked a confused response from campus police.  Several men with semiautomatic weapons   on the roof of a parking garage were not considered reason for alarm.  Open display of a handgun or a very good replica was also deemed acceptable.  Students and staff asked officers on the scene if the open carry of handguns was permissible, and whether the garages were considered university premises, and the officers were unable to give clear answers. The University needs to establish a policy that assures the campus that the police are properly trained and will not allow armed individuals to intimidate or threaten the community.

Resolution 5.  The University should mount an initiative to study gun violence, and non-lethal means of enhancing personal safety, both on-campus and off-campus.

Commentary: As the CC working group recognized, this important area of study has long been neglected. The University of Texas at Austin could quickly become a national leader by establishing an interdisciplinary research center or institute spanning STEM and Humanities disciplines and recruiting outstanding senior scholars to lead innovative approaches to these complex problems.  This effort should include a robust multi-media Public Scholarship effort to make research results on gun violence and violence prevention accessible to the public. A working group should be tasked with developing a plan to establish these research and outreach efforts.  One useful step might be an initial workshop on campus bringing leading scholars from other institutions to interact with UT faculty, staff, and development officers to help jump-start this process.

Texas State University Department of History — SB11 is Unconstitutional and Should be Repealed

Department of History Statement about the 2015 Texas Campus Carry Law

We, the full-time faculty and staff of the Department of History at Texas State University, by 31 votes to 1, strongly oppose the 2015 Texas Campus Carry Law that allows concealed handguns in university classrooms and offices, thereby violating the First Amendment rights of faculty and students to free speech.

Second Amendment rights do not take precedence over First Amendment rights. A law that has a chilling effect on free speech is unconstitutional (First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech”). By allowing concealed handguns in public university classrooms, SB11 will create or exacerbate a climate of emotional fear and distrust, and thus will have a chilling effect on the free speech of instructors and students. Therefore, it is unconstitutional.

The sanctity of freedom of speech in the classroom has been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States (See, e.g., Kracunas v. Iona College, 119 F.3d 80, 88 & n. 5 (2d Cir. 1997)), and the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) has affirmed that concealed handguns in public Texas university classrooms, laboratories, offices, and other learning environments will chill and harm both instructor and student speech in various academic departments (see “Academic Freedom and the First Amendment,” 2007). Should Texas State University allow concealed handguns in its classrooms, the institution will thus violate the free speech rights of instructors and students guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Further, the introduction of concealed handguns into public university classrooms in Texas, according to the AAUP’s logic in its 2007 white paper, expands the “legislative oversight over what professors may teach . . .” in their courses. In his opinion in Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183 (1952), U.S. Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter argued resolutely:

Such unwarranted inhibition upon the free spirit of teachers . . . has an unmistakable tendency to chill that free play of the spirit which all teachers ought especially to cultivate and practice; it makes for caution and timidity in their associations by potential teachers. . . . Teachers must . . . be exemplars of open-mindedness and free inquiry (AAUP “Academic Freedom and the First Amendment,” 2007).

From our perspective, the Texas law is essentially censorship of free speech by guns.

We are also seriously concerned about the harm the Texas Campus Carry law will cause to the institution’s national and international reputation, as well as the barriers it will create to the recruitment and retention of top-tier faculty and students. We believe that such an atmosphere will undermine the university’s ability to fulfill its mission.
Numerous other academic institutions and associations have already voiced similar concerns, including the faculty and students at Rice University, the University of Texas at Austin, and numerous other Texas institutions of higher education, public and private, as well as twenty-nine major American scholarly societies, including the American Historical Association, the leading professional organization in our
discipline.
Therefore, we, the History full-time faculty and staff at Texas State University, call for the repeal of SB11 and urge the Task Force and the Faculty Senate to recommend to President Trauth in the strongest terms
that all guns be banned from classrooms and offices at Texas State University.

San Marcos, 13 December, 2015

Photo: Old Main, San Marcos  By Liveon001 ©Travis Witt (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0 or GFDL], via Wikimedia Commons

Graduate Students’ Open Letter Expressing Opposition to Firearms in UT Classrooms

An Open Letter Expressing Opposition to Firearms in UT Classrooms
from the Legislative Affairs Committee of the Graduate Student Assembly

Tuesday, December 8, 2015

Attention:

Dr. Gregory Fenves, President, University of Texas at Austin
Prof. Steven Goode, Chair, Campus Carry Working Group

Context

The Legislative Affairs Committee of the Graduate Student Assembly is participating in an ongoing discussion with graduate students about their concerns with regard to SB11, as passed by the Texas Legislature in the 84th Regular Session.

As part of this discussion, and recognizing the possibility that President Fenves may soon take action to “establish reasonable rules, regulations, or other provisions regarding the carrying of concealed handguns by licensed holders on the campus of the institution or on premises located on the campus of the institution,” as per the language of SB 11, we thought it best to issue this open letter on behalf of concerned graduate students.

We hope that this letter will encourage meaningful discourse, and that this discourse will lead to recommendations which reflect the best interests of our graduate students.  We may also submit a resolution on behalf of graduate students for consideration by the full Graduate Student Assembly at a future date.  However, at this time, this letter reflects only the sentiments of those graduate students who have shared their voice with the Legislative Affairs Committee.

An Open Letter Expressing Opposition to Firearms in UT Classrooms

The Legislative Affairs Committee of the Graduate Student Assembly wants to acknowledge the 1,787 graduate students to date who have signed a public statement affirming their opposition to firearms in UT classrooms.

According to a press release distributed by the organizers of this petition, who are also UT graduate students, the student signers “belong to 132 programs in 18 Colleges and Schools at UT and represent 15.8% of the university’s 11,331 graduate student population.”  The petition began on October 16, 2015, and will remain open for additional signatures until August, 2016.

To date, we have searched for and discovered no graduate student organizations, formal or informal, nor petitions or other instances of students, advocating for firearms in UT classrooms.

We believe it is important to note that 1,787 public voices opposed to firearms in UT classrooms may represent a still larger proportion of students who are not yet aware of the petition, or who prefer not to publicly disclose their position on a contentious political issue.

For these 1,787 students, and the potentially broader group they represent, we believe there is only one acceptable course of action:  President Gregory Fenves must restrict concealed handgun license (CHL) holders from bringing their weapons into UT classrooms.

We recognize that SB11 as passed into law prohibits the President from establishing “provisions that generally prohibit or have the effect of generally prohibiting license holders from carrying concealed handguns on the campus of the institution.”  However, as consistent with guidance from State Rep. Martinez Fischer, who served on the conference committee that set the final language for SB11, we believe that sufficient policy tools are available to meet this requirement while still ensuring that UT classrooms are gun-free.  This is also consistent with the language in SB11, which insists “the president or officer may amend the provisions as necessary for campus safety,” which can be adjusted based on “the uniqueness of the campus environment.”

Lawmakers apply precise language in this bill, and clearly a university “campus” allows a broader definition than a university “classroom”, which is specifically focused on academic buildings when occupied by faculty and students as part of an educational program.  Additionally, it is not unreasonable to consider that part of the “uniqueness” of the campus environment at UT in Austin involves a commitment to gun-free classrooms in order to ensure that we do not “stifle the academic freedom and robust debate that is central to our mission of educating the young men and women of our state and conducting the research that changes lives and the world around us,” as UT System Chancellor William McRaven writes.

While State Sen. Birdwell, the author of SB11, may personally disagree with this unique campus commitment, his recent letter requesting an interpretation of the language of the bill from Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton demonstrates that the “meaning and effect of the act” do not clearly prohibit college presidents from declaring classrooms gun-free.  If the law were clear, would Sen. Birdwell feel compelled to pose six open-ended questions?

Sen. Birdwell asserts that these questions “affect the public interest because they would help to clarify the rights of public Colleges […] under the act.”  Additionally, State Sen. Joan Huffman is holding a public hearing on Jan. 26, 2016, to “determine if the current laws regulating the places that handguns can be carried are easily understood.”  For President Fenves to take any action based on Sen. Birdwell’s interpretation of SB11 that violates the current, gun-free classroom environment at UT, without first permitting a full public hearing to address Sen. Birdwell’s questions, would be to summarily disregard the best interests of a significant proportion of our graduate student community.

Furthermore, while we respect their opinions, Sen. Birdwell, Sen. Huffman, and Attorney General Paxton do not have the legal authority to interpret SB11 on behalf of UT, as the Austin American-Statesman aptly notes “attorney general opinions are nonbinding interpretations of law by agency attorneys.”  President Fenves alone holds the power to interpret SB11 in the best interests of UT, and our graduate students specifically.

If there are disagreements over President Fenves’ interpretation of SB11, then these are best settled in the courts.  Given that the law does not take effect until August 1, 2016 for public colleges, there are currently no penalties for establishing policies in support of our unique campus environment, even if such policies may unintentionally test the boundaries of the law.  If relevant court judgements and appeals processes are not finalized by August 1, an injunction can be filed to ensure due process for all parties.

For the 1,787 or more graduate students on whose behalf we write, we believe the only acceptable course of action is for President Fenves to restrict concealed handgun license (CHL) holders from bringing their weapons into UT classrooms.  Additionally, as necessary, President Fenves should promptly file motions in court sufficient to honor our historical commitment to keep classrooms gun-free, which these graduate students believe is essential to “ensure the safety and security of our entire campus community,” as President Fenves has pledged to do.

Most Sincerely,

The Legislative Affairs Committee of the Graduate Student Assembly,

The University of Texas at Austin

Michael Barnes (Chair)
Aron Weinberg
Emily Germain
Sahil Bhandari
Bart Pitchford
Amir Aziz

Reprinted with Permission

Graduate Students’ Questions on Campus Carry

An Open Letter Addressing Graduate Student Questions on Campus Carry (SB11)
from the Legislative Affairs Committee of the Graduate Student Assembly

Tuesday, December 8, 2015

Attention:

Dr. Gregory Fenves,    President, University of Texas at Austin
Prof. Steven Goode,    Chair, Campus Carry Working Group

Context

The Legislative Affairs Committee of the Graduate Student Assembly is participating in an ongoing discussion with graduate students about their concerns with regard to SB11, as passed by the Texas Legislature in the 84th Regular Session.

As part of this discussion, and recognizing the possibility that President Fenves may soon take action to “establish reasonable rules, regulations, or other provisions regarding the carrying of concealed handguns by licensed holders on the campus of the institution or on premises located on the campus of the institution,” as per the language of SB 11, we thought it best to issue this open letter on behalf of concerned graduate students.

We hope that this letter will encourage meaningful discourse, and that this discourse will lead to recommendations which reflect the best interests of our graduate students.  We may also submit a resolution on behalf of graduate students for consideration by the full Graduate Student Assembly at a future date.  However, at this time, this letter reflects only the sentiments of those graduate students who have shared their voice with the Legislative Affairs Committee.

An Open Letter Addressing Graduate Student Questions on Campus Carry

The Legislative Affairs Committee of the Graduate Student Assembly encourages President Gregory Fenves to consider the following questions, which are drawn from multiple conversations with graduate students.  We believe it is important to ensure that each of these questions are thoughtfully addressed through the development of “reasonable rules, regulations, or other provisions” adopted by UT, as allowed by SB11.

While there may be some overlap between questions posed in this open letter, and questions already considered by the campus carry working group and President Fenves, where possible we have endeavored to identify questions that represent the unique perspective of graduate students.  Additionally, we encourage graduate students (and all members of the UT-community) to continue sharing their thoughts, concerns, and key questions as we move forward.

Questions regarding who may carry firearms on campus under SB11:

  • Can non-UT students, staff, or faculty — e.g. members of the broader public — carry concealed weapons on campus?  If not, how will the university inform and regulate non-UT community members traveling onto our campus?
  • Can individuals who have obtained a CHL in another state, potentially with more lax requirements, carry concealed weapons on campus, as per Texas’ reciprocity laws?
  • Specifically, is UT prepared to accept CHL holders on campus taking advantage of the “Virginia loophole” which merely requires applicants answer 15/20 questions on an internet website?
  • Can non-UT students, staff, or faculty — e.g. members of the broader public — who have previously committed a violent crime, or have exhibited a history of mental health concerns, carry concealed weapons on campus?
  • Can non-UT students, staff, or faculty — e.g. members of the broader public — who are CHL holders, carry a concealed weapon on behalf of a UT community member, as in the example of an armed bodyguard?
  • Can these auxiliary populations (as specified above) dramatically increase the pool of potential concealed weapons carriers at UT?
  • Can UT students, staff, or faculty who have previously been reported to campus officials, including campus police, for a violent offense, or exhibited a pattern of mental health concerns, carry concealed weapons on campus?
  • Have there been attempts to estimate the number of faculty, staff, graduate and undergraduate students who are eligible to carry a concealed weapon?  Can these populations dramatically increase the pool of potential CHL holders at UT?
  • Have there been attempts to estimate the number of faculty, staff, graduate and undergraduate students at UT who already possess a Texas CHL?
  • Will UT keep a regular count of faculty, staff, graduate and undergraduate students, and additional visitors who possess a CHL?
  • Will UT keep a regular count of faculty, staff, graduate and undergraduate students, and additional visitors who opt to carry a handgun on campus?

Questions regarding locations where firearms may be carried or stored on campus:

  • If non-UT students, staff, or faculty — e.g. members of the broader public — are permitted to carry concealed weapons on campus, will they be permitted to enter classrooms and academic offices while armed?
  • Generally, will non-UT CHL holders be prohibited from certain spaces accessible by students, faculty, and staff?
  • Will CHL holders be prohibited from carrying handguns in facilities where children (individuals under the age of 18) are present? (i.e. School of Social Work, Seay Building, Butler School of Music, etc.)
  • Will CHL holders be permitted to carry handguns on campus during community events like Explore UT, where K-12 students are invited to visit all areas of campus, often as a school-sponsored field trip?
  • Will CHL holders be permitted to carry handguns while attending sporting events?
  • Will CHL holders be prohibited from carrying and storing handguns in dormitories?
  • Will CHL holders be prohibited from carrying handguns in campus libraries?
  • Will CHL holders be permitted to enter the Graduate Student Assembly office with a firearm?
  • Can the President allow faculty, staff, and graduate students holding official positions on campus to designate gun-free zones in areas they are responsible for supervising?
  • Will CHL holders be permitted free storage spaces for weapons?  For example, will graduate science labs be equipped with storage spaces for weapons?

Questions regarding proper protocol for situations involving a firearm:

  • When is a CHL holder legally permitted to withdraw their firearm?
  • What should a student do if they find a firearm unattended in a campus space?
  • If a CHL holder leaves a firearm unattended in a campus space, what is the process for campus officials to ensure that the firearm is safely retrieved, secured, and stored?
  • If a CHL holder leaves a firearm unattended in a campus space, what consequences do they face?
  • If a student observes “a partially or wholly visible handgun” (SB11), whether displayed intentionally or unintentionally, should they report that to someone?
  • If a student observes “a partially or wholly visible handgun” (SB11), whether displayed intentionally or unintentionally, are they to be discouraged from or penalized for vacating the area and encouraging others to vacate the area, for reasons of safety?
  • If a graduate student operating as a TA observes “a partially or wholly visible handgun” (SB11), whether displayed intentionally or unintentionally, are they to be discouraged or penalized for vacating the classroom or academic office, and encouraging others, including students under their supervision, to vacate the area, for reasons of safety?
  • If a graduate student operating as a GSA or other campus (and state) employee observes “a partially or wholly visible handgun” (SB11), whether displayed intentionally or unintentionally, are they to be discouraged or penalized for vacating an academic office, and encouraging others to vacate the area, for reasons of safety?
  • Will campus police continue to issue alert notices for persons who are reported to have a handgun, while waiting to confirm whether a person is/is not a CHL holder?
  • Will the university allow CHL holders to participate in an active shooter situation?
  • Will the university appoint selected CHL holders as response managers in an active shooter situation?

Questions regarding training for students, faculty, and staff, including campus police.

  • How will campus police be trained to provide for overall safety and security when CHL holders may be carrying handguns on campus?
  • Will the campus police be trained to account for CHL holders potentially engaging in active shooter situations?  For example, how will campus police determine whether someone is the active shooter, as opposed to a well-meaning CHL holder?
  • What unique training, if any, will CHL holders be required to receive, before carrying a handgun on campus?
  • Specifically, will all CHL holders be trained for how best to respond to active shooter situations on a college campus?  What guidance will they be provided?
  • Will all non-CHL holders who are students, faculty, and staff receive training for active shooter situations that account for the presence of CHL holders carrying handguns?
  • What unique training, if any, will all non-CHL holders who are students, faculty, and staff receive?  For example, training to safely handle firearms?  Will such training be mandatory and a recurring part of the semester registration process?
  • Will certified CHL instructors be made available to students, faculty, and staff, including campus police, to answer pressing questions and concerns?
  • How will UT students, faculty, and staff, including campus police, be trained to identify circumstances when a CHL holder is legally permitted to withdraw their firearm?
  • How will UT students, faculty, and staff, including campus police, be trained to account for well-documented racial biases in determining whether a person of color is a threat (active shooter), as opposed to an innocent bystander, or a well-meaning CHL holder?

Questions regarding documentation for CHL holders on campus:

  • Will CHL holders be required to carry their CHL (legal documentation) on their person at all times while in possession of a firearm on campus?
  • Will CHL holders be required to obtain additional documentation (e.g. registration, as with bicycles) in order to carry their firearm on campus?  Documentation could include a special designation on a UT ID.
  • Will CHL holders be required to carry additional documentation (as described above) on their person at all times while in possession of a firearm on campus?
  • Will CHL holders electing to carry a firearm on campus be assessed a fee to help accommodate the increased costs for training, storage, and response to situations involving firearms on campus?
  • Will CHL holders be required to disclose to campus police that they are armed upon arrival each day while in possession of a firearm on campus?
  • Will CHL holders be required to disclose to mental health professionals that they carry a firearm on campus?  If a mental health professional determines that a CHL holder poses a threat to self or others, are they permitted to share this information with campus officials?

Questions regarding proper protocol for disclosure of possession of a firearm on campus:

  • Is a CHL holder permitted to freely disclose that they are carrying a concealed weapon?
  • Will there be specific guidelines regarding what constitutes a threat of violence from a person who discloses they are carrying a concealed weapon?  (For example, mentioning the weapon during a verbal argument.)
  • Specifically, can disclosure of possession of a firearm prior to engaging in sexual activity (for example, in a locked room in a dormitory) be interpreted as a threat of violence and thus constitute a sexual assault?
  • Can a member of the UT-community, including students, ask whether a person on campus is carrying a concealed weapon, without fear of penalty?
  • Is a CHL holder required to disclose that they are carrying a concealed weapon, if asked?
  • Is a graduate CHL holder required to disclose the possession of firearm to their research supervisor?  (Specifically, during meetings with advisors in labs and office settings?)

Questions regarding the rights and responsibilities of TAs

  • Can a graduate student serving as a TA, or other campus employee, request to work only in spaces (e.g. classrooms, academic, and staff offices) designated gun-free without fear of penalty, including loss of financial support and career development opportunities?
  • How will the university communicate information regarding gun-free spaces to TAs?
  • How will the university allot gun-free spaces to interested TAs?
  • Can a graduate student serving as a TA or other campus employee publicly advocate against implementation of SB11 without fear of penalty, including loss of financial support and career development opportunities?

Questions regarding students’ rights to information regarding classes affected by SB11:

  • If a class posted during course registration will be held in a space that allows concealed handguns, will that be clearly noted in the course registration system?
  • If a student elects not to register for a course due to safety concerns, will they be allowed to take alternative courses with guidance from their advisor, without financial or academic penalty, in order to ensure steady progress toward degree completion?
  • If a student unknowingly registers for a course that will be held in a space that allows concealed handguns, will they be able to drop or transfer courses without financial or academic penalty, at any point in time?
  • If a CHL holder who is a student or faculty member intends to bring a firearm to class, will they be required to notify campus officials prior to completing registration for the class?
  • Can students, faculty members, and TAs associated with the class be informed whenever someone registers for a class and either holds a CHL and/or specifically intends to carry a concealed weapon?

Questions regarding the exceptional professors we appreciate and support:

  • Will the university keep track of candidates under consideration who drop out of application processes for open positions, specifically inquiring whether SB11 influenced their determination not to pursue work at UT?
  • Will the university keep track of how SB11 may influence overall application rates, and attrition rates of high-quality candidates throughout the application process, for prospective new faculty members?
  • Will the university keep track of premature faculty departures, including early retirement and resignations, specifically inquiring whether SB11 influences their determination not to continue working at UT?
  • Will the university keep track of how SB11 may influence overall attrition rates of current faculty, specifically faculty departures from UT to other gun-free colleges?
  • Will the university conduct surveys to monitor the effect of SB11 on professors’ comfort with having critical conversations on controversial topics, to  ensure that we do not “stifle the academic freedom and robust debate that is central to our mission,” as UT System Chancellor William McRaven writes.
  • How will the university address the unique perspectives of women and UT LGBT / Queer faculty, especially in light of data showing a vast majority of Texas CHL instructors (93%) and Texas CHL license holders (73%) are men?
  • How will the university address the unique perspectives and heightened risks UT faculty members of color face under SB11?
  • Specifically, how will the university address the concerns of at least 45 faculty from African and African Diaspora Studies (AADS), who believe the “presence of firearms will not only stifle the free exchange of ideas but can be the basis for deadly violence against us in these often fraught settings”?
  • Specifically, how will the university address the concerns of at least 16 faculty from the Teresa Lozano Long Institute of Latin American Studies (LLILAS) many of whom have lived in the Latin American region “and thus have experienced firsthand the effects of […] violence on individuals, families, and communities,” and find “adding easier access to weapons, even with the intent of protection, makes things worse, rather than better”?
  • Specifically, how will the university address the concerns of at least 41 faculty from the Department of Middle Eastern Studies, who draw from their experience as researchers and educators working in “a region that is today plagued by violence, war, and extremism” and fear a negative effect on recruitment and retention of minority faculty and students who may “understandably feel that their safety could be compromised in settings where they may be viewed — rightly or wrongly — as representatives of the sensitive viewpoints that are the object of our study”?

Questions regarding the exceptional student peers and staff we appreciate and support:

  • Will the university keep track of how SB11 may influence premature student departures (i.e. withdrawal, transfer), specifically asking whether SB11 was a factor in students’ decision-making?
  • Will the university facilitate, without financial or academic penalty, the withdrawal or transfer of any student or graduate student from UT as a consequence of SB11?
  • Will the university keep track of how SB11 may influence students’ determination not to continue working on campus at UT?  (Especially in the case of graduate students working as TAs, RAs, in GRA positions, or other staff roles.)
      • If there are any restrictions from carrying handguns for students, staff, and faculty who exhibit a pattern of mental health concerns, how can we ensure that this does not have a “chilling” effect on UT community members’ willingness to seek counseling?
      • Specifically, how can we balance valid concerns about CHL holders with mental health concerns, without creating a harmful and inaccurate stigma, as a recent news report reveals 89% of mass shootings do not involve prior evidence of mental health concerns.
      • Will the university conduct surveys to monitor the effect of SB11 on students’ and staff members’ sense of security and safety, to assess to what extent SB11 does/does not contribute to a “climate of fear”?
      • How will the university address the unique perspectives of female and UT LGBT / Queer students and staff members, especially in light of data showing a vast majority of Texas CHL instructors (93%) and Texas CHL license holders (73%) are men?
      • How will the university address the unique perspectives and heightened risks UT students of color, and staff members of color face under SB11?
      • Specifically, how will the university address concerns for students and staff that “the expansion of citizens’ rights to bear firearms facilitates the violent deaths of blacks,” as expressed by the African and African Diaspora Studies department?
      • Specifically, how will the university address the unequal application of SB11 to undocumented students at UT, who cannot apply for CHL licenses in Texas, and may face heightened risks, as described above?

Questions regarding International Students and SB11

  • How will UT ensure both the safety of, and equal campus rights for International Students?  Has the President considered how SB11 will impact the approximately 5,000 international students the university enrolls every year, which constitutes roughly 10% of the student population and contributes about $1.5 Billion to the Texas economy?
  • Will the university take any separate measures for safety of international students, most of whom, even without a criminal record, will be prohibited access to guns for safety?
  • Has the university looked at effects of previous implementation of such laws on enrollment of international students in a major university?
  • Will the university accept full responsibility in the event of misuse of firearms to marginalize  international students or to threaten their safety, especially in light of recent campus shootings in the U.S.?
  • Will the university make international students aware of the implications of SB11 at UT at the time of application? Will the university assist in the transfer or withdrawal, without financial or academic penalty, of current international students who wish to pursue higher education in gun-free institutions?

Questions regarding the total costs for UT of implementation for SB11

  •  To what extent is the fiscal note on SB11 accurate, when it claims “no significant fiscal implication to the state is anticipated”?
  • Will the university publicly report the total costs of implementation, as described above?
  • Will these costs be passed on to students in the form of tuition or fee increases?
  • Will these costs be passed on to students in the form of reducing allocated funds for other projects?

Questions regarding the decision-making process for implementation of SB11

  • Will President Fenves, and Campus Carry Working Group Chair Prof. Steven Goode, publicly disclose to what extent they have consulted with UT organizations that better understand the unique perspectives and heightened risks SB11 poses to community members of color, as well as female and GLBT / Queer community members?
  • Specifically, did President Fenves and Prof. Goode meet with student, graduate student, and faculty members of departments which have publicly expressed concerns for people of color, including but not limited to: African and African Diaspora Studies, Teresa Lozano Long Institute of Latin American Studies, and Middle Eastern Studies?
  • Will President Fenves share the guidance he has received from legal counsel and other sources regarding interpretations of SB11 that may influence his decision-making?
  • Specifically, has President Fenves sought or received legal counsel concerning the effects SB11 may have on community members of color, as well as female and GLBT / Queer community members?
  • Will President Fenves, or UT System Chancellor William McRaven, share the guidance they have received from the Offices of General Counsel (OGC) and Governmental Relations (OGR), specifically concerning “the flexibility afforded by the legislation,” as described in a June 16 letter from the Chancellor?
  • Will the Campus Carry Working Group make public all of the important comments and ideas submitted by members of our community?

Thank you for reviewing these important questions.  We look forward to engaging in discourse moving forward to ensure that they are answered in a timely fashion.

Most Sincerely,

The Legislative Affairs Committee of the Graduate Student Assembly,

The University of Texas at Austin

Michael Barnes (Chair)
Aron Weinberg
Emily Germain
Sahil Bhandari
Bart Pitchford
Amir Aziz

Reprinted with Permission

 

Texas State University — Department of Geography Statement on Campus Carry

Department of Geography Statement about the 2015 Texas Campus Carry Law

We, the undersigned faculty and staff of the Department of Geography at Texas State University, strongly oppose the 2015 Texas Campus Carry Law that allows concealed handguns in university classrooms, thereby violating the First Amendment rights of faculty and students to free speech.

A law that has a chilling effect on free speech is unconstitutional (First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech”). The Texas Campus Carry law that allows concealed handguns in public university classrooms will have a chilling effect on the free speech of instructors and students and is therefore unconstitutional. The Texas law is essentially censorship of free speech by guns. Second Amendment rights, however, do not take precedence over First Amendment rights.

In 2007, the American Association of University of Professors (AAUP) wrote in “Academic Freedom and the First Amendment”:  “One of the most fertile areas for claims of academic freedom and First Amendment protection is, of course, classroom teaching. Speech by professors in the classroom at public institutions is generally protected under the First Amendment and under the professional concept of academic freedom if the speech is relevant to the subject matter of the course. See, e.g., Kracunas v. Iona College, 119 F.3d 80, 88 & n. 5 (2d Cir. 1997).” Concealed handguns in public Texas university classrooms, laboratories, and other learning environments will chill and harm both instructor and student speech in various academic departments regarding a wide range of such contemporary and germane course topics as race, evolution, climate change, water rights, mass shootings, ethics, gay marriage, abortion, and war.

Further, the introduction of concealed handguns into public university classrooms in Texas, according to the AAUP’s logic in its 2007 white paper, expands the “legislative oversight over what professors may teach . . .” in their courses. In his opinion in Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183 (1952), U.S. Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter argued resolutely:

Such unwarranted inhibition upon the free spirit of teachers affects not only those who . . . are immediately before the Court. It has an unmistakable tendency to chill that free play of the spirit which all teachers ought especially to cultivate and practice; it makes for caution and timidity in their associations by potential teachers. . . . Teachers must . . . be exemplars of open-mindedness and free inquiry (AAUP “Academic Freedom and the First Amendment,” 2007).

The admission of handguns into learning environments will also create a climate of emotional fear and distrust. Should Texas State University allow concealed handguns in its classrooms, the institution will thus violate the free speech rights of instructors and students guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Beyond the fundamental breach of free speech rights of faculty and students in university classrooms, Texas State, as an emerging research university, should be seriously concerned about the harm the Texas Campus Carry law will cause to the recruitment and retention of top-tier faculty and students.

Click here for reprint permissions.

School of Information Statement on Campus Carry

We, the undersigned faculty and staff members of the School of Information at The University of Texas at Austin, are opposed to guns in our classrooms, offices, lobbies, hallways, and laboratories. In our teaching and work spaces—as a means of educating students, expanding research frontiers, and improving school operations. Many courses at the iSchool examine information questions that reflect great political, social, and cultural controversy and that elicit strong emotional responses. Students and instructors will inhibit themselves from engaging such controversy if they fear potential violence that guns in the classroom can bring. Moreover, because guns will create an atmosphere unconductive to the conduct of academic affairs, their presence, even concealed but allowed, will diminish our ability to attract top faculty and staff members as well as students to our school. Ultimately, guns will harm our quest to be the premier research and education program for 21st century information professionals. In setting policy about carrying handguns on campus, we believe that any decisions that affect the physical and financial well-being of the UT community should be made by those with the best knowledge of the campus, its operations, and its constituents. The UT Chancellor, the Texas Association of College and University Police Administrators, and the majority of faculty members, staff members, and students have made their position clear. For all these reasons, we oppose Senate Bill 11, the “campus carry” legislation. Continue reading School of Information Statement on Campus Carry

Graduate & Professional Students’ Opposition

For Immediate Release

Contact: utgrads.oppose.campuscarry@gmail.com
Downloadable File: UT grad student press release 12-1-15

UT-Austin Graduate and Professional Students Declare Opposition to Guns in Classrooms

Austin, TX, December 1, 2015 – 1,787 graduate and professional students from 132 programs in 18 Colleges and Schools at the University of Texas at Austin have signed a petition stating their opposition to SB 11 and sent an open letter to President Fenves and the Board of Regents.

SB 11, also known as “Campus Carry,” will allow concealed handgun license (CHL) holders to carry guns into campus buildings – including classrooms and offices – unless UT- Austin President Gregory Fenves designates them as “exclusion zones.” The online petition will be delivered to President Fenves and the Board of Regents today. Campus Carry is slated to take effect on August 1, 2016.

The graduate students are among the latest University groups to take a public stand against concealed firearms in classrooms and offices, joining more than 1,500 professors and 100 UT staff members in their opposition. In addition, 39 academic departments at the University have released statements opposing SB 11.

Among the latest departments to protest the law is the Department of Chemical Engineering. In their statement, members of the department note that, “We believe that guns in classrooms, laboratories, faculty/advising offices, and collaboration spaces would be unsafe and stifle the free exchange of ideas central to a world-class university…We also fear that SB11 may damage our ability to recruit and retain the most capable students, faculty and staff.”

Also taking an official position against SB11 are 29 American Scholarly Societies. Their combined statement notes that, “Our societies are concerned that the Campus Carry law [in Texas] and similar laws in other states introduce serious safety threats on college campuses with a resulting harmful effect on students and professors.”

In addition, 40 national professional associations have published statements opposing Texas’ Campus Carry law. The American Association of University Professors, the American Federation of Teachers, the Association of American Colleges and Universities, and the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges issued a joint statement denouncing SB 11.

The UT-Austin Graduate Student Petition is affiliated with Gun-Free UT, a broad coalition of faculty, staff, students, parents and alumni of the University of Texas-Austin who are opposed to guns on campus and in campus buildings. Gun-Free UT’s petition on change.org has collected more than 8,400 signatures.

###