Administrators at Kennesaw State University (KSU or the University) conducted a special review into the operations of the University’s Division of Student Affairs (the Division), including the actions which led to the filing of two federal lawsuits against the University on behalf of student organizations, and additional issues raised regarding the application of policy and law in the Division. The engagement included the following: • • • • • • •

A legal review of all Student Affairs policies within the Division. An analysis of the policies and procedures associated with Student Organizations, specifically the classification of Registered Student Organizations (RSO). An analysis of training completed by Student Affairs staff. An analysis of funding and allocation of student activity fees across RSO’s for the last two fiscal years. An analysis of policies and practices around event management in Student Affairs, Public Safety, and the Office of University Events. A comparison of KSU’s Student Affairs policies with Board of Regent policies. Interviews with Student Affairs senior leadership and relevant staff.

Our findings and conclusions are set out below. Background The Division of Student Affairs at KSU is the office responsible for engaging with students on a broad range of issues. The Division is charged with the development, maintenance and enforcement of student conduct policies, residential life guidelines, and issues impacting student constituencies including international, veteran, multicultural, and adult and commuter enrollees among others. Within this structure, the Division is also charged with the review and approval process for approximately 250 RSOs and the community work these organizations are engaged in on behalf of students. On February 20, 2018, an RSO named Ratio Christi, filed a lawsuit in federal court alleging that the Division of Student Affairs at KSU approved a campus display by the organization but did not approve the location that the RSO requested on campus to conduct their demonstration. The RSO claims in the lawsuit that over the course of several years, Student Affairs administrators routinely refused to approve the specific campus space requested by the RSO due to portions of the demonstrations on pro-life issues being, considered as “controversial”.

Ratio Christi, classified by KSU as an “Affiliated” RSO, is a Christian organization founded at KSU in 2013 with a mission statement dedicated to “equip and encourage Christian Students with answers to life’s most pressing questions. Our mission is also to compassionately engage our non-Christian peers with the message of Christian truth through friendly discussions, lectures and debates.” Following the filing of the Ratio Christi lawsuit, legal officers from the University System of Georgia (USG) met with members of the Division of Student Affairs to discuss actions leading up to the lawsuit and provide training and guidance on issues relating to freedom of speech. Notable to the Ratio Christi filing, legal counsel for the RSO, the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), communicated in 2013 with Dr. Daniel Papp, former KSU President and Flora Devine, former Chief Legal Officer at KSU, expressing concerns that a range of University policies “endanger the First Amendment rights of its students”. Dr. Devine responded to the letter and indicated that the intent of all KSU policies are to be “constitutional and administered in a constitutionally-appropriate manner. Hence, we will review the cited policies with the office of the State Attorney General to ensure that the First Amendment rights of KSU students and student organizations are protected” (KSU Division of Legal Affairs correspondence, June 25, 2013). A review of the policy took place under Dr. Devine and President Papp with a briefing provided to the President’s Cabinet in November 2015, in which guidance was provided on freedom of expression and freedom of speech opportunities on KSU campuses. Additional guidance on freedom of expression, speech, religion and peaceful assembly was provided to KSU Student Affairs leadership and employees by the Board of Regents, most recently in 2017 following the Board’s approval of a policy on Freedom of Expression (6.5). On March 5, 2018, another KSU RSO named Young Americans for Freedom (YAF), filed a federal lawsuit alleging that KSU administrators discriminated against the organization through the use of a policy that classified student organizations in a structure that determined the level of institutional support, based on a range of factors. The suit also alleges that the University enforced a policy mandating security fees be paid by the group due to the view that a speaker being hosted on the campus was “controversial.” The suit claims that these fees serve to have a chilling effect on the opportunity for student organizations like YAF to engage in activities and in this instance, host speaking events. In early 2018, YAF notified KSU administrators of their plans to host an event and discussion on the news media with Fox News contributor, Katie Pavlich. The event was scheduled to take place on March 7, 2018 and KSU administrators worked with YAF on the logistics for the event and coordinating the approvals that RSO’s follow under KSU policy. Through several discussions between YAF and KSU administrators, the event was approved pending an agreement relating to safety measures recommended by KSU Public Safety after a review of the proposed event (i.e., space, speaker, student attendees, outside attendees). In the context of the discussions on the safety measures, YAF questioned the security costs associated with the event and were informed by Division staff that based upon the speaker planned, “there is a little more controversy” surrounding this individual. Ultimately, YAF agreed to move forward with the security fee and the event took place on March 7, 2018 though a review of the assessment resulted in a reduced fee for YAF for this event.

YAF at KSU become a recognized student organization in the Fall of 2017 with a classification of “recognized” which denotes new student organizations that are not eligible for funds from student activity fee accounts. The lawsuit further alleges that on December 1, 2017, the organization sought a reclassification of their status to “affiliated”, which is the next level up from “recognized” and allows groups to petition for student activity fee funding. KSU policy requires that an RSO be active for a year before it may be considered for reclassification; Student Affairs staff denied the request for reclassification stating that the group had not been continuously active for one year. Additional appeals were also denied, as was a request to petition the Student Activities Budget Advisory Committee (SABAC) for funds to defray the cost of the security fees assessed for the Pavlich event. Under KSU guidelines, student organizations classified as “recognized” are not eligible to petition for funding from student fees. Findings Through the interview process and review of existing policy documents, the following areas have been identified for consideration and action: KSU policies The following KSU policies were not specific enough to prevent potentially subjective decisions: •

The four-tiered classification system and the means by which groups are classified can be open to subjective determinations and lacking in parity in the application of institutional resources. o Some student led organizations are provided a higher classification based on a judgement that the “organization contributes to the mission and culture of the University” (sponsored), and is not just one of, “common interest among a group of students” (affiliated). o The vast majority of student led organizations are expected to broadly contribute to the culture of the University and among active, engaged RSO’s, the scope of that contribution is open to interpretation. It is this interpretation and subsequent classification that allows some student led groups to be provided with greater institutional resources. o While the opportunity to seek funding by eligible organizations from student activity fees appears equitable, the starting point for organizations is not the same. § The tiered structure notwithstanding, the review of funding approvals showed that student fees were allocated to a broad range of RSO’s who applied, representing many eligible constituencies. For example: • American Choral Directors (Affiliated) • Enactus Entrepreneurial Club (Sponsored) • Chabad Jewish Union (Affiliated) • Kennesaw Pride Alliance (Sponsored)

• • •

Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers (Affiliated) Student Government Association (Chartered) Ratio Christi (Affiliated)

o “Chartered” and “Sponsored” level RSO’s are provided a full-time staff member as an advisor, the opportunity to develop a funding budget, and receive “priority” campus space reservation opportunities not available to lower tiered groups. o “Affiliated” RSO’s can petition regularly for funding from student fees and reserve meeting space, but do not have early or priority access to these reservations. o “Recognized” RSO’s can a reserve meeting space, but do not have early or priority access to these reservations and cannot petition for funding for one year after being chartered. •

Security Fee guidelines and the application to student groups by Student Affairs does not appear to comply with policy and guidelines. o KSU Public Safety provides a recommendation for safety coverage at student events, but reportedly this coverage is elective, not mandatory. o Safety officials use standard law enforcement techniques to determine a recommendation for event coverage. o Student Affairs staff were not providing RSO’s with this distinction and instead, indicated that the assessed security fees were required for confirmation of an event. o The interpretation by Student Affairs staff of security recommendations from KSU Public Safety led to improper language being used to mandate action by RSO’s before an event would be confirmed.

Freedom of Expression and Speech Policy Application •

Training and guidance on compliance with the freedom of expression and speech policy and the law have not been provided to all employee levels within Student Affairs, particularly those with front line, day to day engagement with students and groups. o On two occasions, Division staff indicated to a student organization that University decisions impacting the proposed event were made based on the content of the event and not on neutral, objective factors. o Institutional knowledge and experience of supervisors in Student Affairs is not informing the decisions being made by subordinates who are dealing directly with student organizations. o Supervisors are overly reliant on their subordinates to train and relate policies and guidance at all staff levels. o Subordinate staff members are not actively seeking out guidance from supervisors and are not provided clear guidance and policies on how to address contingencies with dealing with RSO’s.

o There is some concern that the full implications and applicability of policies are not immediately recognized as relevant across the spectrum of staff in the Division. •

Other free speech policies relating to chalking and the campus “Democracy” wall have some guidelines but additional specificity relating to actions of expression are appropriate. o As an example, the policy relating to “Rock Painting” on some areas of KSU Campuses appears to be content neutral.

Administrative Structures Some KSU administrative structures can be realigned to improve effectiveness and consistency of policy application. •

Event planning for RSO’s and other groups (external and university affiliated) are fragmented with systems and policies not having standard metrics and information requirements across the university spectrum.

•

From our review there are at least seven different organizations that are tasked with reservations for facilities around the institution. Event scheduling responsibilities are currently held by: o Office of University Events o Kennesaw State University Center o Zuckerman Museum o Bailey Performance Center o Student Recreation and Activities Center o Fifth Third Stadium and Sports and Recreation Park o Columns o Registered Student Organizations (Student Affairs)

•

The reasons for reservation denials or changes need to be clarified and processes need to be developed to ensure staff at all levels are aware of the options available to process requested events.

•

There is concern that the organizational structure of Student Affairs may not be the most effective or efficient model and has gaps related to activities with students in Marietta and Kennesaw. o Individuals with experience at a range of other USG institutions commented on the organizational structure. o There are a number of staff members with specialized responsibilities, when a more “generalist” capability may serve the University more effectively. § An effort has been underway to utilize a more “generalist” approach at Marietta which may demonstrate value for the Kennesaw campus

o There is a sense that the Division is “top heavy” in terms of titles and responsibilities o There is a perception that student life has changed significantly on the Marietta campus since consolidation and is not on par with student life on the Kennesaw campus. Recommendations The following corrective actions are recommended: • • •

1

Obtain a review by external, higher education professionals/consultants to recommend optimal structures, improvement opportunities and engagement efficiencies at KSU. Implement ongoing compliance monitoring to ensure BOR and KSU policies are publicized widely, analyzed by administrators at all levels, and that all staff receive appropriate, in depth training on policies. Revise policies and procedures as follows: o KSU’s classification scheme1 for RSOs requires many subjective judgments(e.g., whether an organizations activities are “critical” to the mission, or merely “contribute”; whether an organization is “closely aligned” with a university department or simply “affiliated” with one; whether an organization has a “common interest” with a group of students, or a “narrow and specific common affiliation with a group of students”; or, whether the organization’s activities are “complex,” “moderately complex,” or “less complex”) These terms are not defined, and an RSO’s classification affects its ability to obtain resources to support its activities. Therefore, to ensure fairness to all RSOs, the classification system should be re-examined. If it is retained, the classifications should be based solely on objective criteria. § The classification rule that kept Young Americans for Freedom in the recognized category (and therefore ineligible for funding) was the rule that all organizations must remain in the category for one year, which is a content-neutral requirement. § Some University departments and staff support specific RSOs that share a common purpose with that University department. When considering the organizational structure of the Division of Student Affairs, the University should develop viewpoint neutral guidelines to determine which RSOs receive such assistance, and the extent of that assistance. o Concerted effort by Student Affairs to educate RSO’s on the process of petitioning for student fee funding in order to ensure that all groups have equal access. o The Department of Public Safety’s General Order 701 on providing security at special events should be clarified to state that any recommendations to enhance security at an event because of any expected protest or action against the event

http://studentactivities.kennesaw.edu/docs/RSO%20Manual%202017-2018%20FINAL.pdf (pp. 6-8)

o

o

o

o

o

o

o o

2 3 4

is not a charge that is passed on to the group (internal or external) that is hosting the event. Security fee estimates provided to organizations should clearly state that the estimate can be discussed with Public Safety, and that any disagreement about a proposed security fee may be appealed to the Chief of Police. The offices that make reservations for events on campus do not all have specific guidelines for when an event request may be denied, amended, or approved with a fee. We recommend that all such offices use written guidelines that are, as appropriate, consistent. Organizational changes that bring these offices and the administration of KSU meeting spaces under common management would facilitate consistency of practice and training. KSU Democracy Wall (spaces where students and others can write any content that is not illegal) policy currently states that the wall will be cleaned “periodically to allow a fresh round of conversations.” The policy should specify the schedule by which the wall will be cleaned, to prevent accusations that the wall was cleaned due to content. KSU’s policy on chalking2 states that “chalk may be used in moderation.” That rule should be further defined, such as “no organization may chalk in more than one paved square in each allowed space at one time,” or some other objective standard. KSU’s policy on public forum reservations for outside groups3 should be enhanced to specify the appropriate grounds for potential denials of requests, strict implementation of policy and appeals of those decisions. KSU’s policy requiring approval of events and flyers in Housing and Residence Life4 should be enhanced to specify the appropriate grounds for potential denials of requests, and appeals of those decisions. KSU’s policies on hazing, bullying5 and student athletes6 should be reviewed with USG staff to ensure that they do not inappropriately restrict freedom of expression and association. Campus wide education on free speech focusing on policies and practices that need enhancement should be implemented. Specific training on how the Board’s Policy on Freedom of Expression and free speech rights should be provided to all Student Affairs staff who engage with

http://studentlife.kennesaw.edu/postings.php http://studentlife.kennesaw.edu/untitled.php

http://ksuhousing.kennesaw.edu/resources/Residential%20Space%20Usage%20and%20Advertising%20Policy%20 Procedures%201.10.18.pdf 5 http://scai.kennesaw.edu/KSU%20Codes%20of%20Conduct%202017-2018.pdf (#s 28 and 29 on p. 10) 6 http://ksuowls.com.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/2016/8/12/SA16_17_Handbook_8_5.pdf (See “Hazing” on p. 21, “Internet Social Networking Policy on p. 22, and “Athletic Communications on p. 24)

RSOs. This training should include specific ways that free speech policies may/will impact their specific roles. Personnel Action: •

While this review did not uncover evidence of a concerted effort by Student Affairs staff to discriminate against specific student constituencies, the lack of oversight, training and compliance allowed an environment to develop that did not mitigate such an eventuality.

•

The review highlighted the need for continued recognition by the Division leadership of the impact the failure to adhere to policy has had on the University and a concerted effort to address these impacts to subordinates.

•

As such, the following actions are recommended: o The current leadership of Student Affairs be provided a Letter of Concern detailing the findings of this report and a charge to address and implement the policy changes recommended both here and from the proposed external review. o The review and effort should be engaged and completed on an aggressive timeline that will allow for the implementation to positively impact students as soon as possible. o A new supervisor has recently assumed leadership over the office that handles event registration for student events, and they will also be charged with ensuring that all operating guidelines within the office are designed and implemented to prevent any similar issues in the future, along with accelerated and extensive training for the supervisor and subordinate staff on Board Policy on Freedom of Expression and Free Speech rights.