Provost Jenny Martinez and vice provost for student affairs Michele Rasmussen announced new free speech guidelines in a message to community members Tuesday, sharing two detailed websites on free expression and a Title VI reporting process that will replace Protected Identity Harm reporting.

The email comes six days before the first day of classes, as the University prepares for potential renewed tensions over the Israel-Gaza war and fresh disagreements leading up to the presidential election. Following a tumultuous year of protests and counter-protests, universities across the country have issued similar rule changes on free speech while making commitments to institutional neutrality.

Free speech policies

Among the changes introduced is a new “Freedom of Expression” website, which centralizes existing University policies while introducing “interim guidance” on applying free speech rules to different contexts on Stanford’s campus.

The website highlights major policies concerning White Plaza, classroom disruptions, overnight camping and face coverings at protests, among others. Many rules remain unchanged, while others have been clarified or updated altogether.

For example, specific rules mandate that while White Plaza “can be used for spontaneous protests and demonstrations by Stanford affiliates without advance permission,” demonstrations are prohibited in Main Quad. The guidelines allow for large demonstrations in other outdoor spaces such as Meyer Green but require “advance registration.”

The University has also implemented a “Major Events Protocol” regarding the registration and approval of some events. Gatherings are automatically deemed “Major Events” and require permission from the Office of Student Engagement if they have an expected attendance of over 100 people, feature a high-profile speaker or involve a march. The presence of alcohol could also trigger the protocol.

The policy states that while permission for events “will not be denied based on the viewpoint of speakers or participants,” organizers must comply with the registration rules and “work with campus authorities.”

Disruptions of University activities — such as lectures and ceremonies — remain prohibited, with the website noting that “violators are subject to disciplinary action,” a rule that University leaders frequently emphasized last year in response to pro-Palestine protests that interrupted classes and events such as Family Weekend.

With regard to face coverings at protests, the September policy states, “Any individual on university property whom a university official believes to be violating the disruption policy must, upon request, present identification,” such as a Stanford or government ID. Individuals will then “have their identity confirmed by visual inspection, briefly removing any face covering if necessary.”

Another page on the website calls for faculty to adopt policies against audio and video recording, as “widespread recording may chill open discussion” if students worry about “a comment made in class ‘going viral’ on social media.”

The new rules also add onto the existing prohibition against camping on University property between the hours of 10 p.m. and 8 a.m., stating that this includes “leaving tents and similar structures overnight, whether inhabited or not.”

Last year’s pro-Palestine encampment in White Plaza led to disciplinary action against student organizers. Stanford removed it after protesters barricaded themselves inside the president’s office in June, though it was unclear whether organizers of the encampment had participated in the takeover.

Finally, a web page dedicated to posters, banners and chalking lays out extensive rules on surfaces, materials and locations that are available or off-limits for visual expression. Under an existing policy, for example, students are not allowed to hang banners and flags from residential windows or balcony railings, unless they “have been approved consistent with a residential theme.” The webpage does not specify how these rules would be enforced, nor whether their violation would lead to disciplinary action.

In a video posted to the website’s home page, Martinez states that “Stanford’s campus rules are designed to allow the expression of the widest range of ideas and viewpoints.”

“We want our students to have every opportunity to participate in the exchange of ideas, and to be able to understand the time, place and manner rules that govern activities around Stanford’s campus,” she said.

A new process to report discrimination

Beyond the free speech policies, Martinez and Rasmussen announced a new process for reporting discrimination and harassment under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, replacing the Protected Identity Harm (PIH) reporting process that has existed since 2021.

Launched under President Marc Tessier-Lavigne and Provost Persis Drell, the PIH system collected data on alleged instances of identity-based harm, inviting community members to report differential treatment based on protected characteristics, sometimes anonymously.

The now discontinued process drew opposition from some faculty members who expressed concerns that it could stifle academic freedom and chill speech. Over 75 faculty members previously signed a petition opposing the reporting process, leading Martinez to appoint a faculty-led committee to revise it.

In a break from the PIH process, the University now aims to narrow the scope of discrimination reports to those under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the federal law against discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin in universities. The new Title VI website refers reports on disability discrimination and harassment to Stanford’s Diversity and Access office, and does not appear to mention discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation.

“The tighter focus on possible violations of federal law that the university is required to address, rather than the vague notion of ‘protected identity harm,’ makes the process clearer,” Martinez and Rasmussen wrote in the email. The new process also requires an “early screen” to exclude reports against legally protected speech.

The Title VI website includes a form for community members to submit a report and stresses that “completing the form does NOT initiate an investigatory or disciplinary process.” The website states that the new process is not confidential, and a public reporting dashboard will share details of any events that lead to law enforcement investigation, although with “de-identified” information.

Martinez and Rasmussen framed both the Title VI reporting process and free speech policies as an extension of the Faculty Senate’s statement on freedom of expression, which states, “University policies must not censor individuals’ speech based on the content of what is expressed, except in narrow circumstances.”

“We hope these new resources help support the robust exchange of ideas in our community this coming year, in a way that respects the rights of all members of the community,” they wrote.