By Alizah Salazar, Staff Reporter
bCSUDH administrators hosted a “Conversations that Matter” panel on Oct. 31 to address concerns about the university’s revised Time, Manner, & Place (TPM) policy, but some attendees said they left the forum with more questions than answers.
The university announced the updated policy just prior to the start of the fall semester. The policy regulates when, where, and how free speech may be expressed on campus properties. California State University mandated all 23 campuses implement the policy in accordance with state legislation, but each campus could draft an addendum outlining how it would be applied.
CSUDH’s addendum states that no one is allowed to remain on University Property between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. without written permission from the university. Further, assemblies, marches, demonstrations and protests on campus would need to be scheduled and approved by the university in advance. According to CSUDH’s TPM website, the policy aims to protect free expression on campus while preserving university interests “such as campus safety and security.”
At CSUDH, some student groups criticized the TPM as a way for the university to curb activism on campus, particularly around the issue of Palestinian rights and Israel’s ongoing military assault on Gaza. This past September, the California Faculty Association also released a statement saying the policy would “fundamentally undermine the civil liberties of faculty, students, and staff.”
The live-streamed forum was hosted in Cain Library by CSUDH Vice President and chief diversity, equity, and inclusion officer Bobbie Porter.
In-person attendees included students, faculty, and staff. Other university administrators present included President Thomas A. Parham, Acting Provost Philip LaPolt, Associate Vice President Matthew Smith, and General Counsel Darryl Hamm.
Porter introduced Hamm, who went over slides outlining the basic tenets of the updated policy. He denied that the TPM was revised in response to Palestinian rights protests at college campuses last spring, but to be in compliance with state regulations. Hamm said the TPM would apply to speech that included threats of physical harm or incitement to violence in what he called a “content-neutral manner.”
“What the new policy does is acknowledge that there is going to be times where we are going to be offended by whatever is going on,” he said. “What we’re required to do…is to provide supportive services.”
During the presentation, a group of students asked Porter, Hamm, and Smith to offer specifics about the policy and campus safety overall. Prior to breaking up into smaller discussion groups, senior psychology student Nisreen Radwan expressed dissatisfaction with the timing and structure of the conversation, feeling that students’ questions and concerns were not being addressed.
“I’m missing my one class of the day for this,” said Radwan, a member of the group Students for Collective Liberation. “There’s very few students here, but everybody here besides that is on the clock and paid to learn about this.”
Porter agreed the timing was “unfortunate,” but the “urgency around the conversation” required the event to occur, even if “imperfect.” She asked for forgiveness, saying there was “no intent, no purpose, no angle to silence in any way.” Porter also clarified that the small group discussions aimed to foster dialogue in an accessible way for all attendees.
Another attendee and S4CL group member, graduate student Nadia Al-Said, later told The Bulletin the forum missed the mark because it was scheduled on Halloween and not promoted well.
“It’s a popular day, especially for young college students and for people who have families,” Al-Said said. “I think they could’ve done a better job advertising it and ensuring a good turnout.”
President Parham told The Bulletin he was disappointed students did not find the format constructive, saying the intent was to foster more dialogue about critical issues on campus.
“TPM is not meant to chill on-campus activism,” Parham explained. “Its intent is to ensure the protection of free speech while maintaining campus safety and university operations.”
Al-Said was skeptical of the university’s intentions and the CSU’s rationale for revising the TPM. She accused the university of prioritizing students’ voices only when they aligned with the administration.
“We know it is no coincidence that [the TPM] comes strategically, directly after the university encampments that we saw erupt throughout the last semester,” Al-Said said.
Parham emphasized that the policy would continue to evolve. “The system leaders who drafted the policy continue to welcome feedback from everyone in the system. Anyone who has feedback on the policy should contact [Vice President] Porter’s office to be sent to the system office for consideration.”
