For decades, the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa has been a hub of political action. Students have occupied buildings, staged sit-ins, built encampments and organized demonstrations over issues ranging from war and Native Hawaiian rights to labor disputes and university governance.

Now, many of those same forms of protest could violate proposed revisions to UH Mānoa’s time, place and manner restrictions.

Critics argue the changes would limit where demonstrations can occur, regulate signs and temporary structures, prohibit camping and encampments and expand administrative control over expressive activity. For many involved in organizing against the proposal, the debate is about more than a single policy revision. They see it as part of a longer history of protest at UH and a broader national trend of universities tightening rules surrounding political expression.

“All of the effective protests that have happened on this campus previously, whether we’re talking about the Porteus Hall protests, Bachman Hall sit-ins or Mauna Kea organizing, would have violated these rules,” said Dean Saranillio, a political science professor at UH Mānoa.

Saranillio pointed to decades of activism at UH, including Vietnam War demonstrations, Native Hawaiian sovereignty movements and student occupations of campus spaces.

“In this moment of fascism, it’s important for us to hold the line and say that we are not going to allow the university to erode our academic freedom and political expression,” Saranillio said.

Others at the discussions framed the debate as part of a longer continuum of campus organizing.

“The obligation we have right now is to see the history of protest on this campus as one long story, one long arc,” said D Dangaran, assistant professor at the William S. Richardson School of Law.

Dangaran argued that current students and faculty are shaping what future political expression at UH will look like.

“It is up to those currently on campus to stand up for the future possibility of protest for those who come after,” Dangaran said.

Those concerns became the focus of two events held in April as part of the National Coalition for Action in Higher Education National Day of Action: an April 15 screening of “The Encampments” and an April 24 discussion focused specifically on UH’s proposed restrictions.

Some Context: “The Encampments”

“The Encampments,” a documentary directed and produced by journalists Kei Pritsker and Michael T Workman, chronicles the student-led Palestine solidarity encampments at Columbia University in 2024, showing how students used sustained protest to challenge institutional authority. The documentary juxtaposes scenes of organizing and encampment life with administrative warnings, disciplinary actions and police intervention.

The film repeatedly returned to questions of free speech and the limits universities place on political dissent. During the discussion that followed, attendees reflected on the power of encampments to build visibility and community while questioning what consequences similar actions might bring at UH Mānoa.

Dangaran said the university response depicted in the documentary stood out immediately.

“I was struck by the lawlessness of the university,” Dangaran said. “The initial written notice to students asking them to leave because they violated policy, captured on camera, did not include any citations to policies that the students actually violated.”

They pointed specifically to Columbia administrators’ decision to bring the NYPD onto campus.

“Although Columbia University has its own campus security and campus police, they broke from the school’s stated policy and brought the NYPD onto campus without the approval of the faculty senate,” Dangaran said.

Dangaran also argued the documentary raised concerns about how universities characterized speech surrounding Palestine solidarity protests.

“The university selectively invoked vague harm from offensive speech that allegedly occurred on these encampments, namely framing the encampments as places where antisemitic speech was occurring,” Dangaran said.

Emerita law professor Mari Matsuda encouraged attendees to view the film within a broader history of student organizing. Matsuda, who participated in encampments at UH surrounding living-wage and anti-sweatshop campaigns, contrasted those experiences with the responses shown in the documentary.

“So the need to militarize the response to students in the film, I think, is a sign of a sickness in our democracy, a real hostility towards the intellectual growth of our students, toward their political activity, towards people exercising their First Amendment rights,” Matsuda said.

Matsuda argued that student activism has historically driven social change, even when controversial at the time.

“I think that if you care about democracy, it’s frightening that they feel the need to proactively silence students when this is a vibrant part of our legacy at UH,” Matsuda said.

She recalled an anti-apartheid encampment on Bachman Lawn that helped pressure the university to divest from South African apartheid.

“There’s not a single person on this island today who will make a public argument that apartheid was right,” Matsuda said. “But it took the students camping on Bachman Lawn to get the university to confront its complicity.”

Cynthia Franklin, an English professor and founder of Students and Faculty for Justice in Palestine at UH, said the film highlighted both the strength of student organizing and the severity of university responses.

“What stood out was this amazing uprising on the part of students,” Franklin said. “Students were organized, they were highly disciplined and they really understood the stakes.”

Throughout the discussion, attendees repeatedly connected the documentary to UH Mānoa’s own history of encampments, sit-ins and civil disobedience.

“I loved the points that were raised by those who have participated in forms of protest on UH Mānoa’s campus that resembled the protest tactics used in the documentary,” Dangaran said. “Invoking that familiarity is important for us to localize the documentary.”

April 24 Discussion: Proposed Restrictions on Campus Speech

Nine days later, many of those same questions resurfaced during a public discussion focused directly on UH’s proposed time, place and manner restrictions. The discussion was led by law professor Eduardo Capulong and Saranillio.

Saranillio pointed to past activism at UH, arguing that many significant protest movements would have violated the proposed rules.

He cited demonstrations that led to the renaming of Porteus Hall, now Saunders Hall, after students challenged the university’s decision to honor psychologist Stanley Porteus.

“One of the things they did was hang effigies from this building to highlight Porteus’s racism,” Saranillio said. “An action like that would be in violation of the proposed time, place and manner restrictions.”

He also pointed to the 117-day Bachman Hall sit-in during the 2019 Mauna Kea movement.

“Basically, what they’re proposing is a set of rules that would make student and faculty protests inconsequential and incapacitated,” Saranillio said.

Franklin similarly opposed the revisions, arguing that free speech should not be confined to designated protest areas.

“I don’t think there should be a tiny designated area where people are allowed to exercise free speech,” Franklin said. “The entire campus should be a place where free speech and academic freedom are practiced.”

Why Did Students Feel Uninformed?

Questions about transparency emerged repeatedly throughout the discussions, as several participants said they only learned about the proposed revisions through word of mouth or public events.

According to Dangaran, the policies were discussed at two town halls, but the drafts themselves were only distributed to those who registered.

“Moreover, the proposals were shared with the campus community in December, amidst the busy final exam period and the winter break,” Dangaran said.

They argued the university should have distributed the draft policies directly to students because of their potential impact on campus life.

Even Matsuda, who taught at the law school for more than 15 years, said she was unaware of the revisions.

“I have three degrees from UH Mānoa. No one reached out to me. No one let me know that they were sneaking this thing through,” Matsuda said.

“People can’t weigh in on policies they don’t know exist,” she added.

Franklin said one goal of the April discussions was simply making people aware of the proposal.

“One of the things we’ve discovered is that many people had no idea these changes were moving forward,” Franklin said.

Saranillio argued opposition has come from across the university community, citing votes by faculty, student and graduate organizations against the proposal.

“The Faculty Senate voted 52 to 3 to oppose these proposals. The Associated Students of the University of Hawaiʻi voted unanimously to oppose them, and so did our graduate student organization,” Saranillio said. “If we can’t make our voices heard through regular channels, that’s a problem.”

Annabel Dougherty, a first-year political science Ph.D. student and Graduate Student Organization advocacy chair, said accessibility was one of the most common concerns raised during the public comment process.

“The proposal was sent out to groups like the Faculty Senate, GSO, ASUH and a few other representative bodies, but there wasn’t a big email sent to the entire campus community,” Dougherty said.

She added that the policy’s length and legal language may have further limited engagement.

“People simply weren’t hearing about the policies,” Dougherty said.

What the Proposed Policy Would Actually Do

At the center of the debate is Executive Policy 10.206, a proposed revision to the University of Hawaiʻi system’s rules governing expressive activity on campus.

The policy would establish a formal framework for regulating demonstrations through time, place and manner restrictions. Under the proposal, campuses could designate public forum areas, regulate signs and temporary structures, limit noise levels, govern tabling activities, restrict chalking and regulate encampments.

The proposal would also formally distinguish between designated public forums, limited public forums and non-public forums, giving campuses greater authority to determine where different forms of expression may occur.

Supporters say the revisions provide clearer guidance about where protests can take place and help balance free expression with the university’s educational mission. Critics argue the policy would make it more difficult to organize demonstrations and limit forms of protest that have historically shaped campus activism.

Saranillio pointed to provisions regulating protest locations, signs and participation limits as examples of restrictions that could significantly affect demonstrations.

“Anytime you organize a protest, it’s already difficult because you’re putting yourself out there to speak out on an issue that is potentially divisive and controversial,” Saranillio said. “For them to make all of these rules on top of that is not facilitating political expression. It’s hindering it.”

Several speakers focused on provisions regulating encampments, symbolic structures and chalking.

“When I look at the redline changes, I see an attempt to ban encampments, to ban symbolic structures, to ban chalking, to ban all of these forms of expression that have been used by students for decades,” Dangaran said.

They argued that the proposal targets tactics that have historically helped movements attract public attention.

“The point of protest is to be visible,” Dangaran said. “The point is to be disruptive in the sense that it interrupts ordinary life enough for people to pay attention.”

Saranillio also questioned provisions allowing campuses to regulate protest locations and participation levels.

“What made these movements effective was that people were able to occupy space,” Saranillio said. “They were able to gather where decisions were being made and where power was located.”

He argued that many of UH Mānoa’s most consequential protest movements would have struggled to achieve their goals under a more restrictive framework.

“Those actions helped transform this university,” Saranillio said. “They are part of why we have the programs, departments and opportunities that exist today.”

For critics, the debate is not whether protest will remain allowed on campus, but whether the forms of protest that have historically produced change at UH Mānoa will remain possible.

Why Is This Happening Now? A National Debate Reaches UH Mānoa

Much of the conversation surrounding the proposed restrictions has been framed within a broader national context. According to BestColleges, the 2024 Palestine solidarity encampment movement reached nearly 140 college campuses nationwide, prompting many universities to revisit policies governing protests and expressive activity.

Several speakers pointed to growing concerns over Title VI compliance as a factor shaping university responses. Following the outbreak of the Israel-Gaza war and the emergence of encampments across the country, colleges faced increasing scrutiny over how they handled demonstrations and allegations of antisemitic harassment.

Saranillio argued that Title VI is being used to characterize speech about Palestine as discriminatory.

“What the Trump administration is saying is that any kind of discussion about Gaza or Palestine is antisemitic and therefore in violation of Title VI, and therefore puts federal funding at risk,” Saranillio said. “It’s about funding.”

He argued that universities may see restrictions as a way to protect federal support, but at the expense of free expression.

“If they are able to say that they’ve passed these time, place and manner rules and simultaneously prevent or chill free speech on campus, then it works in their favor to protect their funding,” Saranillio said.

Saranillio said the proposal reflects a trend that has emerged at universities nationwide over the past several years.

“For instance, we didn’t have an encampment at the University of Hawaiʻi for Gaza, so the fact that they’re pushing through a policy that prevents camping is a response not just to national protests at other universities, but also to Mauna Kea,” he said.

Franklin said she worries universities may become unwilling to defend academic freedom if federal funding is threatened.

“We’ve already seen examples at institutions like Columbia where the adoption of these standards has affected what scholars are able to teach,” Franklin said. “But if federal funding becomes the issue, I do not have confidence that this administration will defend academic freedom and free speech.”

Dangaran also questioned whether the proposal represents a preemptive response to political pressure facing higher education.

“I think some of this can be clearly seen as a preemptive response,” Dangaran said. “If the administration believes it can prevent any further loss of federal funding by taking these steps, the administration may still find other reasons to end our funding.”

They argued universities should be cautious about restricting speech in anticipation of federal action.

“Compliance in advance is how fascism wins,” Dangaran said.

University Officials Say the Policy Clarifies Existing Rules

University administrators reject claims that the proposed revisions would significantly restrict protest, arguing instead that the changes clarify existing policies and provide greater certainty for both demonstrators and administrators.

“There is an existing policy and we are now revising our free speech policy,” said Debora Halbert, vice president for academic strategy for the University of Hawaiʻi System.

Halbert said the revisions are part of a broader effort to review executive policies throughout the university system and ensure they can withstand legal scrutiny.

“There were levels of generality in the old policy that we are trying to clarify and clean up in the new policy,” Halbert said.

She rejected claims that common forms of protest would become prohibited.

“I would say that almost all the types of protests that are generally engaged in are still perfectly allowable,” Halbert said.

According to Halbert, students would continue to be able to gather spontaneously without advance approval in many situations.

“If students were to gather to protest something, they can do so in large numbers spontaneously at any point in time,” Halbert said. “That is still allowed in both policies.”

She said the primary difference is that the revised policy more clearly defines where expressive activities may occur and how campus spaces are categorized.

“The distinction now is that it is clearer where the designated public forums are,” Halbert said.

The proposal would also require permits for some larger demonstrations.

“If you are anticipating more than 100 people, then you would need to go through the permitting process,” Halbert said. “But if you are just spontaneously showing up, there’s no permitting process that is required.”

Halbert said university officials are legally required to remain neutral toward the viewpoints being expressed.

“We have to have a policy that is content neutral and we cannot be viewpoint discriminatory,” Halbert said.

She argued that greater specificity may ultimately benefit demonstrators by making expectations clearer.

“You could argue that it provides more expressive opportunities for folks because they know exactly where the line is,” Halbert said.

Critics Remain Concerned

Despite the revisions, critics continue to question both the timing and necessity of the proposal.

Dangaran argued that universities have always had the ability to adopt time, place and manner restrictions, raising questions about why a more comprehensive policy is being pursued now.

“Why does this have to happen now?” Dangaran said. “The fact is universities around the country could always promulgate time, place and manner restrictions.”

They argued that expanding restrictions at a time when universities face increasing political pressure is troubling.

“Any attempt to limit, restrict, or infringe upon speech rights at this moment, when universities are under attack from an authoritarian federal government regime, is worrying,” Dangaran said.

Matsuda similarly questioned why the university needs additional restrictions.

“Because it’s always been true that if someone’s disruptive, if someone’s violent, if someone’s destroying property, you don’t need a rule to say the university can kick them off the campus,” Matsuda said.

She argued that the proposal reflects a misunderstanding of the university’s role.

“It really represents a failure to understand the central mission of the university,” Matsuda said. “We are a place that ought to be promoting political participation, democratic engagement and dissent.”

Matsuda also questioned the timing of the revisions.

“My big question is, who’s behind this?” she said. “Who decided that after decades of not needing these rules, we suddenly need them?”

Saranillio challenged the university’s characterization of the policy as neutral.

“The discourse they’re using is around neutrality,” Saranillio said. “But all of these rules are being passed after the encampments that took place at other universities.”

For Saranillio, that context suggests the proposal is responding to a specific form of political expression.

“So they are targeting a particular form of expression,” he said. “It’s not neutral to believe there should be no political expression or protest on campus that inconveniences the administration.”

What Should We Do Next?

As the discussions concluded, several participants emphasized that the debate ultimately comes down to how members of the university community respond.

Matsuda argued that students should be viewed as part of the solution rather than the problem.

“My students were brilliant, compassionate, justice-seeking citizens of this place,” Matsuda said. “Any rule-making enterprise that treats them like the problem and not the solution is absurd.”

Dangaran said the April discussions succeeded in raising awareness, but warned that awareness alone may not shape the outcome.

“I wish people would recognize the gravity of the situation and get involved in trying to prevent this from being passed,” Dangaran said. “The people in that room shared very helpful reflections, and now the question is what we do to act on them.”

With the policy still under consideration, Dangaran said the next steps will depend on how students, faculty and administrators respond.

“Right now is the time to act,” Dangaran said.