The purpose of  activism is to refuse to allow oneself and others to live the kind of life that is numb to the injustices of the world. College and university campuses have always been epicenters of social activism. Jesuit universities, in particular, have a heightened responsibility towards social justice. A college experience should offer an education beyond just the classroom environment; it is about expanding one’s world view and learning to be an active member of our political society; or as advertised in LMU’s Pillars of Student experience: “Become a Global Citizen” and “Education of the Whole Person”. Education of the whole person must include engagement with the world outside of LMU, including but not limited to exposure to political action and thought, particularly the cultivation of empathy towards vulnerable and marginalized communities. There is immense value in observing, experiencing, and participating in civil disobedience- knowledge that cannot be taught in a classroom. LMU concerns itself more with regulating the time, place, and manners in which students exercise their responsibility towards ensuring a more just world, rather than supporting their students in exercising this responsibility.

LMU put out a similar policy when anti-Vietnam war protests took place on campus. During that time, LMU, rather than supporting its students—who are now celebrated—in living out their ideals of “becoming global citizens”, “being men and women with and for others”, and “the promotion of faith and service of justice,” chose to repress their students. In a similar fashion, the institution now deploys parallel tactics to suppress student activism.

It should be noted that this policy update follows a nation-wide trend amongst universities with pro-Palestinian student presence. It becomes evident that these policy updates are in reaction to a global resurgence in political encampments and are a clear attempt to regulate and stifle student voices.

Below is an annotated version of LMU’s updated Time, Place, Manner for Social Action policy, that outlines contradictions in LMUs commitments to its students, as well as student concerns about the manner in which these policies will affect students.

Time, Place, Manner for Social Action LMU Students                        

Free inquiry and free expression are core principles to the attainment of LMU’s mission and goals of Loyola Marymount University: the encouragement of learning, the education of the whole person, and the service of faith and promotion of justice.

Policy Objective

As an institution of higher education committed to the Catholic, Jesuit, and Marymount traditions, Loyola Marymount University is committed to free and open inquiry, deliberation and debate in all matters, and the untrammeled verbal and nonverbal expression of ideas. It is LMU’s policy to provide all members of the university community, including students, faculty, and staff, the broadest possible latitude to speak, write, listen, challenge, and learn. The ideas of different members of the university community will often and naturally conflict. It is not the proper role of a university to insulate individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive. Deliberation or debate may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even by most members of the university community to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or ill conceived. In our meeting with Dean Terri Mangione, she explicitly stated that none of the political actions that took place on LMU’s campus in the 2023-2024 school year were in violation of the TPM policy, so what then, is the purpose of putting out this policy at this specific moment in time?

Policy Statement                                        

The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” In simpler terms, the government cannot discriminate against particular viewpoints. LMU’s summary of the First Amendment is reductive, conveniently overstating protection against discrimination for holding “particular viewpoints” while failing to provide equal importance to the protected right of assembly and petition. In addition, the California Education Code, in a statute known as the Leonard Law, prohibits private universities from making or enforcing a rule that subjects an enrolled student to disciplinary sanctions solely on the basis of speech protected by the First Amendment. However, the Supreme Court has upheld the idea that speech may be regulated under “Time, Place, and Manner” regulations. “Time, place, and manner” regulations are content- neutral limitations imposed by the government on expressive activity. Those regulations could mean limiting the time of an event or demonstration, putting a cap on how many protestors may occupy a given forum, imposing limits on the noise level of a speech, and more.                        

LMU students have the right to express points of view on the widest range of public and private concerns and engage in the robust expression of ideas. This freedom, however, is subject to restrictions of time, place, and manner. LMU expects LMU students will not:                                

• Unreasonably interfere with or disrupt “Interference” and “Disruption,” in this case, are both unclear and undefined. It is then left to the discretion of LMU to impose definitions as they see fit. LMU business, operations, or activities, including classes in session or other scheduled academic, educational, athletic, recreational, cultural arts, career programs, student-organized activities, work conducted in faculty, staff, or administrative offices and facilities, or with the use of LMU’s William H. Hannon Library and other academic buildings;                                

• Unreasonably interfere with or disrupt the life of residential students, faculty, and staff.                                
• Interfere with or obstruct the free flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic, or interfere with access for persons with disabilities; LMU invokes the notion of access for persons with disabilities in this policy update but fails to address the several LMU residential AND academic building that still lack wheelchair access and  other necessary accommodations.                         
• Infringe upon the rights of students, faculty, staff, or guests of the university community; It is unclear yet again what rights LMU seeks to protect. However, their attempts to restrict the rights of students engaged in political demonstrations is tangible. A distinction must be made between the intentional intellectual discomfort demonstrators seek to provoke and actual civil and physical dangers.  Do the rights they claim to protect justify those that they effectively endanger?          
• React to the peaceful dissent and/or protest of others by denying their rights to free speech or expression; It is not lost on the LMU community that college campuses across the country have been implementing similar Time, Place, Manner policies. In all these instances, such policy updates are themselves a reaction to peaceful dissent and/or protest. LMU’s policy complicates and threatens student’s rights to free speech by arriving at a time where we have seen both a nationwide resurgence, and subsequent crackdown, on student activism, especially surrounding the issue of Palestine.
• Endanger the physical safety or well-being of any person on the campus; LMU’s policy threatens students who violate their loose and vague restrictions with DPS “de-escalation” and LAPD presence on their campus. In supposedly protecting the physical safety of students, LMU employs the extremely dangerous and far more consequential threat of Police violence. In the 2023-2024 school year, there were no demonstrations by ANY student group that posed a threat to the safety of the LMU community. The disproportionate threat of police presence is unwarranted and has the effect of fear mongering, particularly amongst already vulnerable students such as Black students, undocumented students, and many others.
• Lodge/camp on campus, or erect any temporary structure for any use, including but not limited to overnight use; Yet again, it becomes clear that these updated policies come as a reaction to the global resurgence of political encampments the world witnessed last spring. By LMU’s logic, blankets on Sunken Gardens and hammocks along the Bluff could also violate their policy. In order for these policies to be truly “content-neutral” such activity must also be penalized. If not, it becomes clear that they are targeted specifically at certain student organizations.
• Lodge/camp on campus in recreational vehicles, trucks or cars;
• Employ unauthorized outdoor sound amplification or create unreasonable noise
  that disrupts normal university activities; Music on sunken, music being played at wellness, rehearsals on Doheny stage, bbq with your friends at palm south, and Greek-life lip sync rehearsals on Doheny are all examples of activities that could violate the “unreasonable noise” restriction. Will LMU enforce TPM policies on these groups as well, or do these policies only apply to political student organizations?  
• Engage in any unauthorized act or behavior resulting in the misuse or destruction of university property, including all grounds and facilities. LMU’s policy fails again to provide clarity on acts or behaviors that need to be authorized or any definitions of “misuse” and “destruction.” This leaves students vulnerable to retaliation from LMU’s administration and those responsible for the “interpretation” of this policy. There are no assurances that such vague language will not be weaponized against students engaged in acts of “expressive activity.”

The right of free speech and expression does not include unlawful activity or activity that endangers or threatens to endanger the physical safety of any member of the university community. Federal, state, and local laws, including regulations set by the State Fire Marshal, will be enforced as applicable. Once again, the policy being enforced by LMU is not explicitly stated but carries with it the threat of violent intervention by external “law enforcement”.

                                                         
Scheduling of Campus Events and Activities                                                        
LMU has established procedures for planned events and activities to ensure effective coordination and to provide individual students and student groups with a means to reserve facilities, spaces, equipment, and other resources and support services. These scheduling protocols apply to organized campus events and activities, including but not limited to musical and artistic performances and exhibitions, theatrical performances, exhibitions, athletic competitions, and commercial activities. Campus events and activities must be scheduled through the LMU Conference and Event Services Department.        

        
These scheduling procedures do not apply to spontaneous events. In such cases, it is recommended and preferred that individuals and groups follow scheduling protocols. Registered Student Organizations (RSO’s) must work collaboratively with the Office of Student Leadership Development (SLD) regarding these events. Such events are subject to the general limitations listed above and must comply with the time, place, and manner directives set forth in this policy. What does it say about a demonstration if it is sanctioned by the institution you are protesting? A demonstration sanctioned by the very institutions we seek to protest cannot be transformative but is reduced merely to theater. The enforcement of these policies relegates student activism to less effective channels and nullifies the impact of student activism.
                                                        
Throughout the year, LMU hosts many events which involve significant numbers of students, faculty, staff, and invited guests. LMU reserves the right to designate defined and specific areas on campus where demonstrations can take place before, during, and after these events to ensure the safety and security of the campus community.

Activities, demonstrations, and protests that are undertaken in violation of this policy, the law, or that become unreasonably disruptive or create physical safety concerns will be suspended and discontinued by university officials and the Department of Campus Safety. The university may also obtain the assistance of law enforcement to maintain order and/or suspend unlawful or unauthorized activities, demonstrations, or protests and disperse those participating therein.

LMU’s threats of police violence for free speech expressions is not only morally reprehensible but arguably authoritarian. It is extremely significant that the applications of vague policy by subjective interpreters may result in police violence against students. In its readiness to call in a historically violent police force (LAPD, LA Sheriffs) on their own students, LMU makes it clear that they prioritize their business operations over student safety. This is in direct contradiction to the framing of such policy updates as security measures.         

Scope and Applicability

This policy applies to all LMU students while on university property or attending university functions.In defining the scope of their authority to enforce their policies, LMU includes “university functions” that may not be taking place on LMU’s campus. This demonstrates that the institution is more concerned with the preservation of their image–even off university property–than the safety and security of their students, as this policy claims to protect .

Responsibilities

The Senior Vice President for Student Affairs or designee shall be responsible for facilitating the update of this policy and shall provide policy interpretation as required.

The Senior Vice President for Student Affairs or designee shall ensure that implementing procedures align with this policy and shall ensure the proper public posting of policies and procedures as required by applicable laws. Given the severity of the possible punishments and the vagueness of language utilized to outline these policies, students are left defenseless against university retaliation. How are students meant to demonstrate in a way that falls within the guidelines of the Time, Place, Manner policy, if there are no explicit guidelines on what times, places, and manners, the university deems appropriate? The vagueness of these policies, coupled with the fact that interpretation and enforcement is completely left to the discretion of administration leaves students defenseless against university retaliation. Leaving such policy up to the interpretation of administrative figures gives them the ultimate authority to choose when and how to enforce punishment as they see fit. LMU also grants excessive deference to dangerous government authorities to regulate and punish speech they disfavor. Students are then left with little clarity as to not only whether or not their demonstrations fall within these guidelines, but also a wide range of possible consequences (ranging from no intervention to police violence). This actively discourages students from engaging with LMU’s student experience pillars, such as Becoming a Global Citizen, Service of Faith and Promotion of Justice, Education of the Whole Person, and Ignatian Values.

Closing thoughts:

It is important that LMU’s community recognize these policies for what they really are. The use of vague language, the threats of police violence, and the contradictions to LMU’s mission statement are of consequence to ALL of us. LMU claims to encourage “free and open inquiry”, “deliberation and debate in all matters”, and “the untrammeled verbal and nonverbal expression of ideas” Yet the timing, vagueness, and threats of police violence in this policy highlight the discrepancy between LMU’s purported values on paper, and how they respond to matters concerning social action in reality.

Below is an annotated version of Timothy Snyder's Spring 2021 convocation address. His words demonstrate the image of a social justice-oriented Jesuit University. In light of Time, Place, Manner regulations, the reality of LMU’s relationship to social justice is revealed.

“It will be, at least for the foreseeable future, a world of social division and polarization—a world of persistent injustices, including, to our disappointment, systemic racism. This world will require cultivation of courage, solidarity, and intentional—that is, steadfast—anti-racist action.---- At LMU, our distinctive version of a humane education is enlivened by expansive and interdisciplinary curiosity and creativity; an awareness of the dynamic connection between contemplation and action; and a commitment to faith and reason. And not just any faith, and any reason, but faith and reason that actively partner in seeking justice”.

The “dynamic connection between contemplation and action” that Synder refers to, is one that this time, place, and manner policy actively prohibits. By attempting to regulate and restrict the way students chose to engage with global injustices, LMU directly contradicts the very values it touts so proudly.

LMU’s “commitment to justice’’ does not include the support of students actively engaged in the fight to end the genocide of the Palestinian people- the most pressing social justice movement of the current historical moment. If LMU’s pledge to anti-racism cannot extend to the people of Palestine, it is insincere. It is easy to retroactively condemn injustice, but it takes integrity to recognize it in the present. LMU’s condemnation of systemic injustices proves to be solely retroactive, it fails to exercise such commitments as injustices actively take place.

Clearly, LMU’s “commitment to anti-racism” does not go beyond platitudes, and their actions seek to repress (“regulate”) the very students who seek to honor that very commitment. Words mean little when they are not followed by action. LMU claims a commitment to anti-racism yet in the updated TPM policy, states that they reserve the right to invite law enforcement on campus; a measure that endangers all students, but especially Black students, undocumented students, and other students the university has claimed to be committed to.

“Our core curriculum enkindles and sustains our education, and through a collaborative dialogue between the liberal arts (which include our sciences) and our practical and professional branches of study, our education fosters an awareness that no knowledge is practical unless it grapples with questions of meaning and purpose that are fundamental to the human experience. As I like to say, the experience of those here, those to come, and the Earth that serves as our common home”.

LMU’s core curriculum asks students to “Examine God, self, society, and the world using a variety of methods and perspectives; Become creative and critical thinkers; Become people for others” (taken from LMU website), but when this curriculum pushes students to action beyond the classroom, LMU choses to restrain and clamp down on any action that pushes back against the status quo. To “grapple with questions of meaning and purpose” is to immerse oneself in a struggle for a more just world.

A humane education teaches us to understand our world and its challenges in depth, and with greater insight and contemplation. It remains the foremost benefit LMU can offer to a world in need—in body, in mind, and in spirit. And it makes our students—our vectors for the greater good—nimbly able to improve our future.

Synder claims that LMU functions as an environment that produces students who will shape a more just world, however, when shaping that more just world looks like pushing back against the status quo, LMU’s response is to clamp down on students' ability to be politically active on campus. LMU’s ideal student is not one that “improves our future” but one that follows Time, Place, and Manner regulations, maintaining in earnest the status quo.  LMU fails to cultivate a socially conscious student body, it fails to support the few who are committed to social justice, and also demonstrating through such policy that it actively restricts, punishes, and endangers socially conscious students.  

If LMU is going to be a leader in offering a humane education that prepares our students to create and improvise in a world of unrehearseable change, we, as a university, must evolve to exhibit the same virtues—intellectual and moral—that we instill in our students and graduates.

Students have countlessly presented the university with opportunities to “evolve to exhibit the same virtues” yet each time, they fail to live up to their promises and so-called commitments. LMU has been presented with the opportunity to respond to student demands on countless occasions. In the wake of such opportunities to “exhibit its evolved virtues” LMU has remained silent.

These commitments speak to why most of us have chosen to be part of LMU, why we are not satisfied with the status quo and the legacies of systemic injustice, and why a few of us may be waking up with sore jaws and broken molars—because we care deeply and want to help realize fully LMU’s potential.

LMU prides itself on its ability to prepare students to deconstruct “legacies of systemic injustice.” They do in fact provide students real world experience in activism and resistance, but only by perpetuating these same injustices they proclaim to stand against, and by exemplifying the same authoritarian and draconian practices that suppress resistance. Thus, any progress to be made in this regard is done in opposition to LMU’s administration, as these students fill the glaring holes left by LMU’s supposed leadership.

In gratitude, I see hope and opportunity for us to shape a better LMU—an LMU that can lead the world toward a brighter, more inclusive—hence more just, experientially rich, and creatively powerful—future. “

There remains, in our current historical moment, hope and opportunity to shape a better LMU. This hope lies entirely within the student activist communities. It is those of us who remain steadfast in our commitment to each other, faculty and staff workers, athletes, racial minorities, gender and sexual freedoms, victims of genocide, indigenous peoples, and many other vulnerable communities who sustain this hope.